ClimateSensitivity =3

This text is under proofreading   - sorry- be patient


Creativity and action like the world has never seen

can solve the climate crisis



It is important to take the IPCC's warnings very seriously. In addition, the IPCC can be a

a unique, unifying force for the world, under the UN.


At the same time, it is a paradox that the same organisation can be suspected of lying

to the world for 40 years about the important concept of climate sensitivity, which in turn

makes almost all critical conclusions wrong. Thus, the entire world's climate work

is likely going in the wrong direction. Most money ends up where it does the least good.


We see enormous courage in the fight for truth in Ukraine. At the same time, we see a cowardice in the academic world and in the press, because

not lifting a finger to even discuss the IPCC paradox, which quickly leads to

the end of civilisation. A high school physics teacher knows most of the time that

the earth's temperature willnot stop when all emissions are stopped. But there is no

climate experts who dare to say this. Why?  The whole world's NetZero policy is based

on stopping the temperature (Zero Emissions 2045). This will probably prove to be

ineffective policy.


I have posted three questions to the climate experts. If these are answered truthfully,

then we can build a climate policy that works, I guess.

These questions are met by an almost endless silence from academics and the press.


It is we, the people and our elected politicians, who are being deceived in a

unprecedented extent.


These questions have been banned ever since 2001 when we asked them to

first time. So far, only one newspaper in the whole of Sweden has cautiously

dared to approach the question and that is Borås Tidning. BT has also been elected

Editor of the Year for exceptional journalism. The rest of the press seems far behind

and it violates its own press ethics by having those who are to be scrutinized

(IPCC & the climate experts) are at the same time appointed as truth witnesses. Thus, this

discussion has been at a standstill for the last 20 years. A watertight protection against free discussion and truth on maybe the most important issues of climate work.


It is the free discussion that is needed. Then the truth will have a chance.








My name is Bengt Ovelius. I am an engineer with electronics and

and thermodynamics as my speciality and I have worked for decades with

various innovations.


I would like to share the experience I have gathered over long periods of time and

highlight all the points that are actively preventing us from solving the climate crisis

and propose a different action plan for Sweden.



Feedback and challenge to climate experts


Everyone would be happy, including me, if I'm wrong. But over the years, it's more and more like

point to climate sensitivity being misjudged in a way that puts the entire civilization

existence at stake. Therefore, a comprehensive discussion should be warranted

in which citizens also inform themselves. Right or wrong; in either case instructive and important

to try to approach the truth.


You must not gamble your children's future on the flip of a  coin. Instead, you must unite behind the science. You must take

action. You must do the impossible. Because giving up can never   ever be an option. Quote Greta, UN Climate Change Summit New York, September 2019


The biggest obstacle by far:

Suspicion: the IPCC has made the biggest and most dangerous miscalculation

in human history. This actively prevents us from solving the climate crisis

and it prevents necessary, disruptive innovations from coming forward.


The question has been put to the IPCC and climate experts time and again since 2008.

No expert has been able to answer convincingly. The question is swept under the carpet

with great authority.


Climate sensitivity is a number that mathematically affects all other conclusions:

the CO2 budget, the forecast for the near future and the question whether NetZero

can work (Zero Emissions 2045). All current conclusions that build up the whole

our climate policy falls apart if we do not start from the right climate sensitivity.

Professor Johan Rockström talks about a scientific earthquake in this article:




I have set two challenges to the country's climate experts, so that the experts themselves

can calculate and present the solutions,  


The first crucial step is to allow a broad discussion.

All power comes from the people, says the Constitution. Then it is not enough to blindly trust the IPCC.

The same goes for the government. I have sent warnings to the climate minister

and the Prime Minister about 50 times since 2008.

The answer is: we trust the IPCC.


Corresponding sharp criticism from the Corona Commission:

The government should have listened less to the Public Health Agency. Then lives would have been saved.


This is leadership.

It is not the IPCC that should do the government's job and run Sweden.

It is the government's job to have both the IPCC and the climate experts examined.








What the matter is :

The IPCC and SMHI promise that the temperature will stop when the world's emissions are stopped.

This is the prerequisite for the NetZero policy to work (Zero Emissions 2045)




There are 3000 Gt too much CO2 in the oceans and air. This must be removed so that the earth

back to the year 1700.

What is emitted, 40 Gt CO2 /year is the small point.


NASA's measurements show that the Earth is now rising by 0.035 C/year and this "elevator"

is driven entirely by the 3,000 Gt that already exists. If emissions were stopped

or doubled, these small points will not affect the Earth's

temperature in the short term. Short term means a few decades.


Even if NetZero policies are implemented perfectly across the

Earth, temperatures will continue to climb at a rate of at least 0.035 C/year.

Zero Emissions 2045 is a policy that will not work.


It needs to be tackled and it needs to be tackled NOW !


This is above all an emergency and not just any emergency. This is the biggest crisis humanity has ever faced. Greta.




The situation is very simple to understand. It is just a matter of each of us daring to think independently.

That's why the following description of GroupThink itself is the key to solving the climate crisis.


The glaring lack of independent thinking, even among decision-makers, is

is becoming our undoing.


That said, Zero Emissions 2045 is a policy that will not work. The reduction of temperature

comes far too late and at a catastrophically high level.


Climate sensitivity determines what temperature the earth is programmed for.

If climate sensitivity=6 and all emissions are stopped now, the earth climbs inexorably to +3.6C

in about 70 years. it doesn't matter how much solar and wind power we have.

Världen släpper ut 40 Gton/år. Hur mycket kan vi reducera utsläppen med NetZero ,

med tanke på att de flesta länder inte ställer upp ??   Kanske 10 Gton/år i allra bästa fall.


Just nu meddelar forskare att regnskogen i Amazon är på en tipping-point vilket kan

innebära utsläpp på 123 Gton .


Bara detta innebär att NetZero är verkningslös politik och att rejälare tag behövs.



Cheating research at SMHI gives us cheating policy for the climate


See this SMHI article from 24 October 2019

New global climate projections show faster warming



SMHI says: New climate projections confirm the picture that the amount of greenhouse gases emitted makes a difference.

They also show that warming is occurring faster than previous projections have shown


Error 1

This faster warming was secretly known by Exxon 40 years ago while SMHI

takes credit for researching this at the Rossby Centre. What is the glory in lying

40 years behind in research ?


Error 2

See these professors from the UK

Survivable IPCC projections based on science fiction - reality is far worse        

Here it is confirmed that all projections that humanity can survive involve

sucking huge amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Professor Kevin Andersen confirms

that the IPCC forgot to tell the world's politicians. SMHI, representing the IPCC, has

also forgotten the most important thing.


The more encouraging curves, such as ssp1-1.9 in the diagram can only  

be achieved if 200 Gton CO2 is removed from the atmosphere per year.

NetZero has so small a role that this policy can be picked off once the

reversal is in full operation.

There can be no other goal than to reach thermal equilibrium as quickly as possible,

which occurs when CO2 levels approach 280 ppm.


No one wants to tell this to the people or to our politicians. The climate experts are not doing their job.


We can't save the world by playing by your rules, so the rules have to change. Greta




Error 3.

The amount of greenhouse gases emitted makes a difference.

SMHI wants to give the impression that the earth's temperature stops immediately when emissions stop.

This is a guarantee for NetZero to work. (Cheat Policy Zero Emissions 2045)

This whole website is about the false climate sensitivity=3 making all other

conclusions are wrong. Annual emissions are 1% of what is already in the atmosphere. What is already

exists guarantees an unchanged rate of upward change in global temperature. Greenhouse gas emissions

makes NO difference in the short term (tens of years) and SMHI should make the math available

to the Swedish people and politicians. Now I have done it instead in the form of a calculator that

everyone can use.


All in all, this is grossly dishonest research that should be shut down. We Swedish taxpayers want

not pay these salaries.


I have for a long time asked for comments on the above, which resulted in

the legal department at SMHI put the lid on 2 Nov 2020


law<>11/2/2020 5:35:41 PM


Hi Bengt,

SMHI has taken note of your questions to Professor Erik Kjellström.

The authorities' service obligation is regulated in the 6th Administrative Procedure Act (2017:900).

It states, among other things, that assistance shall be provided to the individual to the extent that is

appropriate to the nature of the matter, the individual's need for assistance and the authority's activities.

The service obligation is thus not unlimited, but the authority may in each individual case

and adapt its service to the current work and resource situation.


SMHI welcomes your commitment to the climate and wishes you all the best in your future work!


Yours sincerely

Louise Danielsson

Legal Counsel

SMHI / Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute



"There is hope - I've seen it - but it does not come from the  governments or corporations, it comes from the people. The people  who have been unaware are now starting to wake up, and once we  become aware we change. We can change and people are ready for   change."   Quote Greta






Responsible politicians: How do we solve this ?

Responsible climate experts: how do we solve this ?

Climate Policy Council: How do we solve this? Can you take down your Zero Emissions 2045 sign on the website?

and tell the truth instead. The above truth, which everyone can understand.


This is not the time and place for dreams. This is the time to wake up. This is a moment in history where we need to be wide awake."  Quote Greta




This target is good in principle but it only solves 1% of the climate crisis.

We need to tackle the remaining 99% first.




Therefore, the suggestion is that the Climate Policy Council changes its website and puts up this sign instead.




This is exactly what a number of professors in the UK are also saying Feb 2015.


Survivable IPCC projections based on science fiction - reality is far worse

It is even the case that EVERY

IPCC projection that allows for the survival of humanity, DEMANDS that CO2 be sucked

from the atmosphere on a massive scale. The problem is just according to. Prof. Kevin Andersen that the IPCC

FAILED to tell this to the host policymakers in the Summary For Policymakers.



Together with a scientist, we showed in May 2008 that the temperature does not stop

and this was submitted to the top management of the IPCC. They replied that this was serious

and that colleagues would work on the issue.


Here is the graph that the IPCC leadership received and the calculation was for the consequences of

an emissions freeze in 2010.




The scientist in question was published in his research in all other areas but for this result

all doors have been closed. We have written about 300 opinion pieces. None have been published.


Only DN has received about 30 opinion pieces from me in the last six months, with no results.

Does democracy work in Sweden or is it only a select elite that can make itself heard?

It is becoming a bit puzzling why this particular information is banned.


How long will the Swedish press ignore the most important issue in the climate debate?

Surely it can't be that bad to cover the issue and ask experts, politicians

and ordinary people what they think.


It is clearly annoying that there is no open discussion (yet) while time is running out.


I think the answer is approaching after almost 15 years of struggling. The answer is in the scientific

research on groupthink described below. This conclusion is embarrassing for many

climate scientists because it is actually the inability to think independently

under the pressure of 10,000s of IPCC scientists who are also under the same pressure.

Then the simplest questions get cemented in, such as climate sensitivity.

When that knot finds its solution, the way is finally open for a workable climate policy.


The figure for climate sensitivity is probably the most important figure in all of climate science.

The IPCC has for 40 years claimed climate sensitivity = 3. This provides the mathematical basis for

projections, CO2 budget, time delay (CO2 temp) and NetZero policy. If 3 is the wrong number

then the whole climate policy is wrong in all its various aspects. Therefore, this MUST be discussed on a broad

front and all citizens must stay informed. Otherwise, how can we vote for a climate policy

that ensures the survival of our children?


The press has a crucial responsibility to fill its newspapers with

this discussion and to demand answers on the most important issue ever.





120 years ago, Prof. Svante Arrhenius claimed that climate sensitivity could be 6.

This means that the earth rises 6C in temperature when CO2 levels double

for example from 275 ppm in 1700 to 550 ppm, in the near future.

Then right now, in 2022, the Earth has been programmed for 1.44*6*ln(415/275)=3.6 C overtemperature.

If all emissions are stopped today, we will reach 3.6C in (3.6-1)/0.035 =70 years

at the current rate of 0.035C/year. No one can stop this with zero emissions, solar power, wind power or

NetZero policy. It is moving inexorably towards +3.6C.


Perhaps the world's foremost climate scientist Prof. James Hansen came 10 years ago

also arrived at climate sensitivity 6.


A third of the 40s of climate models that would underpin

IPCC report AR6_WGI in 2021 lean towards the same conclusion.

Some of the heaviest among the climate models are

The Hadley model from the MetOffice in the UK (cs=5.4 degrees),

the US NCAR model CESM2 (cs=5.2).


Has the IPCC ignored its own evidence in recent reports just to

the powerful GroupThink of this large organisation only allows Climate Sensitivity=3 ?


By sticking to Climate Sensitivity=3 they are protecting their view

that the temperature can cross-stabilize and you can continue to claim that there is a

CO2 budget, even though it ran out a long time ago.


See SVD Prof Johan Rockström: At climate sensitivity=4, the whole

the remaining emission space disappears.

In that case, we cannot stop global warming at 1.5 degrees either.


The most serious consequence is that NetZero can only solve 1% of the climate crisis.

if climate sensitivity is greater than 3.


The remaining 99% can only be solved in one way:
Suck away 200 Gt CO2 and 2 Gt methane/year, starting no later than 2025.

The atmosphere must be restored to the 18th century within 30 years.

Only this pace can save the Paris Agreement.

How many politicians have promised to respect the Paris Agreement ? Then it is

exactly this.


We need leadership like the world has never seen before.

for innovations the world has never seen to be fully operational by 2025.

Never in the history of mankind has this level of knowledge been required,

creativity and efficiency before - if we are to succeed.


Most people will turn their entire world view on its head after reading

the following points that must be implemented at breakneck speed.






President JF Kennedy concluded that democracy does not work fully

until groupthink disappears.

The scientific foundation of Groupthink consists of these two, interesting books

1. Groupthink in Science

2.Irving Janis Psychologist, GroupThink, Victims of GroupThink

Professor Yale University, Advisor to President Kennedy

Quote Irving Janis: Groupthink refers to the ebbing of mental efficiency,

and that moral judgment disappears as a result of peer pressure.

Groupthink destroys both science and politics. The suspicion is that we can't

solve the climate crisis until people dare to start thinking independently.

Today, we have obvious lamestream trains almost everywhere. This is where all new ideas are fought.

The lemming trains are actually small local dictatorships in the middle of democratic society.

This will be our downfall if it is not recognised and addressed.

Democracy is under attack everywhere in the world. Sweden can go the way of JF Kennedy

and radically strengthen democracy.



Bill Gates

has the only strategy that works:

Create a political culture that only rewards innovations that are really difficult, or very uncertain.

This is the hallmark of disruptive innovation. This is exactly what is needed and now there is panic.

All it takes is for 1% of innovations to succeed and we're home free. The world can afford to fail

with 99% of innovations. Today, only 100% of safe innovations are supported and these do not include

the solution. If we only deal with 100% safe innovations, the end of civilisation is 100% certain

If we manage only 1% safe, disruptive innovations then salvation is almost 100% possible.



Vinod Khosla




I had a hard time thinking of a single thing that came out

from a major company in the last 20, 30 years

that changed the world significantly. All the interesting things and disruptive innovations

happen on the fringes of the system. They don't happen in the solid core.


Academia cannot handle disruptive innovations. A disruptive

innovation is by its nature such that it is not yet known or invented. It is therefore

way over the heads of most professors. Had the professors known about the technology

it would already have been invented. This has been proven in practice

that about 10% of academics and professors have the capacity to support a disruptive innovation in an amazing way

while 90% will instead oppose them with full force. It is safest to say no.

This is why most disruptive innovations are lost.

This is an international problem and that is why Vinod Khosla says:

We can invent the future we want, as long as the experts don't stop us. That's why

amazing what innovators can achieve.

From my own experience as an innovator, I can confirm that academia has worked

like this.



Even Rudolf Diesel was opposed by a professor from the University of Cologne to the point

that the diesel engine was in danger. On top of this, the same professor colluded

with the big engine manufacturer Deutz, that Diesel gained nothing from the engine that

with its high efficiency was to change the world.


A shadow still hangs over Deutz after 120 years. Even today, innovators are mistreated

by big business, which is actively preventing a solution to the climate crisis and these big business

are also preventing their own future revenues because disruptive innovations are discouraged.

There is a short-sightedness of greed in only dealing with 100% safe projects while

their own young people lose their future.


Academia must change radically if the climate crisis is to be solved,

or lose its position.


The currents are clear:

Jobs of the future don't require a degree according to Elon Musk

Several influential people argue that we have reached the end of the road as far as a traditional university degree is concerned.


A degree has long been a ticket to a job with higher pay and

In some professions, it has been, and still is,

almost impossible to get a job without this qualification. But

the winds of change are blowing and many of today's most influential

entrepreneurs argue that you don't need a degree.


In an interview at a conference in 2020, he asked rhetorically, "Did

Shakespeare go to college?" and added: "Probably not."


Elon Musk has repeatedly said that a degree is overrated and

referring to billionaires such as Bill Gates and Larry Page. Musk argues

that the university experience is more about having fun and that in

Instead, it would be possible to learn what is needed for free online.


Other tech giants such as Apple's Tim Cook also share the view that a

degree is overrated, pointing to the fact that half of all

Apple employees in the US do not have a university degree.


In the statement, Tim Cook has both argued that there is a huge gap

between what companies are looking for in terms of skills and what universities teach.


Yet apparently you have to be a professor to get an opinion piece published in the Swedish press.

This means that the country is missing out on perhaps 95% of the thinking that will be our salvation.


Groupthink in science

Page 109

In the discussion section at the end of his paper, Campanario offers dogmatism

as a possible explanation for the encounters that these Nobel Prize winners had with

scientific peer review: "A possible explanation for peer resistance to scientific

discovery lies in the fact that new theories or discoveries often clash with orthodox

viewpoints held by the referees (p. 558)." He also suggests that difficulties that

some Nobel Prize winners have had with peer review may also be due to delayed

recognition: some discoveries are so far ahead of their time that it takes other

researchers years, perhaps even decades, to appreciate them (Campanario, 2009;

Garfield, 1989; Stent, 1972). Of course, delayed recognition may simply be another

form of dogmatism insofar as scientists fail to recognize research because it

contradicts the status quo. In his conclusion, Campanario also observes:

"Peer review has been shown to be plagued with many imperfections.there is a real

risk that evidence contrary to the established views can be suppressed or disregarded

(Campanario, 2009: 559)."

It does seem reasonable to assume that non-Nobel Prize winning scientists may also

encounter strong resistance to innovative research they submit to journals.



2019-0910 clarifies the following:


The Nobel Prize in Physics shall, according to the will, be awarded to the person who has made

"the most important discovery or invention". Academy of Sciences

only rewards 'discoveries' i.e. research, while no prizes are awarded to

innovations - in direct contradiction to Nobel's testamentary will.


The government's Innovation Council has no representatives for innovators.


The government's five appointed coordination groups for Sweden's strategic

innovation areas have no representatives for innovators.


Only 5% of the world's patents come from universities.

Sweden's universities and colleges receive 99.3% of government R&D funding,

while innovators/inventors outside academia have the equivalent of 0.7% to



Those who account for 95% of the country's patents share 7 per mille of government support.

Why not support the party that delivers instead?


Those who could account for 95% of the disruptive innovations we need

to survive the climate crisis get far less than 1 per cent of government support - probably nothing,

because Bill Gate's view of disruptive innovation hasn't caught on yet.


All resources from both government and industry go to zero-emission technologies, solar, wind,

electric cars, etc. ..... All this is good in itself, but all these resources can only solve about 1%

of the climate crisis. The other 99% can only be solved with disruptive innovations

which are currently banned at all levels. Most of the money goes where it does the least good.


The problem is that the academic sphere is not the main environment

where innovation occurs. That is, researchers are not the same as

inventors. After all, the incentive/motive of a researcher is to explore, define

and present the existing, whereas the inventor's incentive/motive is

the radical opposite; to create what does not yet exist.


Therefore, it is not the job of climate professors to develop the innovations that

solve the crisis. Their job is to present a true picture of the climate situation

and to give us an accurate foundation: climate sensitivity.

Their job is also to explain that NetZero (Zero Emissions 2045 ) is an ineffective

policy if climate sensitivity is above 3.



Innovations that go the distance.


I am an engineer and have worked on advanced innovations in the field

thermodynamics for decades.

This has led to the development of a vision and an overall picture of how the crisis must be solved.

There may only be a 1% chance that my vision is the right one.


But then we must follow the advice of Vinod Khosla: highlight 100 other similar innovators

with their visions. This discussion is completely missing today.


This is my plan to solve the climate and energy crisis, immediately remove the youth

climate anxiety and to provide a truly comfortable transition to a balanced world:


Lossless extraction of CO2 and Methane from the air


This is necessary because it solves 99% of the climate crisis and in addition the entire energy crisis.

Moreover, there is no other way. No one should come and ask IF this is possible. This must be

in full operation by 2025. There are several ways to realize this disruptive innovation.

Nature does not negotiate - it is a matter of win or lose.




Part of the vision is that 100 million such houses will solve the entire

climate crisis and the entire energy crisis. It provides a super high quality of life - with

energy and water for free straight out of the air.

If just 1% of atmospheric methane is added to fossil fuels, it will be climate neutral. On this

way, the world can become climate neutral decades earlier than with NetZero, which is absolutely necessary.

Fuel prices can be kept down and society can be kept going.

As more and more atmospheric methane can be added, the greenhouse effect will fall at a rapid rate.


The project was discussed at the General Assembly + SIO Graphene workshop, Chalmers

The Swedish Energy Agency was present. Scientists gave the thumbs up.


This proposal, if successful, could account for all of the EU's

energy needs. Coal and nuclear power would not be needed anymore. The methane

pulled out of the atmosphere could reduce methane levels from 1.8 ppm to

0.8 ppm. If such methane predation were to start at the current 420 ppm then

the equivalent greenhouse effect would drop from 420 ppm to 420 - ((1.8-0.8) * 120) = 300 ppm

We get back to 1925 in greenhouse effect with full profitability in the process.


The project is very large and it meets the requirements of Bill Gates to be risky.

A disruptive innovation that would fundamentally change life for the better for everyone.


A main brake is climate sensitivity=3 and the message from IPCC and SMHI

that the Earth's temperature will be frozen when emissions are stopped.

Gas separation with nanotechnology is then not needed until far into the future.


It needs to be discussed whether the IPCC has stopped this project and perhaps

hundreds of others by not providing the innovators with accurate information

about climate sensitivity. This suspected miscalculation of climate sensitivity leads values

straight into the deepest misery, with no return.



Super CHP to convert methane into electricity and heat.

The German government made this request already 15 years ago but failed

failed to solve the lifetime problem. The technology could halve energy demand across continents.

Now that there is a shortage of gas, it is even more urgent to make this a reality. The solutions exist,

cooperation and funding are lacking.



Heat pump with COP=10 (Pay 1 part and get 10 parts heat.)

This innovation can halve the cost of heating and cooling houses.

The number of power plants in the world can be reduced by an estimated 30% when this innovation

is up and running. Solution within reach.



Huge potential


An innovator cannot know in advance the likelihood of a project succeeding. After all, the driving force is

that the innovator usually believes in 50% or more.


If we conservatively say 1% to success, then in the "old days" all parties considered projects to be worthless.

In the new age, driven by Bill Gates and Vinod Khosla, 1% is a brilliant figure.

This means that you "only" need to develop 100 such projects to succeed.

Then we solve many political issues:


How will gas last if Russian gas disappears ? The answer is above !

How will nuclear and coal power be phased out? The answer is above !

How will the state be able to offer reasonable prices for energy for houses and cars ? The answer is above !

How can we meet the Paris Agreement promised by our politicians ? The only workable answer is above !


The main obstacles to a working future ?

1. Groupthink. JF KEnnedy discovered that the country's greatest power is unleashed when people feel free to think independently.

2. Climate sensitivity=3 from IPCC kills almost all disruptive innovations that we would need for survival.

This false climate sensitivity is the result of massive groupthink in the IPCC, SMHI and underlying organizations.

If it is NOT so: please provide us with the mathematical proof in the current challenge. Then

both SMHI and IPCC can actively defend their positions. The IPCC has had the ball since May 2008 to respond to

this question. SMHI, despite much communication, has not been able to provide a credible answer.

Instead, SMHI chose to throw in the towel and prohibit further discussion on the most important issue in

entire climate crisis.


Everywhere in the world where there are big problems, there are big lemming trains. Read the books !

1. Groupthink in Science

2.Irving Janis Psychologist, GroupThink, Victims of GroupThink professor Yale University, Advisor to President Kennedy

Groupthink refers to the ebbing of mental efficiency,

and that moral judgment disappears as a result of peer pressure.

Groupthink destroys both science and politics.  





Old times and new times


In the old days, people still believed in climate sensitivity=3

The new era means that climate sensitivity is considered to be 4 or more.


The Parliamentary Climate Conference was held in 2020 02 06 at 13.oo

I was invited to speak for a few minutes. This changed:

As a representative of a different climate view, there was no opportunity to say a few words,

Nor did the conference have any format for responding to the audience's views and questions.

Nor did anyone want a brief chat before or after the conference.

The conference lived in the old days of climate sensitivity=3



The government's climate coordinator Svante Axelsson:

The bottom line is surely the feeling that what is an uphill

is in fact a downward slope.


B.O: In the old days it is perhaps a downhill. In the new age

we need to cut back by 200 Gton/year starting no later than 2025

This probably feels to all realists like a cruel uphill slope.


Climate professors in the UK just shake their heads and say

that even 10 Gt is a quantity that is completely unimaginable.

Humans are doing nothing on that scale today.


Once we develop nanotechnology so that greenhouse gases can be separated with low energy input,

then the downhill begins. Then we can double the Swedish GDP and reach a leading position in the world.

international position.

The biggest obstacle on the way there is Groupthink.

The technology must be fully operational by 2025 for the Paris Agreement to be respected.







Åsa-Britt Karlsson: In the past, negative emissions have been a kind of indulgence letter where you buy your way out of a

That's not where we are today. Politics has an incredibly important task in maintaining this reasoning.


B.O: The world must cut 3000 Gt of CO2 if we are to reach the only long-term target for climate change.

sustainable level of 275 ppm CO2. That's 400 tonnes of CO2 per person in the world

at a cost of perhaps 4 million SEK per person.

If this is not achieved in the very near future, the Paris Agreement will collapse.

In the old world, you might despise minus emissions and call this indulgence letter.

In the new world, minus emissions is the solution that must deal with 99% of the problem.

There is no solution other than to buy our way out of this.

The task of the political investigations must be to try to tell the Swedish people the truth.



Åsa-Britt Karlsson: Good that Sweden has 2045 as a target


B.O: Even if the world is climate-neutral by 2025, the Paris Agreement will collapse

We need to back off 200 Gton CO2/year starting in 2025.

2045 is not a workable target.





Åsa-Britt Karlsson: Before 2030

2 million tonnes of CO2 bought for 1000 SEK/tonne = 2 billion SEK


B.O: Back CO2: Sweden's responsibility 400 tonnes x 10 million inhabitants = 4 000 000 000 tonnes

Then 2 million tonnes of CO2 equals 0.0005 of Sweden's responsibility = 0.5 per thousand


In the new values there is no CO2 budget.See SVD

Prof Johan Rockström: At 4-5 C climate sensitivity, the entire remaining emission space disappears in one fell swoop.

In that case we cannot stop global warming at 1.5 degrees either.

If emission allowances are bought up, the problem is that they ran out at 345 ppm in 1983 if

true climate sensitivity=6. If all emissions had stopped in 1984, the Earth would have reached a dangerous +2C in about 70 years.

later (year 2054)


The CO2 budget ran out in 1984. The government wants to buy something that doesn't exist for 2 billion kr

and think that this will reverse the greenhouse effect.




Åsa-Britt Karlsson.

we really work as a pioneering country.


The goal is to be climate-neutral by 2050. We must take that responsibility, show the world and lead the way.

We have the capacity, we have the knowledge, we have the academia, we have the broad consensus.


We have the Climate Act and its components - which show that we have a basis to stand on.

This is still powerful if we are to be the pioneering country that no

is saying we should not be.


B.O: We should definitely aim to be a pioneer country. Then we must believe

in science and precise mathematics that says:

We must be globally climate neutral by 2025 and then back down by 200 Gton/year.


We do not yet have the capacity to backtrack. We lack the knowledge

and the Groupthinkers are fighting full force against all the innovations

that will be our salvation -


The IPCC + SMHI climate experts have refused to give the world an accurate climate sensitivity for 40 years.


We have a climate law that is based on the incorrect climate sensitivity=3

and this law must be urgently torn up and replaced with a working law

based on true climate sensitivity.

Climate policy will then look completely different, and for the first time we will have a chance.





German Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier appealed in his Christmas speech 24 Dec 2019:


To fight for democracy through courage, a fighting culture and a sense of community.

What democracy needs are self-aware citizens with faith in the future and the power to act,

with reason, decency and solidarity.

We need democracy, but now democracy needs us.



Democracy is under attack all over the world, on every continent.

Democracy is also under attack from within Parliament, Government and the authorities.

through a massive Groupthink. The thought and power

that individuals have is disappearing. The country's most important resource is disappearing.


In addition, it would be great if Sweden could show the world

that democracy and free-thinking people lead

to revolutionary solutions that free the world from the climate threat.

At the same time, we will have a solution to the energy issue and a comfortable transition to a new, balanced existence.








With thanks to Lars Thomson (C) for organising the Riksdag's Climate Conference

and who really wanted to have an open discussion to break the deadlock in climate policy.









Climate Policy Council


The bigger your platform, the bigger your responsibility. (Greta)



TheCouncil submitted its annual report to the government on 25 March 2021.


Because the climate crisis could wipe out our entire civilization,

because the success of the climate fight is being decided right now,

the climate issue is many times more dangerous than the Corona pandemic.

Should Sweden go into the climate crisis as clueless and unprepared as it did into the Corona crisis?


This is why the report to the government is one of the most important events of the year in Swedish politics.


As a Swedish citizen, I would like to give a review of the report and the web television broadcast.


My fact-based conclusion is that the report must be rejected on almost all points.


These facts are touched upon in the text below.

A dialogue is welcome. This dialogue with the Swedish people should take place regularly and be given much more time.


Decree (2017:1268)

Section 3 The Climate Policy Council shall contribute to an increased discussion in society on climate policy.


It was allocated 25 minutes to "Ask the Council". The country's most important hearing

via YouTube channel involving 10 million inhabitants seemed to have 31 viewers.

All questions had to be broadcast in advance - much like Walter Ulbricht in the GDR used to handle questions in the 1960s.

Convenient to select the questions you want to answer and sort out anything that might provide new, important and uncomfortable perspectives.


I sent in the following three questions. Since almost nothing was answered in those 25 minutes

I look forward to the Council completing them so that the answers can be published here and in the press and on TV.



My 3 questions: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 10:38:26 +0100


I would like to contribute three questions to the Question Council 14-14.30

1. Vostok ice cores show that 275 ppm gives 0C and 285 ppm CO2 gives dangerous +2C overtemperature.

This has been repeated with precision 4 times in the last half million years.





1. Global temperature cannot turn downward until we get below 285 ppm

2. Climate sensitivity between the two main points is 36, i.e. the Earth is rising

36 C for every doubling of CO2 levels. We live in the middle of this temp range.

Why has the IPCC calculated seemingly wrong climate sensitivity=3 over 40 years ?



2. Ocean and atmosphere together contain about 6000 Gton CO2

About 3000 Gton must be removed before we reach 285 ppm and the temperature turns downwards

According to NASA, global temperature is rising by 0.035 C/year right now.

If we have 0.5C left to Paris level 1.5C then the time to Paris level 1.5C is 0.5/0.035=14 years

It is therefore necessary to remove 3000/14 = 214 Gton/year starting

by 2025 at the latest. This simple calculation also shows that climate neutrality in 2050 is

completely ineffective. Why is this not included in the report ?



3.Do you think that new disruptive innovations are our only chance to overcome the climate crisis?

The magazine fö writes that scientists are not innovators. 95% of

country's innovations come from outside the country, which shares 7 per thousand of the

of government support. It could be that 95% of climate understanding and 95% of the necessary

innovations are out of the country.

One of the main points of the Council's report should then be to reverse the

flow of information, because today legislation and attitudes block

95% of the information that will save the country ?



Question 1: Unanswered


Question 2: Unanswered


Question 3: This line was answered, which is gratefully noted:

Do you think that new disruptive innovations are our only chance to overcome the climate crisis?

The answer is summarised in this 1 min shortened video:






As the dialogue has been missing so far, here it is:

Reply to Johan


You say : The important thing in today's report: when we get solutions in disruptive technologies

...there must be investment.



Answer : 200 Gton/year must be pumped out of the atmosphere starting no later than 2025.

The lead required from climate experts is to calculate this and tell them this and explain that this particular

is a higher priority than anything else. Therefore, Johan's order of priority is wrong. It is the same as

saying: If some corona vaccine comes along, we will fund it. Dr Fauci tells us that 10 January 2020

the United States made a decision to develop a vaccine. It was a mighty success for science and for the world.

...which is now taking effect just over a year later.


The climate crisis is many tens of times more serious and the government cannot wait for "something to come along".

Investments must come before solutions. The state must make hundreds of billions available NOW

as a modest start to pay for 200 years of oil feast.

The country must be vacuumed of ideas. International cooperation must be established where Sweden can have

a leading role.

Prof Johan Kuylenstierna should be part of this leadership as that is the role of the Climate Policy Council.

We Swedes are paying to have this leadership.

Otherwise, Sweden will enter the climate crisis as clueless as Sweden entered the Corona crisis.

with 10,000 dead completely unnecessarily. This figure will get many more zeros after the ravages of the climate crisis.

This can be avoided with precise science and mathematics.


Reply to Markku Rummukainen

You say: We don't need great innovations beyond what we already have.


Perhaps this was true in the "old days" when people believed in climate sensitivity=3


200 Gton/year must be pumped out of the atmosphere starting no later than 2025.

Confirm/deny. Let's see your calculations.


That's 400 tons of CO2 per person in the world that needs to be pumped out. If we take into account that the rich world emitted more

and can afford to pay more, you should immediately issue an invoice to every Swede for SEK 4 million.

That could be our fact-based debt to the earth. The laws of nature do not negotiate and our children have no

future if we do not pay.


If instead you say that we urgently need disruptive innovation, then the invoice to every Swede

could drop significantly. It might even be possible to make the transition so smart that the debt is converted into profit.

The Climate Policy Council is using all its power and authority to oppose solutions that can work.


Itdoes so in three ways:
1. by claiming that innovation is not needed

2. by claiming that climate neutrality in 2050 is enough.

3. by sticking to a false climate sensitivity=3 that produces a false climate law.


Markku, you are on the IPCC and you know that every IPCC scenario requires science fiction.

Prof. Kevin Andeerson : Survivable IPCC projections are based on science fiction.

This science fiction is needed NOW. In other words, INNOVATIONS that the world has never seen.


You can easily calculate that values need to be reversed by 200 Gton/year starting no later than 2025.

You also know that 10 Gton far exceeds human capacity. If your view is different

the whole country is waiting for your calculations.


Dr Hugh Hunt in the Department of Engineering, at the University of

Cambridge, who points out: "10 billion tonnes a year of carbon

sequestration? We don't do anything on this planet on that scale. We

don't manufacture food on that scale, we don't mine iron ore on that

We don't even produce coal, oil or gas on that scale. Iron ore

is below a billion tonnes a year! How are we going to create a

technology, from scratch, a highly complicated technology, to the tune

of 10 billion tonnes a year in the next 10 years?"


It is not just that there are currently no ideas being researched to

such a degree where they are likely to be able to bring down

atmospheric carbon to a safe level of around 300 parts per million. It

is also that the level of funding available to the scientists doing the

research is woefully inadequate.


The level of funding available to the scientists doing the research is woefully inadequate.


If you say that research is not needed, you are using your powerful position to

to use your powerful position to work against climate solutions. You are already sitting on all this knowledge - where is your

where is your leadership turning the country's course right ?


What is at stake ? We are exactly at RCP 8.5 This is not survivable. The professors at the Tyndall Centre

say: Unsurvivable trajectory of human civilization. The air runs out of oxygen - humans and animals can't breathe.

You say: We don't need great innovations beyond what we already have.



Markku: Explain how this will be solved without innovations !

The bigger your platform, the bigger your responsibility. (Greta)


Because the whole foundation of the Climate Policy Council report is wrong, the report as a whole must be rejected.

The report must be rebuilt on the basis of a correct climate vision and a call for new innovations.

based on the desperately critical situation in which we now find ourselves.


The IPCC has been calculating the wrong climate sensitivity=3 for 40 years and the awakening to reality must come quickly.


The basis of the catastrophic error is that the IPCC+SMHI associate 450 ppm with +2C.

This prediction - which almost everyone knows by heart - is 60-70 years wrong. This shows that climate sensitivity=3 is WRONG.

Not only the Swedish people - but also our politicians have been fundamentally deceived by this blue sign.

When will the climate experts have the courage to step forward and admit this error - which at a furious pace

leads to bottomless misery. When will we correct Bill 2016/17:146 and Climate Act 2027:720

so that climate work is conducted in a spirit of truth and in a spirit of transparency?




It is a disgrace for the country to volunteer,

unpaid forces have to pull the whole load

under maximum resistance from the elite that is supposed to do the job.

Which is more important: saving face or saving the next generation?


Under discussion and consideration:

Crimes against humanity ?


Is it reasonable to draw the following conclusions? Discussion is called for in all press and media because this

is the most important political issue of our time:


When the IPCC has been telling the world for 40 years that climate sensitivity is 3, it is something that

only the professors understand and people and politicians must accept. No discussion arises,

the press refuses to get involved. For 40 years this has been swept under the carpet.

The following argumentation shows that a deliberate insistence on climate sensitivity=3

is a crime against humanity that will lead to the deaths of billions of people

in the near future.


The 2021 Nobel Prize celebrated an even lower climate sensitivity = 2.3

The Academy of Sciences should go into depth with whether

the Nobel committee committed a crime against humanity given the authority

and weight that a Nobel Prize carries.





This is the mathematical expression of what the IPCC is saying with the sign.

Global Temp= t =1.44*cs*ln(ppmCO2/275) cs=3


This is the IPCC's message to us how global temperature is affected

by atmospheric CO2

This curve appears below cs=3 in the diagram.


This theoretical model should be correct in 3 crucial points


1.When the CO2 content is 100%, NASA says that the Earth will be as hot as Venus, i.e. above 400 C

2.When the CO2 content is low, there will be an ice age

3.When the CO2 content is 450 ppm, the Earth is +2C warmer



The model we got from the IPCC misses all three points

IPCC's model says


1.The Earth cannot get warmer than 1.44*3*ln(10^6/275) = +35C

2.Earth cannot reach ice age

3.There is not a single example in millions of years that the earth reached +2C at 450 ppm

In contrast, the Earth has accurately reached +2C at 285 ppm, four times in the last half-million years


Feel free to check with climate sensitivity=36 instead to find that all three points are met.


This incorrect climate sensitivity=3 gives the mathematical consequence


1. Almost no time lag between new CO2 level and new global temperature. Thus

temperature is stopped when emissions are stopped. Then maybe the NetZero policy can work,

as long as climate sensitivity=3


2. Additional large CO2 budget allowing additional large CO2 emissions


3. Grossly erroneous forecast +2C 450 ppm by 2100


If climate sensitivity is between 6 and 36 then this applies :

NetZero (Zero Emissions 2045) cannot work because it takes between 70 and 600 years

before the temperature increase stops when all emissions are stopped.


The whole world is working on a climate policy whose foundation is the lie of climate sensitivity=3

All current conclusions are wrong.


There is no remaining budget.

Zero Emissions cannot control global temperatures

The sooner we accept the truth, the sooner we can steer towards a workable climate policy.

The only thing that will work is to suck 200 Gt CO2 and 2 Gt methane out of the atmosphere per year.


When will the climate experts dare to get off the great lemming train and stop blocking the only

solution to the climate crisis?





The main solution to the climate crisis lies in psychological research,

Please read one of these scientific books:

1. Groupthink in Science

2.Irving Janis Psychologist, GroupThink, Victims of GroupThink

Professor Yale University, Advisor to President Kennedy

Quote Irving Janis: Groupthink refers to the ebbing of mental efficiency,

and that moral judgment disappears as a result of peer pressure.

Groupthink destroys both science and politics. The suspicion is that we can't

solve the climate crisis until people dare to start thinking independently.

Today, we have obvious lamestream trains almost everywhere. This is where all new ideas are fought.

The lemming trains are actually small local dictatorships in the middle of democratic society.

This will be our downfall if it is not recognised and addressed.

Democracy is under attack everywhere in the world. Sweden could go the way of JF Kennedy,

pay attention to GruppTrycket and radically strengthen democracy.



Deeper analysis to the calculations








Question for COP27 Watch video VanessaNakate.mp4




This Climate Sensitivity website aims to make it much easier for ministers

to answer yes to the question. It's about seeking the truth, which in turn can

provide a workable climate policy and a comfortable transition to a balanced world.

"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty      words."  Quote Greta


Feedback and challenge to climate experts




Has the IPCC made the biggest and most dangerous miscalculation

in the history of mankind ?


Right or wrong? The first crucial step is to allow a broad discussion.

All power emanates from the people, says the constitution. Then it is not good enough to blindly trust the IPCC.

The same applies to the government. I have sent warnings to the climate minister

and the Prime Minister about 50 times since 2008. The answer is: we trust the IPCC.

Corresponding sharp criticism from the Corona Commission: the Government should

The government should have listened less to the Public Health Agency. Then lives would have been saved. This is leadership.

It is not the IPCC that should do the government's job and run Sweden.

It is the government's job to have both the IPCC and the climate experts examined.