OPEN LETTER To the Academicians of The Pontifical Academy of Sciences

OPEN LETTER To the Academicians of The Pontifical Academy of Sciences

I urge you to publicly and clearly state your opinion as to whether or not you are in full agreement with the scientific views on CO2 expressed in the ENC. – Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

OPEN LETTER To the Academicians of The Pontifical Academy of Sciences

By Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser
June 30, 2015


SUBJECT: Pope Francis’ Encyclical Letter Laudato Si, On care for our common home, (ENC)

Respected Academician,

There is a widespread view that the Academicians of The Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) will have had substantial input to the scientific aspects expressed in Papal Encyclical Letters like the ENC and that such encyclicals do reflect the deliberations, views and opinions expressed by the PAS as a whole and by the majority of its individual members. However, this common assumption may be incorrect and, therefore, I have some questions to you which I hope that each of you is willing and able to provide a simple YES or NO answer to.

No doubt you are aware of the significance of the ENC for the future, especially its influence on the development of poorer nations and their people.

My questions are not just out of my personal curiosity but to help the world at large to better understand the ENC and what it means for the people who are presently deprived of many of the energy-driven amenities of the developed countries.

My questions to you:

1. To my knowledge, it is widely considered to be a scientific fact that the trace gas carbon dioxide (CO2) is the basis for all life on earth. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, neither plants or animals, nor human life would exist on earth. DO YOU AGREE?

2. To my knowledge, it is widely considered to be a scientific fact that for most of its 4.5 billion year history, the earth’s atmosphere contained much higher levels of CO2 than today. DO YOU AGREE?

3. To my knowledge, it is widely considered to be a scientific fact that the process of photosynthesis transformed the then-abundant atmospheric CO2 to “organic matter” with commensurate reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere. DO YOU AGREE?

4. To my knowledge, it is widely considered to be a scientific fact that the entire oxygen (O2) in the earth’s atmosphere has been produced from CO2 by the natural photosynthesis process. DO YOU AGREE?

5. To my knowledge, it is widely considered to be a scientific fact that the oceans and most fresh water are alkaline, the opposite of acidic. The same photosynthetic process that converts the CO2 to organic matter also increases the alkaline property of neutral or acidic water. DO YOU AGREE?

6. To my knowledge, it is widely considered to be a scientific fact that some 20,000 years ago, the northern parts of the North American and Eurasian continents were covered with large ice shields, up to several km thick. These ice shields had melted completely by approx. 5,000 years ago, entirely without human influence. DO YOU AGREE?

7. To my knowledge, it is widely considered to be a scientific fact that the atmospheric CO2 levels barely changed during the 15,000-year period when the ice shields melted; it stayed around 250 parts per million for most of that time. DO YOU AGREE?

8. To my knowledge, it is widely considered to be a scientific fact that the earth’s plants and ocean algae consume any CO2 stemming from fossil resource use with the same vigor as that emitted from volcanoes and fumaroles. Therefore, is it then not incorrect to consider the life sustaining CO2 as “pollution?” DO YOU AGREE?

9. To my knowledge, it is widely considered to be a scientific fact that coal, undoubtedly a major source of anthropogenic CO2, provides a large percentage of the world’s electricity needs. Together, the countries of India and China consume more than one half of the world’s coal production and have already stated that they will not curtail their expansion of coal-sourced electricity generation. That includes the construction of about one new coal-fired power plant each week. Many countries in Africa and elsewhere will (and should) follow their lead and expand the use of fossil energy resources. DO YOU AGREE?

10. Even an overwhelming majority of identical views does not establish a scientific fact. How wrong the learned majority can be has been shown repeatedly in history, even by the Catholic Church. For example, the Italian astronomer Galileo was recently exonerated by the Vatican, about 400 years after having been found a heretic, solely for his scientific view of a heliocentric system. Similarly, when facing an onslaught of contrary views, the famous mathematician-physicist Einstein remarked “One [scientific fact] would have been enough” to disprove his then-novel theory. It is clear then that the term “consensus” has no meaning in the world of science. DO YOU AGREE?

Respected Academician,

11. If your answers to my questions above are in the affirmative, then one has to wonder whether these known scientific facts can be reconciled with statements to the contrary as found in the ENC. For example, the ENC calls CO2 “carbon dioxide pollution.” In fact, CO2 is not a “pollutant” but a vital trace gas in the atmosphere. Therefore, the atmosphere is not being “polluted” by the use (oxidation) of fossil fuels.

The ENC also asserts that “the use of … fossil fuels needs to be progressively replaced without delay.” Some people even claim that 80% of the currently known fossil fuel reserves in the world need to stay undeveloped and that within a few decades the world could generate its entire energy needs from renewable primarily wind and solar energy sources. This is to avoid a claimed runaway global warming trend, even though the more than 100 climate models have all miserably failed in the past. The models’ predictions of a catastrophic warming trend, based on higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere, have not materialized for close to 20 years and the polar ice masses have been growing rather than shrinking. This is no surprise as the atmospheric CO2 levels follow – not lead – any temperature increases with a considerable time lag.

Such contradictions also raise the question if the deliberations and opinions of the PAS and its members have indeed been heard and whether the ENC reflects them accurately. DO YOU AGREE?

12. Your nomination as Academician of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences recognizes you as a scientist of acknowledged moral personality and international renown.

In my humble opinion, your nomination to the PAS also implies a duty to your faith, The Holy See, the Academy, the world at large and, last not least, to your conscience as an independent researcher in your professional field. DO YOU AGREE?

In closing, I urge you to publicly and clearly state your opinion as to whether or not you are in full agreement with the scientific views on CO2 expressed in the ENC. However, if you do not agree with the ENC, please say so too; in fact, any dissenting voice should be heard even louder. Either way, please state your views out loud and clearly. The world’s hungry and energy-poor people depend on your wisdom!


Respectfully Yours,
Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

17 thoughts on “OPEN LETTER To the Academicians of The Pontifical Academy of Sciences”

    • “It’s presumptuous of you or anyone – to focus upon CO2 with dozens of Senior Scientists of every persuasion”

      NO it is NOT presumptuous: as Science is Never Settled. Otherwise, we would still believe that our Planet is Flat, carried on the back of a giant Turtle, while the Sun and Stars revolve around it. (although that might be perceived to be better, since the bad CO2 could fall off the planet’s sharp edges).

      For the most part, Church “Scientists” have suppressed facts throughout history to support their own agenda . I believe that with the potential of Trillions of Dollars swashing about the world in Carbon Taxes, the Pope just wants to get a piece of the action for his Church.

  1. Dear Dr. Kaiser, thanks for your interest in my opinion on this important issue. I decline to address your questions which are calculated to mislead. I welcome the opportunity to reaffirm that we have very little time to save the Earth. It is much worse than we thought. We must all sacrifice and atone. Look to the UN. (Sarc/off)

    • If there is any climate related sins to atone for they are trivial and do not warrant excessive political action if any. Especially when nearly all climate change is really a natural cyclical event.
      If the church is intent on burning some real bad guys at the stake I would recommend action against those critters who used HAARP to trigger the Fukushima quake and the scum bags who did the social engineering that turned the western world into a new Babylon and Sodom. That if done would be useful in the fight against evil.

  2. The emphasis here is all wrong. The pope is more interested in social science than physical science. Rectifying “carbon pollution” has been crafted as a vehicle to address “social justice” issues. Physical sciences are almost irrelevant except as a vehicle to push a political agenda.

  3. Good questions. I humbly suggest that Dr Kaiser might also have asked:

    We are in an Interglacial in the Pleistocene Ice Age. Interglacials are warm periods which occur every 100,000 years or so and last about 10,000 years, with the temperature rising at the beginning and dropping in stages back to the full ice age. Are you aware that we are probably somewhere near the end of the Holocene Interglacial and this 2.5million pattern is unlikely to be altered by a 0.01% increase in a trace gas. Yes or No.

  4. I’m sorry Klaus but if these guys are true Christians they reject any claim for an Earth as old as science postulates.

    I’ve had discussions with very smart, well educated but dedicated Christians about this issue and my suggestion that perhaps the creation reference to “days” could be interpreted differently to a day as we know it and thus allow for a much older Earth. Who really knows how long a “day” is to God after all?

    These well educated people – some with masters of science – reject this and some believe fossil records are a “test” of faith.

    I like and respect these people for their humanity and intelligence but cannot reconcile their unshakeable faith in a literal interpretation of an ancient text written when humanity was basically ignorant.

    So I believe the Pope’s intervention in this will have a major impact on this junk science and we will see an increase in determination to turn off the lights.

    So sad that religion, responsible for so much of humanity’s suffering, has now joined the “Save The Planet” nonsense.

    I want to see nature preserved and more wilderness and less urban sprawl – I just think concentrating on CO2 is BS !

    I am seeing a relentless campaign about Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef and the damage to it caused by us.

    I don’t believe a word of this – in the early 1970’s the emerging “plague” of increased numbers of the Crown of Thorns Starfish was identified as a major threat to coral on the Great Barrier Reef.

    45 years later it is still mentioned as a threat but of course nothing has been done to monitor it or no attempt to control it.

    Instead global warming and river discharges of silt are blamed.

    The reef survived thousands of years of silt discharges – perhaps farming has made it worse – but the reef is between 15 and 160 kilometres from the mainland – only a few reefs around offshore islands are closer and it is difficult to see how siltation this far from shore is a major problem.

    This is why I hate the CO2 alarmism – it distracts from REAL environmental problems.

    It is highly likely most of the death of coral on the Great Barrier Reef is due to an out of control plague of coral’s only real predator – the Crown of Thorns Starfish.

    Yet the world points the finger at global warming ( <0.8 degree C ?) even though coral only lives in tropical waters, ocean acidification even though the oceans are most decidedly NOT acidic and never will be, and deposition of silt and fertilizer even though once the river waters hit the ocean the dilution effect is huge and most of the coral is miles offshore ?

    We knew about the problem but have done nothing for 45 years and now that coral death is becoming noticeable we ignore reality and blame CO2 ?

    How stupid is humanity ?

    • @ Rosco (3:13 PM):
      Thanks for your comment, I quite agree.

      @ Mariwarcwm (2:46 PM):
      You are right as well.

      @ Sean (12:55 PM):
      It certainly looks that way.

      @ Robert Bissett (10:07 AM):
      What, exactly, do you mean here with “UN”?

      @ geran (9:32 AM):
      Thank you, time will tell.

      @ WATCHDOG (8:35 AM):
      i think you are missing the point, namely that the fear of CO2 is similar to the fear of Galileo’s heliocentric system, or (not mentioned) the fear of everyone being able to read the bible for him/herself (in my life time!), or making peaceful use of nuclear power, or …. (I could go on).

  5. Disagreeing with the Pope is akin to disagreeing with Obama. It simply won’t be tolerated.

  6. The political system refuses to show/sumit what evidence they have on paper to support their global warming theory, and how taxing the crap out of everyone is going to magically change or effect the weather.
    Somehow I get the drift this is all coming down to over population and controling that along with lining the pockets of the wealthey.
    Perhaps they could propose a world wide baby tax to keep everyone from having any for the next 30 years.

  7. @Rosco.. There are very few Young Earth Christian-Creationists on planet Earth who challenge the commonly accepted science opinion regarding the age of this Universe and the age of Life on Earth….

    Neither the Catholic Church nor the Non-Sectarican Senior Scientist Academians – Atheists, Agnostics or otherwise – to whom the Letter from Dr. Kaiser was addressed – are proponents of what you had mistakenly postulated.

    Basically, the encyclical could be better seen as, “GREEN”..

    The question of CO2? I happen to agree.. However, with regard to the question of an Ice Age occurrance as happening now? I’ve decided to take a wait and see approach.

    If in fact the Climate of the Northern Hemisphere gets noticeably colder during this forthcoming Winter and then some following Winters as well, a lot of folks shall have egg on their faces – eh?

  8. We reclassified Pluto to be a “planetoid” for the sake of being correct, despite consensus and popularity. We should quit calling CO2 a “pollutant” for the same reason.

  9. Just as Robert continues to re-iterate the facts of volcanic ocean warming, I keep re-iterating the fact that it isn’t facts that determine global warming; it’s the AGENDA of the powers-that- be that determine the “facts”. Fiddlin

  10. They will soon be redefining the term “science” and rewrite the scientific method to include supposition, guesswork, and public opinion into the process.
    Scientists best fight back en masse.

  11. Although CO2 is not a pollutant gas as such, it is still a deadly gas by itself for human life and maybe CO2 disciples only call it a pollutant when a human produced overdose of CO2 exists in their opinion. Just trying to imagine or follow their way of thinking, that’s all.

Comments are closed.