Svensk version är här Swedish
Urgent request: Please make a Peer Review ! Download pdf here or read this entire website
The mathematics of climate change
paves the road for innovations that solve the climate crisis.
Dr Peter Carter was an expert reviewer for the IPCC's final reports.
He warns that the IPCC manipulated climate data, making almost all
forecasts and calculations are wrong.
This paper goes into depth: is Dr Carter right ?
If so, what are the profound implications for climate policy?
The people, business and politicians have a right to know the true answer.
If Dr Peter Carter is right, the Swedish people will be deceived by the IPCC, SMHI
and the Climate Policy Council to an unprecedented extent.
The inventors will miss the very foundation for their work.
Dr Peter Carter calls this manipulation the worst crime ever committed against humanity.
When I, as an ordinary Swedish citizen, have been asking these questions to the experts for 15 years now, I find that many professors feel stepped on toes. So I asked the world-renowned
diplomat Jan Eliasson and asked for advice - how to pursue these issues in a diplomatic way.
His answer was: Go straight for it! I am deeply grateful for this answer and everything is henceforth
written in this spirit.
Big companies and big institutions can never make radical innovations
because they always come up with the argument that it is unsolvable.
When I meet an expert, I say: You are an expert on an earlier version of the world,
but we're going to invent the future we want.
California super-entrepreneur Vinod Khosla goes on to say... Quote:
All disruptive innovation happens at the edges of the system.
I'm hard-pressed to think of a single thing that has come out
out of a large company in the last 20, 30 years
that changed the world significantly. All the interesting things and disruptive innovations
happen at the edges of the system. They don't happen in the solid core.
Those who account for 95% of the country's patents share only
0.7 % of government support.
The magazine Företagande.se 2019-0910 clarifies the following:
Only 5% of all the world's patents come from universities/colleges.
Sweden's universities and colleges receive 99.3% of government R&D support,
while innovators/inventors outside academia have the equivalent of 0.7% to share.
Why not support the party that delivers instead?
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, a researcher's incentive/motive 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.
By analogy, one can expect that 95% of climate understanding can come from
from the edges of the system, i.e. from ordinary people.
This very scientific paper comes from the edges of the system.
This is why it was so wise for the swedish legislators to have the
Climate Policy Council pursue a comprehensive discussion in society.
It is not the job of climate experts to declare it impossible to suck out 200 Gton CO2/year.
Climate professors are not innovators and therefore do not have the authority to deny the role of innovators.
Their job is to tell you that, for example, 200 Gt/year must be removed, starting no later than 2025,
for the earth to stay below +1.5C and it is their job to present these calculations so that everyone can understand. This calculation can only be made with a correct value on climate sensitivity.
It is also their job to explain that NetZero (Zero Emissions 2045 ) is an ineffective
policy if climate sensitivity is above 3. The world is waiting for these announcements.
The constant work and discussion of climate experts must be to establish a correct value of
climate sensitivity, because this value is the difference between life and death for society. (ref Carter)
The whole climate policy is shaped by this value.
These efforts are expected to come from those most responsible:
the IPCC, the SMHI and the Climate Policy Council, among others.
None of these bodies has, to our knowledge, discussed the consequences of whether Dr Carter is right.
With scores of scientific papers at risk of being trashed, there is limited
interest in touching this.
Since this is the most important issue in all of climate policy, it is important to ask
a peer review from every climate expert. This should be ready within weeks as time is running out.
With accurate knowledge of what the climate threat really looks like
you can successfully ride the huge wave of change that is coming.
Success means such a powerful economy that the entire country's GDP could double.
The companies and politicians who first understand the potential will be the biggest winners.
In the bargain, the complete solution to the climate crisis is in sight. Brand new technology,
the likes of which the world has never seen, could radically change the lives of every citizen.
The new political climate goal must be for our young people to be able to celebrate their
50th birthday in a totally-repaired atmosphere like the one of 1700, with 275 ppm CO2.
This is achievable. Aiming lower will be humanity's biggest mistake.
If the Earth's temperature does not stop instantly at zero emissions, then current climate policy
"ZeroEmissions 2045" is an ineffective cheat solution.
This paper provides a gapless evidence base that proves Dr. Peter Carter is right.
The task of Peer Review is to confirm this or deny it, and if so, quickly
create own evidence without gaps, for all to understand.