I wasn’t trying to disprove your statement but rather was disagreeing with your base premise.

I can point you to a few thousand economists each with decades of experience behind them who don’t actually have the first clue of what is happening with the economy because their entire knowledgebase (Keynesianism) is built on faulty foundations; but they’re certain they’re right all the same.

Just because “experts” think they know something, it doesn’t mean they do (and yes that applies to me too), especially when their foundational understanding of the field is built atop sandcastles.

So I’m not claiming you know nothing nor that I know it all, rather I am saying I don’t believe the “science” around energy production based on the repeated failures of expert predictions - when reality denies expert claims they are not just to be blindly believed.

What I am claiming is that humanity would be better off harnessing as much energy as it can readily/economically get its hands on and leveraging that into iterating better energy tech. We have instead stagnated entirely because of the US.

Wind and solar are NOT the most productive energy sources by any measure whatsoever - they are a step backwards embraced politically out of climate cultism ideology. They are not suitable for where humanity is and their embrace will set us back even further than the US’ curtailing of nuclear did which is societal suicide.