I see two problems with your fundamental philosophy here. I've highlighted both.
The first seems an implicit assumption that all things are arguable, that it is acceptable or reasonable to have different views of all things, when actually a lot of things are physical, based on physical laws, folk who are educated in, and work in applied physical sciences will know a lot more about them than folk who don't, and it is the duty of those experienced in those fields to educate those who don't, and the duty of those who don't, to at least learn a basic understanding, rather than try to project their own ignorance onto those who would dare to try and teach them, as we often see.
Not understanding that all convictions should be based on physical laws, as above, maybe explains the second thing I highlighted, the assertion that we have no control over anything.
I don't know any physical laws that conviction is based on, yet if anything I would be an expert on application of physical laws as a longstanding systems Engineer.
So I think you are mistaken on both of those.
As an aside, I stand by my previous criticisms of the concept of EROI, as it depends on an implicit assumption of limited quantities of all things, when actually they are unlimited, we can create more at will, especially when solar powered.

Whilst I agree you might not be a fossil fuels shill, the titles of some of your previous stories definitely confirm you are an anti-technology shill 😁