A Challenge to the Royal Society, PIK, IPCC, and Others

Written by PSI Staff


The Royal Society [of Britain], hereinafter “RS”, a venerable institution with more than 300 years on its back, has been served with a scientific challenge from independent scientists. The dispute is about the society’s continued refusal to even acknowledge, much less discuss, evidence to the contrary of their stance on carbon dioxide as THE “climate change” villain and the amounts and rates involved in the carbon cycle in various compartments of the Earth’s ecosphere.Royal Society Entrance

Carbon dioxide (CO2), by some people referred to as “carbon pollution,” has been vilified by politicians and scientists alike as a “greenhouse gas” that, supposedly, heats the earth to a “tipping point” of calamitous proportions for the entire world. That view has been propagated by people like Al Gore and Michael Mann, and by organisations like the RS and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, hereinafter “PIK.” The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, hereinafter “IPCC” has been a major proponent of Dr. Mann’s “hockey stick” graph in the past; it no longer is, as their latest report omits it. No wonder, the graph has become a “sticky point” for the believers in the CO2-theory when its scientific foundations were found to be, shall we say, shaky as Mann’s lawsuits against his critics unravels.

To this day though, RS, PIK and IPCC officials as well as renowned politicians use terms like “carbon pollution,” ”global warming,“ “climate change” and “ocean acidification” as reason to propose and enact all kinds international agreements, new laws, taxing mechanisms, “pollution control mechanisms,” “environmental principles of conduct” and so on. All such new rules depend on the veracity of the scientific claims behind them. That’s where the rubber hits the road.

Principia Scientific International (PSI) has great pleasure in joining in the challenge by way of publishing Dr Kaiser’s analysis in our unique PROM system for reader feedback (PROM: peer review in open media). From the response (or lack thereof) to Dr. Kaiser’s challenge to the RS, PIK and the scientific community at large, as provided in his paper,  “The Carbon Cycle and Royal Society Math” (http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-KAISER-Carbon_Cycle_and_RS_Math.pdf), take your clue.


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments (5)

  • Avatar



    Comments on Dr Kaiser’s challenge:

    You did not take into account solubility of CO2 in water. If you look-up solubility at 0C and say 20C and then multiply the difference by the hydromass on this planet you will see that we are nowhere remotely close to saturating that major sink for CO2. In addition, the basic chemistry is telling us that since the oceans are still at pH of around 8 and since the pH of carbonic acid is around 5, that the oceans will need much more CO2 to become acidic. Any prediction of ‘how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere’ is just some silly numbers games that uses CO2 concentrations detected at 4000 m high measured near volcano as a ‘global concentration’ which is nonsensical. The CO2 concentration at the interface between the biomass (30% of our surface) and air is drive by photosynthesis and we know that the optimum levels of CO2 are around 2500 – 3000 ppm, while the concentrations of CO2 above the oceans is driven by temperature alone. Whenever is someone quoting CO2 levels observed at Mauna Loa, which is in the middle of the Pacific, is quoting solubility of CO2 in water and volcanic ‘leaking’ of CO2. However, nobody is quoting the ground level of CO2 above the biomass, except ‘must read’ papers by Beck at http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/realCO2-1.htm
    Hope this helps,
    Dr Darko Butina

  • Avatar

    Oliver K. Manuel


    Thanks, John, for challenging the Royal Society.

    Unfortunately, we do not know the motives of those behind current world tensions, but we now know that FEAR of nuclear annihilation in 1945 convinced world leaders to:

    1. Form a one-world government
    2. Hide energy in cores of
    _ A. Heavy atoms like uranium
    _ B. Some planets like Jupiter
    _ C. Ordinary stars like the Sun
    _ D. Galaxies like the. Milky Way


    No member of the UN’s IPCC, the US NAS or the UK RS has accepted an open invitation to challenge in public nine pages of precise experimental data (pp 19-27) that falsify the foundation of post-1945 consensus models of stars and nuclei.

    With deep regrets,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  • Avatar



    The history of the English Scientific Method and the origins of the “Royal Society for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge by Experiment” are briefly discussed in articles at the FSS site. The more detailed history is in “The Curious Life of Robert Hooke” by Lisa Jardine. It did not take long for the ROYAL Society to drop the time consuming “knowledge by experiment” requirement.

    See “Nullius in Verba” and “Overcoming Climate Inertia” at the FauxScienceSlayer website.

Comments are closed