OK lets get some things clear. It has been my responsibility on many occasions in airborne and other safety critical systems to assess risk

Has it ever been yours?

Like I've said already, a golden rule in safety assessment is "If an outcome of any risk has unacceptable consequences, don't take the risk".

Whenever that rule is broken, we see things like the Grenfell fire, the Beirut Explosion, 737 Max, and the reason it is ignored is always profit / money, always, no exceptions.

I've provided the concept of the Energy of Earth to you by the way that I've used it, a formal systems Engineering Abstraction; a grouping of simply understood common mode concepts, for which a common term is needed, to analyse common mode system effects at the higher level of abstraction, taking into account the environment of Earth, not just Earth alone.

Does that matter?

Yes, it matters, existentially.

The energy of Earth makes no sense in context of humany alone, or even humanity on Earth, but it makes perfect sense in the context of Humanity, Earth, and the Sun, which is what I would call "Nature", and it is nature we need to understand to fix the environmental problem.

The consequences of getting this wrong are existential, an unacceptable outcome, and I argue we currently have it wrong, whereas you are arguing I have it wrong.

In effect, I see your efforts here, to discredit my efforts, as a deliberate, concerted attempt to try to obscure the solution, the only solution to this existential problem.

How do you benefit from that, and how does it reduce any unacceptable risk to humanity?