Three shock-altered thought-structures are needed to solve the climate crisis.
The three factors are
3.The second law of thermodynamics.
1. Thought structure Groupthink
is a mature science after extensive research over the last 60 years.
Research shows that politics and science are at risk of being destroyed by Groupthink.
Miracle forces are unleashed when people are allowed to think independently.
President JF Kennedy used this to radically improve political decision-making.
This is badly needed now, to solve the climate crisis. At the same time, this could be next,
significant step in the evolution of democracy. That is why this topic is extremely exciting.
These two books describe the research on groupthink:
* Groupthink in Science, David Allen
* Victims of Groupthink, I Janis, Professor Yale University, Advisor to President Kennedy
Prof. Irving Janis says: Groupthink causes mental efficiency to ebb,
and moral judgment disappears.
When the United States felt trapped in the Iraq war, with no way out,
Senator Chuck Hagel asked President George Bush the following question
Do you ever reach outside your inner circle of associates?
In a time of war, it's so important to get the thoughts of people who have a different view.
Call them, sit down with them. Listen to them.
Solving the climate crisis requires absolute top performance from all parties.
Never in the history of mankind has this level of knowledge been required,
creativity and efficiency before - if we are to succeed.
Jani's research concluded:
1. demand that controversial issues and alternative solutions be avoided.
2. lack individual creativity and free thinking.
3. poorly functioning Groupthinkers create an illusion of being right and of being invulnerable.
4. an inflated belief in being right and always making the right decisions.
5. overestimating one's ability to make good decisions
6. and underestimates all outsiders.
7. groupthinkers may behave inhumanely towards outsiders.
8. Members of the Groupthinkers feel pressure to think alike so as not to rock the boat.
9. Groupthinkers prefer harmony in the group by avoiding new thoughts, innovations, arguments.
10. Groupthinkers are a group of YES-holders. Decisions are of low quality.
Anyone with a dissenting opinion is excluded from the elite.
In this way, the true solutions are systematically excluded.
One result of groupthink seems to be that the higher the title, the more
you have to lose. Therefore, professors, for example, may be more affected by groupthink
than high school physics teachers.
The press can easily test whether this hypothesis is true by asking this simple question to
10 high school physics teachers and 10 climate professors:
"Will the Earth's temperature stop when all emissions are stopped?"
The somewhat unscientific investigation I have done myself is to ask a single high school physics teacher:
The answer: This is so elementary that it doesn't even need to be discussed. The temperature
continues and the current NetZero policy is not having the intended effect.(=Zero Emissions 2045)
All in all, I have probably discussed this with 30 professors since 2008 and no one
have dared to go further than the IPCC message:
"Temperature stops, Zero Emissions 2050 works".
After that, they refuse to answer further questions. There is complete silence. This fits exactly into
research on how groupthink works. For me, it is a clear proof of
that far too many of the very highest expertise are trapped in an overpowering Groupthink.
A message to the Swedish people: we are probably not in good hands and future elections must
discuss this in depth, if our young people are to have a future.
This simple survey is incredibly important because it is a win or lose situation for Sweden.
The results may be that a long line of chairs in various contexts will belong to secondary school physics teachers
instead of professors. It is an exact parallel to the current debate about retirements in Sweden and
France because the experts misjudged the Ukraine invasion.
We are probably also misjudging the climate on a broad front. Here we urgently need to find new structures of thought.
In June 2022, the press is now writing that ambitions have dropped in climate policy (DN).
The climate conference in Stockholm a few days ago was sloppily prepared (SVT)
Nevertheless, Sweden has the ambition to take a leading role in climate policy. There is a
sincere desire to do a top-class job but vision and innovation seem to be lacking.
Super-entrepreneur Vinod Khosla says: The really big breakthroughs won't come
from the core of the system, academia, big business or government.
The breakthroughs come from the fringes of the system.
Företagande.se writes 10.09.2019:
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.
95% of the country's patents come from the "fringes of the system" and share 0.7 %
of government support.
Academia receives 99.3% of state support and performs only 5% of the country's patents....Government Innovation Council has no representatives for innovators.
The government's five appointed coordination groups for Sweden's strategic innovation areas (budgeted at SEK 845 million) have no representatives for innovators....If Sweden is to regain our high industrial competitiveness, support for the development of new products, methods and systems must find its way to those who deliver.
It is pointless to ask a climate professor what innovations are needed
to solve the climate crisis. I have done this and can report the results.
It is the innovators who can solve this but we are waiting impatiently for clear answers on
what the climate crisis really looks like. An incorrect climate sensitivity = 3 leads to today's
proven "non-functioning cheat solution" (NetZero or Zero Emissions 2045) Time to let go
an open, honest discussion in the press about the most important climate issue of all.
The hopeful message:
It is highly likely that the dream can be fulfilled through three shock-changed thought structures.
The other two thought structures are equally exciting and disruptive:
2. the Climate Sensitivity thought structure:
The IPCC has for 40 years claimed climate sensitivity=3, i.e. the Earth will rise +3C for every doubling
of carbon dioxide. All indications are that an overpowering groupthink based in the IPCC
locks the global thinking structure.
The value of climate sensitivity is the basis for almost all projections and calculations.
If the value turns out to be above 4, our whole climate policy falls apart and NetZero cannot work.
Prof. Johan Rockström writes (SVD) that "the entire emissions space disappears in one fell swoop and the heaviest climate models confirm: ex. Hadley model from MetOffice (5.4C), and
NCAR's CESM2 model (5.2C) It is a scientific earthquake approaching."
Yet the IPCC denies this in their latest reports and they stick to 3.
Now comes the shock announcement from NASA that the energy absorbed by the oceans has doubled
between 2005 and 2019, at 379 and 409 ppm respectively.
Here it is possible indeed to calculate the instantaneous climate sensitivity.
Every climate expert should take on this and present the results, because this calculation affects our entire climate policy.
There is simply no calculation more important.
I myself have calculated this with complete derivation and the result is exactly as frightening as NASA itself says. The climate is rushing in a way that is much more brutal than what is shown by
IPCC reports. The enormous capacity of the oceans to absorb energy fools us into thinking that
it might not be so bad.
However, the derivation and results need to come from the climate experts and the discussion needs to fill the press leading up to the election. This discussion will change the whole
climate policy, giving us a chance for the first time ever to really solve the crisis.
We can only create true solutions from true knowledge, based on precise mathematics.
3. The structure of thought: the second law of thermodynamics.
Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot and Rulof Clausius unveiled the second law of thermodynamics in 1824-1850.
In 1867, James Clerk Maxwell outlined a principle for providing free and unlimited energy and
this is completely contrary to the second law.
Could it be a manifestation of "groupthink" that almost all current
scientists are putting certainty before uncertainty .
Could it be that the whole world today opposes the
the very best method of producing energy?
Could it be that a growing awareness of the mechanisms behind
groupthink may result in that long lines of radical
innovations can emerge? It was President JF Kennedy who pointed
the dangers of groupthink and he was able to point to exceptional successes
following this new train of thought.
The principles of unlimited energy cover an enormous spectrum of different
kinds of technologies that violate the second law of thermodynamics, Here I mention only three:
1.Graphene filters will be able to sort out methane from the atmosphere losslessly and provide
about 200 countries the size of Sweden all fuel. At the same time, the greenhouse effect is reversed.
back to before the 1950s. These are all mathematical and physical facts.
2. Nanotechnology researchers are now proving that molecular motion can generate
small amounts of electricity, which contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.
Batteries are coming soon that never need recharging. Instead, they get ice cold when you draw
a lot of power.
The theoretical breakthroughs have already been made. Now all that remains is a huge
research work. These are physical facts.
3. The unknown properties of water may provide all the energy solutions we need.
For example, capillaries become a kind of pump driven by the environment
heat. It pumps water up the tallest trees imaginable - contradicting
the second law of thermodynamics. Prof. Gerald Pollack
University of Washington describes why these simple principles
have remained secret. (ref Fourth-Phase-of-Water)
Short summary from the book:
Critics and their scorn and their derision awaited at every turn.
What prudent scientist would venture into this?
Water became treacherous to study.
To drown oneself in water research is as dangerous as to drown oneself in corrosive acid.
A second reason why understanding has been so slow is that
water is ubiquitous. Water is everywhere. Water has a central place in
so many natural processes that few people can imagine that the basics could
remain open to question.
Surely someone must have figured out the answers a century or two ago. This notion keeps scientists away. Scientists' reluctance has only increased.
Research rewards those who focus on trendy areas and leave little room for
to question the basic science that is widely taught.
Especially when it comes to something so deeply rooted
and common as water, the incentive to question the basic principles
A third reason why basic principles are identified too slowly is the
rule that plagues all of science: intellectual shyness.
It feels more comfortable to rely on the knowledge one has already acquired than to
than dealing with revolutionary subversive ideas.
One would think that scientists would embrace dramatic advances in
fundamental science, but most feel more comfortable limiting
to minor departures from the status quo. Scientists can resist
revolution in the same way as any other defender of orthodoxy.
A fourth reason is sheer fear. Challenging the conventional wisdom
means stepping on the toes of scientists who have built their careers on this
wisdom. Unpleasant reactions are to be expected. For example, I have
stepped on a lot of sacred ground here. I expect to be duly rebuked,
especially from those scientists whose recognition, grants, patents..,
and other attributes of power depend on defending their scientific
A child can be forgiven for such flawed behavior,
but older scientists are rarely endowed with this degree of courtesy.
Therefore, career-oriented scientists have a
conservative attitude and keep their distance from anything that even smacks of revolutionary
challenge. This attitude contributes to the butter and bread on their scientific tables.
The key to making progress in all these areas must involve a new
willingness to acknowledge that the emperor has no clothes. Even the greatest
of scientific heroes can be wrong. These scientists were human: they
ate the same kind of food that we eat, had the same passions that we have,
and suffered from the same weaknesses that we are prone to have. Their ideas are
not necessarily infallible. It may seem disrespectful, but if we hope to
to arrive at the fundamental truth, we must have the courage to question every
and all fundamental assumptions.
Otherwise, we risk condemning ourselves to eternal ignorance.
Nature's secret rules
Where such explorations may lead, no one can say. Within
domains of uncertainty lies the charm of the scientific endeavour: through a
unfettered experimentation, logical thinking and the occasional good
stumbling across the unexpected, we can begin to illuminate the hidden realms of nature.
End of excerpt from the book: Prof Pollack Fourth-Phase-of-Water Superinteresting ! Buy it !
In summary, today's society tries in every way
thwart all the disruptive innovations that need to be up and running by 2025
The only way to save ourselves from future climate catastrophe.
Instead, climate experts deny the need and eagerly support the big lie of the IPCC
that global temperatures will stop when emissions are halted.
With this false information, they can justify the big, convenient cheating solution
ZeroEmissions 2050. By the time this gross error is discovered, it is too late to correct.
Super-entrepreneur Vinod Khosla says: We can invent the future we want, just not
the experts stop us.
The three Think-Structures have the following essential tasks
1.Thought-Structure Groupthink - Giving democracy superpower
2.Thought-Structure Climate Sensitivity - Gives us the right foundations on which to build innovations
3.Tank-Structure Thermodynamics' second principle. provides the huge amounts of energy needed to solve the climate crisis with quality in every detail. 200 Gt CO2 and 2 Gt Methane must be removed/year, starting by 2025. There is no other way. Earth must get down to 280 ppm CO2 within 20 years (by 2045).
All this is achievable by shock-like change of thought-structures. Now it's up to the press ,media and politics to also change their thought structure and roll out the absolutely most important climate issues before the swedish elections.
The choice is between NetZero 2045 and "NEW Thought Structures based on precise mathematics and science"
This may be what the country's politicians are offering our young people with Zero Emissions 2045 (=NetZero)
NetZero politics will panic shut down the whole society but will not
achieve a fraction of the intended CO2 reduction. Many countries will have to ignore NetZero altogether in order to
to avoid internal collapse. If NetZero with endless effort and coercion would succeed,
the reduction in temperature will hardly be measurable. The increase in global temperature is driven
by the CO2 already in the oceans and atmosphere. We are talking about 3000 Gt "too much".
The emissions per year are about 1% of what is already there. NetZero is all about emissions reduction.
Therefore, NetZero policy is the same as climate catastrophe and the critical limits +1.5
and +2C will be broken in about 5 and 10 years respectively. In much less time than 5 years, a radical
change in climate policy must come about. It is quite easy to calculate that 200 Gton CO2
and 5 Gt of methane must be removed from the atmosphere per year, starting at the latest in 2025.
Each of the climate experts should confirm/deny these figures with mathematical derivation
or resign with immediate effect. There is no time for doubt, there is no further room
for Groupthink and lies.
Instead of shutting down the whole society and causing a bottomless misery
brand new thought structures can provide a comfortable future, unimaginably gratifying new technologies that is
transforming life for everyone. At the same time, a qualitative transformation of the atmosphere over 20 years
so that we are back to the same atmosphere the Earth had in 1700. It can be done and there is NO alternative!
We can do this if we don't let Groupthink outweigh scientific and mathematical facts.
Groupthink is even to blame for the fact that many of our top climate experts are still trapped
on the Groupthink bandwagon. Are you prisoners or free ? Crucial control questions for climate experts:
1. Will temperatures stop when emissions are stopped ?
2. What is the current instantaneous climate sensitivity when the oceans in 2005-2019 doubled their energy uptake ?
We can invent the future we want if only we can stop being primitive slaves to Groupthink.
With Zero Emissions 2045 as the policy, the reduction of CO2 will be too slow.
A report by the Transport Administration in Sweden shows that fuel will have to cost 50 kr/litre soon.
Despite this, it will be too slow. Even a total emission freeze right now will not work.
Even that is too slow.
If instead we solve the technology of sucking methane out of the atmosphere, an additional
of only 1% atmospheric methane to fossil fuel would do a far better environmental job
than what Zero Emissions 2045 can achieve. In this scenario, a diesel price of 10 SEK/litre
would reach zero emissions in just a few years.
But this requires political climate leaders to get to grips with how a smart scenario works.
As long as all discussion are avoided, we are heading for a situation where we are torturing people to death
with fuel at 50:-/litre, more expensive food, tractors that can't harvest, etc. .....
This could lead to mass unemployment and economic collapse on top of galloping
Basically, it is GroupThink that is causing this bottomless misery, completely unnecessarily.
Even our climate professors are completely guided by IPCC Groupthink. No one dares to have
their own opinion on the important control issues.
Therefore, the experts cannot defend the IPCC's position that global temperatures
will stop when emissions are stopped. Or can they? Show it then !
Intellectual honesty demands that this discussion be concluded
Action must start NOW !
MVH Bengt Ovelius