To me studying it for seven years now and counting, as already a long practicing Systems Engineer in industry, seeing it coming seven years ago whilst on PhD candidate work, I see a number of issues on the way the climate problem is being addressed by Mainstream Science.

Firstly its not really seen as an energy problem, its just seen as a climate problem by MS.

But if we consider that Earth is more or less a kind of battery, which is trickle charged by the sun, and notice that the energy we take out from the planet, and throw mostly to heat, is taken at a much higher rate than photosynthetic nature can charge it at, then its easy to predict we would have problems, sooner or later, and part of those problems would manifest as climate changes.

This is the approach I took to identify the problem, as also a historical patentee of energy handling devices, and once a hardware engineer in the electrical metering industry, energy is something I've had to think about a lot, and to me what we are seeing is very obviously an energy problem - the battery is simply running out.

Anyhow following the system analysis through in terms of energy leads to many more revelations, which to be honest, I wish I wasn't finding.

It pains me to think that STEM, which I was a part of, both in industry and academia, and which I thoroughly believed in, could have got it so badly wrong.

The most fundamental issue is that we failed to mathematically sign energy.

This is something which has to be done to trace through and audit all energy, and all effects of it.

Doing it, reveals some crazy things. For example; when all money has been converted to energy at market rates, it isn't the utilities energy supplier supplying energy to the energy consumer at all, the consumer supplies more KWhrs to the utillties energy supplier in the form of money than the utilities energy supplier supplies to the consumer. The net flow of energy is from consumer to supplier, because the supplier has to make energy profit, and this has to come from the consumer.

A consumer paying bills like this is paying out energy from supplies they depend on to metabolise for themselves, about 150J per second, 24/7. Obviously they can't do this for long, or they would quickly go energy bankrupt (Die).

So the consumer has to forage for energy to replace what they lost paying bills. Usually they will get that by spending a little more energy, this time as work, which is returned by more energy in the form of money. But whoever the consumer worked for, or just robbed, to get more energy in than out, would have to turn again to some other party, so that they could replenish their energy supply too, by getting more in than out. This has to propagate back through all supply chains to the planet, which is the only thing that can sustain losing more out than it got put in for any length of time, a couple of thousand years as it turns out, Peter really does rob Paul, all the way back to the planet.

This is the root mechanism of what has to be recognised as colonialism, and actually energy slavery.

And look, the energy in profit is monetised destruction, and its this that we are literally measuring with temperature, increase of entropy, which of course has to manifest as global temperature rise, not only when 8 billion of us are doing it, but its happened all along, just at such a slow rate we could deny all responsibility of it, because the temperature rise that might have happened in anyone's lifetime was arguable, temperatures varying by more than the rise in any given lifetime.

But how do we deal with it - we make more businesses for profit, to deal with things like CO2, which is undeniably rising, but to me it looks like a very dodgy argument, that it causes greenhouse effects in the atmosphere, extremely difficult to confirm, its the perfect argument, the perfect basis to make some profit, the deliverable is highly ambiguous, the only thing needed to keep everyone convinced is a good sales pitch, and the hope that no-one would dig too deep into the meaning and implications of the atmosphere being adiabatic - there can be no temperature rise as a result of the atmosphere itsel, regardless of what gases are in it, its adiabatic, it has perfect freedom to expand, so as to cancel out any temperature increasing effect.

So the temperature is a direct measure of destruction, and this is related to profit, not CO2 gases.

So we can quit oil, as we have to, to stop poisoning the planet, but this will have zero effect on temperature rise, and desertification which will continue, as long as we do business for profit, because profit is monetised destruction.

On the terminology of renewables, signing energy makes a mockery of it.

There are only two kinds of energy we need to be aware of, this is the only thing that matters: mathematically positive, and mathematically negative.

Positive is added to Earth. When we use that we convert energy from the sun that would have been heat, to things other than heat, therefore we are reducing entropy, and would be reducing temperature, if we were not on the other hand using mathematically negative energy, which is energy extracted from the planet, by the processes of converting things that were not heat, to heat, the same heat as would have existed from the sun, if nature had not used it at all. This is destruction by default, and there is no way around that, no way we can create more than we destroy by using mathematically negative energy.

So I hope you will not take offence by me saying its all bullshit business. I was part of it for many years, STEM and the system of profit, I did well by it, until it became clear there would be no world for my Gen Z daughter and others their age.

Hence why I spend all my time now working on this. What I've been able to describe here already looks like war and peace but I still only scratched the surface.

I said a lot more in 400+ stories documenting what is analysed in my offline system model. This is something I maintain to capture my work.

A key summary result, the Energy Polarity Multiplier Framework, is all in the one place in this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Interview-Ai-Part-Multiplier-Framework-ebook/dp/B0CHGFKQVB