Solving the climate issue


The world will not make any climate progress at all, until climate experts

dares to tell the deeper truth. The experts often blame that

the world is cutting emissions too slowly. The truth is that if

all emissions are stopped today, only 1% of the problem will be solved.


The temperature continues to rise just as fast because the

primary driver is the 3700 Gtons of CO2 "too much" that is now in the

atmosphere and oceans. The Earth will not even notice within a

decade if emissions of 37 Gtons/year cease. It is annually only about

1% of what already exists. Within this decade, all hell is likely to break loose.

So all resources cannot be invested in a method (NetZero) that is totally ineffective.


A total of four traps must be removed as soon as possible.







Vostok ice data shows that dangerous +2C overtemperature has occurred time and again

at 285 ppm CO2. Therefore, the Earth's temperature cannot reverse downwards until  

the atmosphere returns to 275 ppm CO2 (just like in 1700).

Data on the historical level of the oceans confirm the same thing. Only at 275 ppm CO2

can the oceans be stable and fit the ports and cities in use today.


The only way to get back to 275 ppm is to remove 3700 Gtons of CO2 from the oceans and air.

The temperature will not turn downwards until 3700 Gton is gone.

If we believe that the earth can withstand another 20 years of temperature increases, then

3700/20 = about 200 Gton per year, starting NOW, must be removed.


These measures are a factor of 100 times more powerful than the NetZero policy (which cannot work).


The current, extremely narrow corridor of opinion prevents any creativity in the climate debate.

The current expertise refuses to comment and develop the above facts,

which drives us straight into the wall, with no turning back. The NetZero policy is a dangerous trap.

If the current experts do not do their job, they will be complicit in the worst crime  

ever committed against humanity (Ref Dr. Peter Carter). People and politicians are entitled to a true picture

of the climate.  From there, a workable climate policy can be built.


The climate crisis is worse than most people think and the solutions required

are science fiction, on a level never seen before. This is our only

chance and time is running out....

With new thinking, the climate crisis can be solved...

provided the dangerous traps are removed quickly. This discussion should fill the

press and politics now as time is running out.


1.First trap ,

The Group-Think Trap, prevents us from thinking independently.

President J.F. Kennedy noted that groupthink destroys politics

and science. Independent thinking produced radically better policy decisions.

The most important book for journalists, politicians and scientists could be:

"Groupthink in Science, David Allen" No other knowledge

is more important for solving the climate crisis. The book shows that it is a lack of

of independent thinking that causes all the other traps.




Human beings are biologically evolved to subordinate themselves to groupthink and this has arguably

given advantages in evolution. Now this characteristic may instead lead to disaster.

This raises two very interesting questions:


Has Groupthink caused all thermodynamic experts for 150 years to subordinate themselves to the

to the second law and thus blocked all future technology? Would we have avoided

climate crisis and energy crisis if Maxwell had laid the foundation for entropy instead of Clausius in 1865?


Has GroupThink meant that all climate experts have for decades been subordinated to

climate sensitivity = 3 from the IPCC and thus blocked the understanding of the climate?

The best mathematical adaptation to NASA is obtained when calculating with climate sensitivity = 36.

and time constant 700 years. Everyone can easily check this. If it is correct, then it has enormous

consequences. Example: If all emissions are stopped now at 420 ppm CO2, then

the temperature continues for 700 years and reaches a final temperature =committed temperature= +22C

t=cs*ln(ppmCO2/275)/ln(2) = 36*ln(420/275)/ln(2) = 22 C cs=36=climate sensitivity.

This formula was developed by Svante Arrhenius >100 years ago.



This is so far away from the accepted Groupthink that all climate experts

dismiss the idea without even wanting to spend a few minutes checking the calculations.

Therefore, this becomes a trap that not even the foremost climate experts are able to get out of.

The question can be solved with very simple mathematics and we are all subject to the laws of nature.




2.The second trap,

the Ethics Trap, prevents us from seeing clearly what is right, wrong, good, evil.

Morals, values, principles, are often based on religion, culture and literature.

A single example: With the second greatest work of world literature,

Goethe's Faust, the reader is given a picture of what it means to sell one 's

soul to the devil. Dr. Faust was given all the riches of life in exchange for

serve the devil for all eternity after death. The world's leading climate scientist

Prof. James Hansen, has used this image in one of his newsletters.

Those scientists, contrary to Hansen, who give us an inaccurate picture of  

climate can be suspected of creating lies for money. Perhaps  

people understood this much more in the 18th century.

Those who emphasize a false view of climate are guilty of the worst

crime ever committed against humanity, according to Dr. Peter Carter. The value of

climate sensitivity is of central importance. Ethics also means intellectual

honesty. Professors being able to admit when they are wrong instead of

just slipping away in silence. However, most of them seem to want to save face

rather than saving the next generation.


3.The third trap, the climate sensitivity trap, prevents us from understanding the climate .

The IPCC and SMHI give us the wrong value for climate sensitivity. This means that we do

not understand the climate and the forecasts and climate laws are wrong. Scientists

use the wrong values in their calculations.

Ref: Peter Carter, An unprecedented crime (Foreword James Hansen)


4. The fourth trap, the Entropy Trap, prevents us from developing future technologies.

Rudolf Clausius (1822-1888) created the concept of entropy, and

second law of thermodynamics in 1865. This became an axiom

that would form the basis of all thermodynamics. He forgot

the more important half of reality and thereby blocked all the technology

to shape the future and solve the climate crisis.


The scientist Maxwell realized the historical mistake and illustrated the

mistake with Maxwell's demon, which gives us a glimpse of the technology and goals of the future.


"My only purpose in life is to show that the second law of thermodynamics  can indeed be broken.

Every physicist since the Victorian era (since 1837) must collapse in

the deepest humiliation."

Ref:  Maxwell's duplicitous demon, the life and science of James Clerk Maxwell, Brian Clegg, sid 10



Professor Phil Attard, Sydney, finally opens the door to the future 150 years later:

See "Entropy Beyond the Second Law", Phil Attard. He provides a

fascinating theoretical analysis of what Rudolf Clausius missed.


If Maxwell was alive today, he would probably say: All professors of

Thermodynamics must collapse into the deepest humiliation

because they have continued to block future technology for >150 years.

Maxwell would probably quote his friend Attard: The second law of thermodynamics is

nothing more than superstition, a spell to hypnotize the gullible,  

an incantation to be memorized and repeated

with the mind closed to further possibilities and new applications.


In fact, systems where entropy is spontaneously reduced are common.


Our entire civilization is built on Entropy and the second law.

It is thus built  on superstition, a spell, in order to

hypnotize the gullible. Once we free ourselves from the Entropy trap,

technology will look completely different - in harmony with nature.


In this way, a total repair of the atmosphere can be achieved in 20 years.

Our young people should be able to celebrate their 50th birthday with 275 ppm CO2.

Any other objective is a fraud on future generations.





5. Fifth trap: The Peer Review Trap


See Youtube "Allan Savory : What is science":


They have entered the universities as brilliant young people,

and they come out of universities as brain dead, who don't even know

what science means.

New knowledge, new scientific insights can never ever be subject to peer review.

Peer-Review blocks all new, major advances in science.

If an article is peer-reviewed, it means that everyone thought the same thing,

therefore it was accepted.

If you look at the breakthroughs in science, the breakthroughs almost

never come from the center of that profession.They come from the periphery.



Summary Quote Professor G. Pollack:

It may seem disrespectful, but if we hope to be able to

to penetrate to the truth, we must have the courage to question all the

fundamental assumptions.





James Clerk Maxwell was not only one of the three greatest scientists of all time.

He also had a deeply Christian faith. Much has been written about his empathy and kindness.

Despite his goodness: at one point he or his demon grew furiously angry:


"May every physicist since Victorian times (since 1837) collapse in the deepest humiliation".


Maxwell saw that the professors of the time were putting their faith in

the second law of thermodynamics,

a superstition, a spell, that closes the mind to the physics of the future.

This lock has been in effect for 150 years now.

Today's professors may also collapse in the deepest humiliation

if they do not take their responsibility and shake off the four traps.


The IPCC has created one of the traps, which must be overcome.

The climate crisis is solvable but time is running out.


Now the climate is developing at an explosive pace.

We do not have time to pursue an ineffective NetZero policy.

The discussion about this must be promoted on all fronts, in all media and in all politics.









In the 20 years that the above ideas have been developed, I have had extensive contact  

with numerous experts in climate and thermodynamics.


Some experts have felt insulted, which is not my intention at all.

That is why I discussed the issue of diplomacy with the well-known Swedish diplomat

Jan Eliasson (Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations from July 2012 to December 2016).

His answer was: Go straight ahead ! I am very grateful for this advice and it is consistently applied in the above text.


An expert doing his job should find pleasure in what he does best: arguing on a scientific and mathematical basis  

and to point out possible errors in the above argumentation.


Being insulted is really a way of throwing in the towel when the argumentation is not enough.

Such expertise can hardly contribute to solving the climate crisis.


Withdrawing from any discussion is another way of throwing in the towel. It is reasonable to demand

a good discussion at all levels of society, when our entire existence is at stake.


Best regards Bengt Ovelius



2023 0611  The climate negotiations now, in Bonn, Germany, will pave the way for success at the

the major UN climate summit COP28 in Dubai this winter.


The Bonn conference can't even agree on an agenda after a full week of negotiations.

Also: UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell gives the wrong objective to the conference:


The path to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius in line with Paris:

Cutting emissions by 43% by 2030, compared to 2010 levels, attaining net-zero by mid-century and delivering a resilient world.


This goal is grossly inaccurate - the simplest math proves that this is impossible.  Climate experts, have a heavy responsibility to intervene in the process in various ways to tell the truth and support an open, honest debate so that we have a workable climate policy.


On the other hand:

Climate expertise cannot even give us an accurate value for climate sensitivity, which is the basis for climate action. Prof. James Hansen suggests climate sensitivity =10 and time constant > 100 years in his recent newsletters.



Does the temperature stop when emissions stop ? Does NetZero work ?

The answer to both questions is NO. Prof. Svante Arrhenius already knew this >100 years ago.

With his limited knowledge he estimated climate sensitivity to be =6  and he would calculate our committed temperature at 420 ppm  (with his formula)   to be t=6*ln(420/275)/ln(2)   =  4C . He would say: If all emissions are stopped 2023 the temperatures will continue to +4C


These professors at the Tyndall Centre outside London warned in 2015: We are following RCP8.5 that humans and animals cannot survive because oxygen is running out.


8 years later we can read this. Rapidly declining oxygen in the oceans: Could be 'the end of everything'



They also confirm that all survivable IPCC projections require negative emissions.



In 1850, Dr. Semmelweis urged people to wash their hands before surgery.

He was ridiculed by all medical professors throughout Europe.

The press wrote scornful articles and he was dismissed from the

maternity clinic in Vienna. It was the midwives and ordinary people who understood the

the context. If so many professors had not been in leadership positions, then

tens of thousands of young women's lives could have been saved.


Everything is repeated:

The above reasoning strengthens the suspicion that ordinary physics teachers and ordinary people understand the climate crisis better than the climate professors. If this is the case, it will be a survival factor for the country to limit the number of chairs that professors sit on in various contexts.


If not, then it is high time that professors finally take a leading position, participate in an open, honest debate and tell the truth to the people.


We need to understand the climate in order to solve the crisis. A job has to be done.


The next point is to suck away 200 Gton CO2/year. Every climate professor

is prepared to say that this is completely impossible. So you are entering

into an area where they have no expertise whatsoever and with their authority

they block the only possible solution.


Maxwell laid the cornerstone of the solution as early as 1871 with the sketch that Lord Kelvin called "Maxwell's Demon".


Ordinary people can easily understand that this works. Those who are doctors and professors  have put a lot of effort into understanding the Entropy (Clausius) theory.


This theory, which is the basis for the whole of current thermodynamics, is a

big mistake because it blocks the whole future.

Tens of thousands of professors of thermodynamics in the last 150 years have failed

to understand how big Maxwell was, even though the solution is right under their noses.


Here is the solution to the ENTIRE climate crisis.



In this book "Maxwell's duplicitous demon, the life and science of James Clerk Maxwell, Brian Clegg, sid 10"

the author tries to interpret Maxwell's thoughts from 1871.


The scientist Maxwell realized the catastrophic, historical mistake that Clausius had made with his

his Entropy Theory and the Second Law of Thermodynamics of 1865 (which hindered the future of technology).


"My only purpose in life is to show that the second law of thermodynamics can indeed be broken.

Every physicist since the Victorian era (since 1837) has had to collapse in the deepest of  humiliation."


Professor Phil Attard, Sydney, finally (after 150 years) opens the door to the future:

Read the book "Entropy Beyond the Second Law", Phil Attard. He provides a

fascinating, deeply theoretical analysis of what Rudolf Clausius missed.


If Maxwell were alive today, he would probably say: All the professors in

climate and thermodynamics has to collapse in the deepest humiliation

because together they are blocking the solution to the climate crisis.


Not exactly a diplomatic thinking.


But Maxwell was a deeply Christian man and the most caring person you can

imagin. One can only guess that he saw the consequences of blocking the entire future of technology.

Hence the strong reaction.


Maxwell would probably like to quote Prof. Phil Attard:  Thesecond law of thermodynamics is

nothing more than superstition, a spell to hypnotize the gullible, an incantation.

the gullible, an incantation to be memorized and repeated

with the mind closed to further possibilities and new applications.

In fact, systems where entropy spontaneously decreases are common.



The academic world today should consider why scientists in 1871 were able to make 150-year leaps

while today's experts barely even understand the wonders that took place then.

A significant sharpening is required so that academia ceases to be a sheltered workshop.

The academic capacity that exists must be put to work.

Some humility is also needed if our young people are to survive the climate crisis.



Writing such inaccurate articles as this and then refusing all public debate is simply not good enough.

DN Published 2021-10-18 : "Do not spread theimage that it is too late to save the climate"



I hardly think I need to apologize for going straight to the point. Consider the consequences of

of not understanding the climate and not understanding the solution.


More people should follow in Maxwell's footsteps and realize the seriousness of the fact that Sweden has no climate policy at all in the most dangerous crisis in its history.


I had the privilege of discussing my lack of diplomacy with Diplomat Jan Eliasson.

(Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations from July 2012 to December 2016)


His advice was: Go straight to the point!



It became clear to me around 2000 that everything is calculated with the wrong climate sensitivity.

The researcher Örjan Hallberg also outlined a method for calculating climate sensitivity

and time constant, just by looking at the exact form of NASA measurements of the

of the Earth's overall temperature increase. Thus, everything was in place to make accurate

predictions and design a workable climate policy. In the last 20 years, no climate scientist has  

had any interest in looking at this or making their own calculations.


It would take me more than 20 years with an accurate climate picture as a starting point and constant reflection

before it became clear what a solution could look like.


The current climate experts who refuse to give the country an accurate climate view are also blocking

the capacity of millions of people to find the solutions so that our young people can survive this crisis.


Therefore, it is absolutely correct for Dr. Peter Carter (former reviewer of the IPCC) to say, that

the manipulation of climate sensitivity is the worst crime ever against humanity.


You, climate experts have an important job to do and it must be done now.

Show the Earth's temperature response to the NetZero 2050 policy at different values of climate sensitivity.

Explain the entire derivation. If you are not able to do this, you can use the derivation

I have already done - which you have already received. This is the most important calculation in humanity's long

human history. Show that the academic world is not a sheltered workshop but an organization

with competence and action.


MVH Bengt Ovelius