Essay by Eric Worrall
But “… The recognition of the value of science for society can no longer be taken for granted …”
Corinne Le Quéré: What does Mark Carney’s Davos “rupture” mean for tackling climate change?
10 March 2026 Professor Corinne Le Quéré CBE FRS, Royal Society Research Professor of Climate Change Science and Professor at the University of East Anglia.
Special address during the Royal Society’s Women and the future of science conference.
…I want to talk about the future. Mark Carney – Canadian Prime Minister, former Bank of England Governor – made a special address in Davos earlier this year.
In it, he laid out the brutal reality of a rupture that is ongoing in the world order, with the breakdown of cooperation and multilateral consensus among countries that have underpinned international relations for decades.
…
The recognition of the value of science for society can no longer be taken for granted – so today seems a good day to remind ourselves what has science ever done for us.
The steam engine, electricity, semiconductors, computers, gene editing, vaccines.
Science is behind all great discoveries.
…
There is enough momentum in this transition to make a major dent in global emissions.
But – we must now also face the reality that global warming will continue for some time and will reach levels that could have been avoided with increased cooperation.
…
I think it is time that we look the rupture in the eye. That we call out deliberate efforts to undermine science and scientists, as they serve no one. And that we work with science to develop and implement the many solutions that work for us, and for others around our one planet.
Read more: https://royalsociety.org/news/2026/03/corinne-le-quere-women-in-stem-special-address/
The motto of the Royal Society is Nullius in verba. Take nobody’s word for it. Provide evidence to back your claims. A motto they appear to have forgotten.
There is an important difference between the invention of Steam Power, Electricity and Vaccines vs the invention of climate alarmism.
The invention of Steam Power, Electricity and Vaccines made people’s lives better.
Climate Science, at least the kind of climate alarmism which was promoted by Climategate scientists at the University of East Anglia, in my opinion makes people’s lives worse.
Steam, electricity and vaccines earned people’s respect by helping people live healthier, happier, more prosperous and fulfilling lives.
The policy response to climate alarmism blights people’s lives and prosperity with higher electricity and fuel prices, more poverty and, in some sad cases, premature death from hypothermia, by forcing old people with limited resources to choose between heating and eating.
These harmful policy responses are driven by the wild predictions of unphysical computer models which cannot get fundamental features of the climate right, such as the behaviour of water vapour – a pretty important omission given water vapour has the ability to exert prolonged warming and cooling forcings which are far greater in magnitude than CO2.
If climate alarmists want to earn the respect given to the giants of science who gave us the modern world, do something good for society. Climate scientists could act to undo some of the harm their wild predictions have caused by admitting climate science is too immature to be used as an instrument of policy. Or they could at least get a few predictions right.
Being lectured about science from a fanatic: ironic. The cabal of fanatics at East Anglia destroyed their credibility long ago, especially in the Climategate emails. And they keep heaping feces on their faces. They have no idea what science is because they have become cultists, sworn to follow the precepts of their climate religion. Here’s someone who knows what science is and what isn’t science:
https://youtu.be/EYPapE-3FRw
What Corinne Le Quéré and her colleagues preach isn’t science.
But she IS correct. For periodic milling of grains and lifting water it was a Godsend. In the 12th century. Now we want more trustworthy and continuous sources of power. The energy density for powering a computer-using society just isn’t there for wind.
No she’s not. She said “climate science” ranks with things like steam power, electricity and vaccines. Not windmills.
“Climate science” as she means it has been an unmitigated disaster for humans, as it aims to destroy modern civilization to “save” the Earth, which doesn’t need “saving.”
If they want respect, they would simply call it climate science research and leave out the loaded “…change and policy…” part. Those remove all pretense of it being science.
Story Tip:
The psychological distance between us and climate disaster
Most people think climate change will primarily affect other people, a new analysis of previously published research reveals.
The findings illustrate a well-known cognitive bias known as “overoptimism,” specifically a variety called “overplacement,” which describes how people tend to rate their own risks as less likely and less severe than those of others.
Sorry, messenger, for the friendly fire. You brought bad opinions so many are associating you with it. I note no preference for or against the story in what you say.
These people are hilarious. Thanks Gregory I’ll write it up.
Story tip–
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/china-covered-a-massive-desert-with-solar-panels-for-clean-energy-but-the-land-began-to-evolve/ar-AA1XUQ9C?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=69b19119837040c78d6d7e893fc5519a&ei=77
They try to insist that solar panels can “restore” deserts. If any other human activity changed the desert, they would call it “disruption”.
This is one of the positive aspects of using deserts for the installation of solar panels. Scientisits should always consider both the positive and negative effects of the processes they are investigating.
We know that ‘climate alarmism activists’ tend to suppress any positive aspects of increasing CO2 levels, but it’s also the case that many AGW sceptics tend to ignore any positive aspects of solar power and advancing battery technology.
Here’s a relevant quote from the referred article researching the effects of the solar farm on the Talatan Desert in China.
“Plant growth was one of the most visible changes observed inside the solar installation. The cooler, more stable soil conditions beneath the panels allowed hardy grasses and desert plants to establish themselves more easily than in the surrounding open desert.
Researchers also observed that the physical structure of the solar arrays influenced wind patterns near the ground. Rows of solar panels act as partial wind barriers, reducing airflow across the surface of the desert floor. Slower wind speeds help prevent sand from being carried away and give young plants a better chance to survive long enough to establish root systems.
Some projects are now exploring ways to combine energy production with land management strategies such as agrivoltaics, where solar infrastructure and vegetation systems operate together. These approaches aim to stabilize soils, support plant growth, and maintain ecological balance while producing renewable electricity.”
Did you read and comprehend the recent solar panel data about operations at higher temperatures, WUWT article #573? Also solar panels in desert conditions are very quickly covered in dust. And since it’s a desert region, usually there is a shortage of water to clean the panels. Added to this is the fact that globally, desert regions are usually far from cities where the power is required, so long very expensive transmission lines are required.
Then you have the low solar CF to contend with, plus short panel lifetimes.
Any other bright ideas?
“Any other bright ideas?”
Yes. Here are a few, from my internet search.
“The most effective modern methods for cleaning solar panels in deserts focus on waterless technologies to address scarcity, and automation to manage large-scale installations. As of early 2026, the industry has shifted toward non-contact and self-cleaning solutions to prevent surface damage from abrasive sand.
1. Robotic Waterless Cleaning
Robotic systems are currently the gold standard for large desert solar farms, providing consistent maintenance without the need for manual labour or water.
Dry-Brush Robots: Companies like Ecoppia use autonomous, solar-powered robots that travel along rows nightly. They use soft microfibres and airflow to sweep away dust before it can “cement” to the surface.
Multi-Mode Robots: Newer portable units like the SolarCleano B1A (launched March 2026) are designed for remote, harsh environments and can switch between dry and wet cleaning depending on the soiling type.
Crawler Robots: Remote-controlled robots with caterpillar tracks, such as the Solar Photovoltaic Cleaning Robot, offer high maneuverability on uneven desert terrain and can handle tilts up to 15°.
2. Electrodynamic Screens (EDS)
This emerging non-contact method is highly effective in dry, low-humidity desert regions.
How it works: A transparent conductive layer is applied to the panel. When activated by a small electrical charge, it creates an electrostatic field that repels dust particles, causing them to literally “jump” off the surface.
Benefits: It eliminates the risk of micro-scratches caused by physical scrubbing and requires no moving parts if permanently integrated into the panel film.
3. Advanced Self-Cleaning Coatings
Nano-coatings are used as a “passive” first line of defence to reduce how much dust sticks to the glass.
Hydrophobic Nanotechnology: Researchers recently (March 2026) developed a PFAS-free dual-layer coating that uses silica nanoparticles to create a microscopic roughness. This traps air and causes water (from morning dew or rare rain) to bead up and carry dirt away.
Anti-Static Coatings: These coatings specifically target the electrostatic attraction between desert sand and the panel glass, making it easier for wind or light vibration to clear the surface.
4. Vibration and Air-Jet Systems
Mechanical Vibration: Some systems attach DC motors to the back of panels to induce controlled vibrations. This shakes loose accumulated dust, which then slides off due to gravity.
Air-Jet Blowers: High-powered blowers or “ejector blowers” are often integrated into robotic arms or fixed installations to dislodge particles using concentrated air streams instead of water.”
Great. So we can waste more resources to prop up stupid ideas like intermittent energy produced far from where needed and mostly during the periods when demand is lowest.
Tell the solar power companies to go ahead and build all that crap WITHOUT any government mandates that their worse-than-useless “output” be accepted by electric utilities and WITHOUT any subsidies or “transferable” tax credits.
It’s like forcing people to buy two cars, one powered by solar panels that works only in bright sunshine, one gas powered car, and forcing them to use the solar powered car whenever it’s actually working, and also requiring you to pay for a robot to drive the gas powered car to you should the weather render the solar powered cat immobile. And then trying to tell people how much money they’ll save on gas while saddling them with the completely unnecessary costs of a second vehicle to maintain, repair and insure…
Plus a robot.
What happened to SAVE THE DESERTS?
I understand that. It is the dishonest spin that I take exception to, like when they justified displacing desert tortoises.
One can also wonder about the soil conditions once the panels have begun to deteriorate, leaching lead, selenium, and other components.
Yeahmy next comment was that all the soil condition improvements could just as easily be gotten by shading the ground with some corrugated roofing at a fraction, of the price.
And as a bonus, the electric grid could be more reliable and less expensive running on what works 24/7.
“invention of Steam Power”
I doubt any scientists were involved with that invention and many other inventions early in the industrial age. There were not even many scientists in those early days. These early inventions were made by industrious people who were trying to raise productivity. Often with little education. Entrepreneurs not scientists.
Excellent point. Entrepreneurs and engineers; the people who take risks and build things. The climate fanatics and their Malthusian ilk destroy things.
The worst are undoubtedly the Malthusian engineers. They revolutionize nothing in technology, invent no new processes or innovative techniques, yet their operational rigidity blends frightfully with the nihilism and misanthropy that characterize the spiritual heirs of Malthus.
The mask falls when they say (I have heard it from their own mouths) that the discovery of a 100% clean and extremely abundant energy source would be a disaster. Why? Because, according to these people, humanity is fundamentally bad, harmful, and childish. They assume that with clean and virtually unlimited energy resources, the human race would destroy the Earth. They do not want to “save the planet,” nor even to “save humanity”: they are the ones tightening Prometheus’s chains on the rock and summoning the eagle that will devour the poor Titan’s liver each day.
If we could convert the bottled-up anger and bitterness of the Malthusians into energy, we would reach the heights of technological development without any problem.
Actually, ALL professions suffer from this problem… and the problem is emotionally fragile and attention seeking dullards. They aren’t interested in REAL Science no more than Politicians are interested in serving their constituents. They take contrary positions to boost their fragile egos thinking they’re the smartest people in the room. Michael Mann is the best example… he hides behind his academic credentials and makes shit up but refuses to show his data… and when questioned he files lawsuits to keep the grift going. So many “engineers” went into the profession because they were told they were good at Math… Mt father always said, to remember that half the doctors out there graduated from the bottom of their class, well it’s worse with Engineers. If you don’t have the passion or skills for making the world better, you can only get attention by being contrary and design energy and money losing technologies like Solar and Wind and think you’re really clever. Yes, someday we may see a breakthrough in Physics that allows these contraptions to be beneficial, but anyone with the basic Engineering and Physics knowledge, knows better to waste their time… so where do the globalist who push this non-sense get their Engineers… from the bottom of the class or those who just want constant affirmation that they’re the smartest ones in the room.
That seems entirely accurate to me. What your father said is also true. Nowadays, many specialists (cardiologists, dermatologists) mainly want to make money. That is all that matters to them. An appointment with a specialist can take several months in France. You have time to die twenty times before you see the doctor. It’s lamentable.
In general, the brightest minds are not necessarily the ones most eager for recognition. There are extremely talented people who are also full of themselves, but that is not the rule. When you need to be told that you are brilliant, it usually means you are the first to doubt your own abilities. That kind of attitude inspires a certain pity in me.
Your description also matches flame warriors (aka trolls).
Hah!
The Rankine cycle is the fundamental, closed-loop thermodynamic cycle used in steam power plants to convert heat into mechanical work, typically for electricity generation.
According to Google’s AI bot:
“William John Macquorn Rankine (1820–1872) was a foundational Scottish engineer and physicist, key in establishing thermodynamics alongside Clausius and Kelvin. He developed the Rankine cycle for heat engines and the Rankine temperature scale. He was a professor at the University of Glasgow and wrote seminal engineering manuals.”
Also this from the same source:
“The earliest known Greek steam turbine is the aeolipile (or aeolipyle), invented by Hero of Alexandria in the 1st century AD. It was a hollow, water-filled sphere mounted on a boiler with two bent nozzles that caused it to spin via steam pressure.
And this from Wikipedia:
“Hero of Alexandria (also known as Heron of Alexandria) was a Greek mathematician and engineer who was active in Alexandria in Egypt during the Roman era. He has been described as the greatest experimentalist of antiquity and a representative of the Hellenistic scientific tradition.”
BTW, a simple definition for a “scientist” is a student or expert in one or more of the natural or physical sciences. One can be—in fact, almost always is—a scientist while also being an engineer/inventor.
Hah! There was no such thing as physics in the USA in 1820 to 1872.
Such studies were called Natural Phiilosophy and covered all of science.
Trust AI to get it right. /s
Yes, Rankine was involved with the Rankine cycle. He was an engineer.
Really? Physics, as properly defined (e.g., https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physics ), exists whether or not humans receive medals (let alone simple acknowledgement) for understanding and learning about such . . . physics is not anthropogenic.
Moreover, acknowledging the fact that the Nobel Prize in Physics was not established until 1901, several prestigious “international” honors were nonetheless earned by U.S. scientists for groundbreaking work in physics and related fields during the period of 1820–1872. Among such were
Rumford Prize (American Academy of Arts and Sciences)
This was the primary high-level recognition for physical sciences in the U.S. in the period of 1820–1872. Notable US scientists awarded this prize in that timeframe included:
— Robert Hare (1839): for his invention of the oxy-hydrogen blowpipe.
— John Ericsson (1862): for improvements in the management of heat, specifically his caloric engine.
— Daniel Treadwell (1865): for heat management in the construction of large-caliber cannon.
— Alvan Clark (1866): for improvements in the manufacture of refracting telescopes.
— George Henry Corliss (1870): for revolutionary improvements to the steam engine.
Copley Medal (Royal Society of London)
Considered the world’s oldest and most prestigious scientific prize, it was awarded to a few U.S. scientists for achievements touching on physics:
— James Dwight Dana (1872): awarded for his biological, geological, and physical investigations.
Facts matter.
It’s a pity that your belief that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter is one of them.
By the way, Thomas Newcomen (inventor of the steam engine, broadly speaking), was a preacher and ironmonger. A scientist might then try to find out why Newcomen’s engine worked.
Thomas Newcomen did not invent the steam engine, but in 1712, he did invent the very inefficient ‘atmospheric engine’, used for pumping water (developed from Thomas Savery’s 1698 steam pump ).
Frenchman, Denis Papin (inventor of the pressure cooker) produced the first piston steam pump in 1690.
1768, James Watt made his first engine (low-pressure + condenser).
1797, Richard Trevithick, developed the first high-pressure steam engine and the first working railway steam locomotive in 1804.
Swing and a miss.
You skipped the relevant line in my post.l
Thomas Newcomb, who was an iron monger by his admission, invented the first useful steam engine in 1712. Heron’s engine was not useful – just a toy.
“Heron’s engine was not useful – just a toy.”
Well, had anyone cared to really contemplate that “toy” in the timeframe of 100–200 AD, they might have concluded that for every action (that is, stream jetting from the sphere’s tangentially-oriented nozzles) there is an opposite reaction (that is, something causing the sphere to rotate about its axis).
This would have been . . . yeah . . . some 1500–1600 years before Issac Newton published his famous Third Law of Motion in 1687.
ROTFL.
BTW: Thomas Savery patented a “steam pump” in 1698—some 14 years before Newcomb’s more commercially successful “invention” of his steam engine in 1712— but it was less efficient and prone to failure compared to Newcomen’s design. However, James Watt later improved upon Newcomen’s design in the 1760s and 1770s, making it much more efficient and practical for powering factories.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
“Sic transit gloria mundi.”
And on a Monday (:-))
Heron’s engine remained a toy and it’s practical usefullness was never noticed.
I think it’s a weak dichotomy . Certainly a general level of scientific understanding was needed , and there was a mutual evolution of the actual mechanics and the abstraction into ` science .
It’s interesting that the evolution of the steam engine took 2 stages , the first being the Newcomen using the condensation of steam to create suction . Then in 1776 Watt’s engine .
Investigation, conceptualization, prototyping, experimentation, documentation.
Wilbur and Orville Wright are a terrific example, along with their engine developer/mechanic Charles Taylor. They methodically “did their own research” and showed the results.
The audacity of this professor to claim authority for “climate” “science” by referring to this list of inventions is stunning.
Don’t get me wrong – scientific work is greatly appreciated. We need and obtain great benefit from theoretical foundations, computations, observations, discoveries.
But this blatant theft of credibility by attachment to past accomplishments is just wrong.
/rant
Quick! You need to follow /rant with /rant off!
You don’t need to thank me.
Apologies if your operating system has different commands for “rant”.<g>
As I often repeat (I think originally from Ralph Parsons):
Scientists discover what is; engineers create what has never been.
I like that.
Scientists discover what is; engineers create what has never been.
Attributed to both Theodore von Karman & Albert Einstein
I also like …
“Scientists dream about doing great things. Engineers do them.”
James A. Michener
As an engineer, I may be biased. (:-))
“Two things are outstanding in the creation of the English system of canals, and they characterise all the Industrial Revolution. One is that the men who made the revolution were practical men. …they often had little education, and in fact school education as it then was could only dull an inventive mind. The grammar schools legally could only teach the classical subjects for which they had been founded. The universities also (there were only two, at Oxford and Cambridge) took little interest in modern or scientific studies; and they were closed to those who did not conform to the Church of England.
The other outstanding feature is that the new inventions were for everyday use…”
Jacob Bronowski
“Take away the energy-distributing networks and the industrial machinery from America, Russia, and all the world’s industrialized countries, and within six months more than two billion swiftly and painfully deteriorating people will starve to death. Take away all the world’s politicians, all the ideologies and their professional protagonists from those same countries, and send them off on a rocket trip around the sun and leave all the countries their present energy networks, industrial machinery, routine production and distribution personnel, and no more humans will starve nor be afflicted in health than at present.
Fortunately, the do-more-with-less invention initiative does not derive from political debate, bureaucratic licensing, or private economic patronage. The license comes only from the blue sky of the inventor’s intellect. No one licensed the inventors of the airplane, telephone, electric light, and radio to go to work. It took only the personally dedicated initiative of five men to invent those world transforming and world shrinking developments. Herein lies the unexpectedly swift effectiveness of the design-science revolution. Despite this historical demonstrable fact, world society as yet persists in looking exclusively to its politicians and their ideologues for world problem solving.”
Buckminster Fuller
I don’t know if the FRS has officially dropped its old motto but it certainly doesn’t like to draw attention to it. For almost twenty years they have preferred to urge us to “respect the facts”.
Barely a fraction of a second of reflection should be enough to realize how f***ed they are if they think that’s a good way to express the ideal.
“Nullius in verba is the motto of the Royal Society, translating to “take nobody’s word for it” or “on the word of no one”. Adopted in 1660, it represents a commitment to verifying scientific claims through experiments rather than accepting authority or tradition.”
If we follow that revised motto, then we should not “respect” the consensus, right?
I seem to remember the previous French Canadian Prime Minister of Canada ordering the destruction of decades worth of public funded climatic records.
No credibility either.
R.I.P. Dr. Ball
Found heading the above article:
“Climate Science is like the Invention of Steam Power, Electricity and Vaccines”
Really? I just observe that:
1) “Electricity” was not an invention, it was a discovery.
2) Steam power, electricity and vaccines are actually used to benefit mankind every day . . . climate “science” not so much, especially as practiced by the IPCC, AGW/CAGW alarmists, the University of East Anglia, Michael Mann and Al Gore.
Finally, how does one become a professor (as in PhD?) of Climate Change, when in reality there is no generally-recognized definition of what “climate change” really means?
It is like all of the degrees that end in “Studies”. They are political “science” dressed up as real academics.
If you want a Masters degree in Climate Change at East Anglia then all you need is a 2.2 degree pass. That’s any degree as there is not a 2.3 or a 3 unless you include Fail.
You don’t build a reputation or get good science from a crew of 2.2’s.
Are you sure it isn’t 1.5 C?
Can Louis Pasteur reasonably be compared to James Hansen? I have some doubts.
And this line: “Science is behind all great discoveries.”
“Science” itself is the origin of nothing. It is a methodology whose honest application has sometimes produced great discoveries. It can be very easily instrumentalized, or used for purposes that are sincere but completely mistaken—and ultimately absolutely disastrous.
Eugenics was once considered an established science. Phrenology had its moment of glory. And Paul Broca was convinced that Black people were inferior to Whites, just as he believed that women were necessarily less intelligent than men, because their brains were generally smaller. He is also credited with the discovery of an area of the brain that therefore bears his name, quite rightly. After the death of a man suffering from a very particular type of aphasia, Broca dissected his brain and discovered a specific lesion that it was reasonable to think was the source of the speech impairment in question.
That is good science: hypothesis, examination, deduction, conclusion.
I was reading Steven Koonin’s book Unsettled, translated into French under the title Climat, la part d’incertitude. The whole text is very interesting and instructive. The section on models is my favorite, I think. Alarmists claim that the models are reliable because they are based on the laws of physics. Well, thank goodness, I would say! But there are plenty of ways to go wrong starting from correct premises. And there are even more ways to go wrong when you mix correct premises with poorly constrained parameters that can be adjusted at will, inside computers whose processing power is trivial compared with the complexity of the climate system. Add to that all the uncertainties we are not even aware of (thanks to Judith Curry), and then forget the whole thing.
Simon “THE Science” says: “Shut up and take our word for it.”
The first challenge to models is always the assumptions, stated, unintentional, and hidden/deliberate. It’s not the software/equations/algorithms that make a model. It is, as you said, the premises, the assumptions.
Indeed, I have confused the laws that frame the possibilities of a model, and the assumptions that underlie the outputs of the said model. My (awkwardly worded) point was this: to say that climate models are based on the laws of physics to silence any opposition (in fact, any questioning deemed too irrelevant), is not a valid argument, anyway.
Starting from the principle that anthropogenic CO2 is the only one responsible for global warming since 1850 is already a huge bias, but to say, in short, “shut up, it’s physical”, borders squarely, in my opinion, on conscious dishonesty.
What I mean is that, even if we imagined a climate model that wasn’t as biased and flawed as the current one, the fact that the models were based on the laws of physics would mean nothing more about their results than, “Well, those big electronic things weren’t set up by a Startreck fan on acid.”
Scientists with the best will in the world can make incredible mistakes in their research (modelling or not), when they have in no way defied the known laws of physics.
So, if you put bias in this, obtuse corportatism and a good dose of intellectual terrorism, the situation becomes insoluble. But it is very interesting for future work in sociology and the history of science, in a few decades.
I tend to see it as a must. Benoît Rittaud (president of the Association of Climate Realists, in France), explains this very well in his book “Climate Myths.” All emerging sciences have their own twin pseudo-science. There is no reason why it should be different today. After all, we have nothing special compared to our ancestors. Which the majority of alarmists seem to me to have great difficulty accepting.
The first thing I do with a new Geologic model is run it to absurd levels to see if its results can be reasonable. So if a model with 100 billion cubic meters of sub-surface materials has 200 billion tonnes of coal I know it’s coded badly enough I don’t need to stringently test it (because I already know it’s garbage).
Run a climate model out for at least 100,000 years. If the seas boil or all land becomes inundated then throw the model away as useless because it’s breaking too many physical laws.
Yup. First run an “idiot check” as you would. Then look for silliness like boiling seas.
My assumption is that if 131 climate models produce 131 different results, then at least 131 of them must be wrong, and I still don’t know opinion even one of them is correct.
Climate models are worthless nonsense, unless confirmed by reproducible experiment. The product of mentally afflicted fantasists divorced from reality.
If one is to apply full engineering discipline, one first does partial differentiation to establish the sensitivities of all elements.
The only sensitivity studies in the climate models is called ECS, which is a bogus definition.
Yes and THE BIGGEST assumption of the climate models is garbage, that being that CO2 is the “climate control knob,” an unsubstantiated assumption which is (a) purely hypothetical and (b) refuted by plenty of real world climate history (glaciation with 10x today’s levels, frequent episodes of reverse correlation, interplay with temperatures which runs counter to what would occur if CO2 was the “driver”).
As the saying goes, “Garbage In, Garbage Out.”
I like this phrase.
“inside computers whose processing power is trivial compared with the complexity of the climate system”
Basically what we have suffered for the better part of half a century is equivalent to a 10,000 piece puzzle with someone picking up a corner piece and claiming the puzzle is solved.
Yeah, vaccines, as in both the CDC and the FDA lied about the COVID vaccine. The US military usurped its on guidelines on vaccines to FORCE military personnel to take the vaccine or to leave the military; same with some airlines on pilots The COVID vaccine abuses were lies to hide the shameful coercion of the harmful vaccine. <– This whole process is exactly the modus operandi of the so called Climate Sciences. Ever notice how their supporters riot, throw paint on artwork, fire and/or denigrate opposing viewpoints, especially in academia. It’s stuff of Pink-O Commies.
There is a fine person I associate with in an online game.
Her immune system has completely shut down and she is suffering serious medical trauma.
The diagnosis is the cause was the Covid-19 vaccine.
“… cooperation and multilateral consensus among countries that have underpinned international relations for decades. ”
It seems Mark Carney and/or Corinne Le Quéré claim a consensus – Sacrebleu! – that eludes me.
For a year or two after WWII there was a partial consensus among the allies that recovery of European countries was worthwhile. In late June of 1948 this ceased with the blockade of Berlin and the beginning of the Cold War. Then the Europeans began a drift toward a society of public welfare and social stability. (Not my thing, so I don’t claim to know the proper expressions.) Meanwhile, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, and China do not a consensus make with the “western” nations.
To claim “a consensus – – for decades” is just wrong.
Whole quoted sentence only makes sense if one guesses what the writer was trying to say..
“Invention of … Electricity”
I love electricity. I don’t consider it an invention. Words.
Generation of electricity is an invention.
Electricity existed long before humans emerged.
Lightning.
Electric eels for current electricity?
In series or in parallel. Seems the series connection could be easier with each eel biting the tail of the eel in front of it.
You’ll just need machines to chase them around and “harvest” the electricity they produce. Which machines would consume more energy than what they collect.
You know, like (onshore) ‘wind farms’ and ‘solar farms’ only with salt water corrosion.
Fully pais up member of the climate gravy train…
She needs a sports bra, a short skirt, and pompoms.
I saw East Anglia and nearly stopped reading.
These people are pitiful, losing is an ugly thing.
Absolutely.
Oui, et merci Corinne. “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose“
Her career: prostitution, only without the syphilis.
“That we call out deliberate efforts to undermine science and scientists, as they serve no one. “
Yeah … that’s what we are doing here … what are the alarmists doing ?? Haha !
Here is an alternative to better describe what modern “climate science” is really like.
(Video of Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse.)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Q3fJZ_tYtkM
She blinded me with science!
A general observation, applicable here. Any academic discipline that needs to call itself a ‘science’ isn’t. Proof:
Physics, chemistry, geology, and anthropology don’t need the ‘science’ moniker because they obviously are.
‘Political science’, ‘social science’, and ‘climate science’ do because they obviously aren’t.
Lemma: there is always at least one exception to such a general rule. Proof:
Economics doesn’t call itself a ‘science’ because it isn’t. Subproof: Q. How many different predictions can two economists make? A. 4, because on the one hand, but then on the other hand…
You would think that someone bragging about the “power” of her own scientific conjectures could be aware that the Scientific Method also requires the publication of information she certainly must be aware of that is contrary to her conjectures.
OMG! If one ever ranks those who deliberately “undermine science and scientists” the University of East Anglia and Tyndall Centre will definitely be in top ten.
“Climate Science” aka Climastrology is more akin to Lysenkoism. Likening it to the discoveries of steam power, electricity, and vaccines is absurd beyond belief.
“…but without the reproducibility.”
Climate reality:
I think China’s would just be coal powered. And the US would be gas powered in all likelihood.
So kind of a dumb cartoon.
The real irony here is that unlike the inventions from the industrial revolution, these people offer nothing that the average citizen would like to buy. Most of ther jobs are paid for with wealth extracted from productive people who do create the goods and services that people wish to purchase with their own money and free will. They’ve turned academia and government into little more that wealth transfer rackets feeding off of society for their own selfish gains. They should be ashamed.
Don’t sugar coat it like that. Tell us how you really feel. 😉
FYI, I agree.