The Test-stick




We have the mathematical proof that climate sensitivity is 36

and here is the philosophical proof.


The most important question of all is how the earth's temperature will evolve with rising CO2 levels.

The survival of civilization hangs in the balance.


The dots that form a cloud are measurements on Vostok ice cores that show  

the Earth's temperature in relation to CO2 levels over the last 500,000 years.

The stick comes from NASA measurements of actual global temperature anomaly last century.

This scatter plot represents a fact !





If you wait a few thousand years and make a new scatter chart from ice cores,

or otherwise, there are two outcomes:


1. The stick is still there

Then NASA measurements have already been stabilized and the stick will freeze into the ice

unchanged for all time.

Then climate sensitivity = 3, Committed warming = 0 - 1.3 C, time lag CO2-temp 0-30 years


2.The stick has twisted up and disappeared into the cloud.

Then climate sensitivity = 36, committed warming = 22 C, time lag CO2-temp 700 years


Committed warming indicates how many degrees the earth will rise if all emissions are stopped immediately.


Scientists need this foundation to stand on and the above question should be put to a referendum.


The models used by scientists today are enormously complicated which in many cases means that

scientists themselves do not have a proper overview of their simulations.

Therefore, the results can be anything, as this research report shows


Quote: The models exhibit a variety of behaviours after emissions have ceased, and some models continue to

warming for decades to millennia and others cooling significantly.


Three scientists, who according to Greta have written the best climate article ever, (one million readers)

say this:


Around 1997, the first computer models came.

They seemed like a miracle: you can test policies on a computer screen

saving humanity costly experiments. They became important

guidelines for climate policy and remain so today

Unfortunately, they also removed the need for deep critical thinking.

By including carbon sinks in climate economic models, a

Pandora's box had been opened. This is where we find the genesis of today's



The Paris Agreement was a stunning victory...........

But dig a little deeper and you may find doubts.

We've since been told by some scientists that the Paris Agreement

"of course it was important for climate justice but unworkable" and "a

complete shock, no one thought it was possible to limit to  1,5 ° C".


Instead of working through our doubts, we scientists decided to

construct increasingly detailed fantasy worlds in which we would be safe.

The price to pay for our cowardice: keeping our mouths shut......


Temperatures would be allowed to go above 1.5°C in the short term, but then

lowered with a series of carbon dioxide removals by the end of the century.


Academics usually see themselves as servants of society.

Most academics clearly feel uncomfortable going beyond the

invisible line that separates their day-to-day jobs from broader social and

political problems. There is a real fear that being seen

as advocates for or against certain issues may threaten their perceived



Researchers are one of the most trusted professions. Trust is very difficult to

build and easy to destroy.


Outcome 2:

This happens during the next 700 years







If Outcome 2 turns out to reflect the truth over time

it is psychology that provides the best understanding.


The book  " Groupthink in Science" explains how the dangerous trap of groupthink works

and how it destroys both science and politics.




Should be required reading for all scientists and politicians, if we are to overcome the climate crisis.

Already President JF Kennedy took advantage of this research and was able to implement radical

improvements in understanding and decision making.