I had a quick look Jim, it is interesting, thanks for the link. I would love to believe we are on similar tracks, those understanding solar stimulus and those believing in SOL currency, and the idea that carbon credits and solar stimulus might be related, in a way that banks are listening, if it truly does relate, which I can't confirm or not yet from what I've read, I will be on ChatGPT shortly and will use it to cross check, it will know about Chen's original paper produced in 2017, and we will be able to verify if it is an extension of the same concepts of mathematically positive and negative energy.
The red flags I see, which could be deliberate, is that it looks designed to attract investors, using financial terms like bonds etc, the problem with things like this is that even if it starts out well intentioned, the instant someone starts using a term that means many different things to many people in different contexts, like "Bonds", suddenly we've moved away from physics, to financial smoke and mirrors, with the consequence that the underlying philosophy of the currency can no longer be verified by being related to anything we can physically measure.
Another red flag is that conventional science seems to be pinning all its hopes on CO2 buildup being the reason for temperature change.
I don't see any physical reason for this, other than hypothesis, no-one has produced a thermodynamically closed analysis, which confirms C02 buildup is the actual physical driver of temperature rise.
I know this because such an analysis or model is not possible, on the open energy system of Earth.
To do a closed thermodynamic system analysis, Earth would need to be a closed energy system. We would need to know the creation rate of nature, for example, which is constantly working to reduce temperature by continously converting Joules to things other than heat, which they would become by default if nature was not using them, and we really don't know what this rate is, as yet, all we know is humans destroy a lot faster, therefore the net effect of humanity working against nature like this is temperature rise. That is the only thing we know with certainty, it seems to me.
So there is a risk, a very big risk that we've missed something, by putting the blame for temperature rise solely on C02, then using this as a metric to indicate how good or bad things are.
You might notice how quickly the language around the C02 argument moves from talking about C02, to just carbon.
In the strictly physical world, this changes the meaning of the conversation completely, carbon itself is not something harmful at all, neither actually is C02, both are things produced and used abundantly in nature, yet we are pinning the blame on those for the temperature rise.
The truth looks to me like C02 is not the root cause, but an unavoidable symptom.
The root cause, literally speaking, is simply that we are destroying, converting Joules from the created environment to heat.
The problem with the carbon sequestration argument, is that with it, we are doing even more damage by it, than is done without it, as far as I can see.
Will let you know outcome from ChatGPT assisted assisted analysis.
Thanks again for the link and info.