We should be able to see there is a difference, between what we do, and what we think we do.

We only need to watch Liz Truss in parliament on TV today, saying firstly that lots of missiles have been sent to Ukraine, and then in almost the same breath, she laments the awful aggression being seen there. Those missiles that she sent, are not part of that aggression? The truth is that we all have this incredible capability to lie to ourselves about our own part played in atrocity, especially where we do it to earn a crust. This is fundamental to survival, we will not fix the energy depletion problem with lies. The scientific community is not somehow immune to that, it is all about making money.

Acretion disks might well explain some astronomical phenomena, but extrapolating that to explain the temperature in the core of Earth is a stretch, when there are far simpler explanations which not only explain it, but give us a very simple way of seeing what we can and can't do, to fix the energy problem.

If the complex theory is incorrect, and we draw some of the thermal energy of the Earth, and that happens to be irreplaceable, then we are done, it can't be put back, no matter what we do, we would be on a path to an ice-age with no chance of recovery.

What I am trying to clarify is that with the simpler theory, we see a very clear distinction between constructive and destructive uses of energy.

We simply must not use energy from any finite stores of it, and the only way to avoid doing that, is to use the energy of the sun.

Here is another one I did today, in case you haven't seen yet:

https://eric-bott.medium.com/why-we-really-dont-want-any-new-nuclear-developments-in-uk-95dd58a6d909