Innovations and understanding

It turns out that only 5% of the innovations come  

from the academic sector

Similarly, it can be assumed that only 5% of climate understanding comes

from the academic sector

Thus, 95% of the understanding and 95% of the solutions come from outside.

Yet there is a clear tendency for the academic sector to be unwilling to embrace

new ideas or even engage in an honest, accurate debate with parties  

outside the academic sector.

This perception is confirmed by various sources, such as

The magazine Företagande which writes

https://foretagande.se/miljarder-av-statligt-innovationsstod-hamnar-i-fel-hander

The problem is that the academic sphere is not the main environment where innovation occurs. That is, researchers are not the same as inventors.

A researcher's incentive/motive is to explore, define and present the existing, while the inventor's incentive/motive is the radical opposite; to create the not yet existing.Academics often argue that invention requires knowledge. It is true, society needs knowledge/research. But international history and statistics establish that it is not researchers who invent.Only 5-6% of all the world's patents come from universities.  A  95% do not come from there.

Swedish universities and colleges receive 99.3% of government R&D funding, while innovators/inventors outside academia have the equivalent of 0.7%

to share (via Almi).

The professors will lose their influence if no action is taken

to step up and get in the game.

The game that will save us from destruction.

A decisive point will be to cooperate and discuss with those parties

who can contribute 95% of the climate solution.

Through hundreds of erroneous scientific papers from academia on climate sensitivity, two things are actively discouraged:

•The true understanding of climate (which provides the true solution...).

•The innovations that will save us.

One example is the scientific paper:

"An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence".

The authors have arrived at climate sensitivity =2.4 while Prof. James Hansen

in the latest paper proves that the probability is about ZERO that the climate sensitivity is 3 or less. Thus, the IPCC conclusion must be rejected

as IPCC for last 40 years made this erroneous claim.

This also invalidates the entire NetZero policy.

"An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity..." is even more wrong

than the IPCC. It is expected that the authors will defend their paper or

withdraw it.