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.
What a truly stupid thing to say!
Scientists endeavour to explain observations – and observations don’t need to be made by a “scientist”. Occasionally, a “scientist” will discover something, or even invent something – but that will be incidental to his main aim, which is finding out why the universe operates as it does.
Once again, sloppy wording, so characteristic of the ignorant and gullible, is employed to imply that “scientists” discover things that would go unnoticed but for the scientists superior intelligence.
Lest I be accused of being “anti-science” or a “denier”, here’s the Google AI summary (surely a “consensus) of “discovery” –
For example, the observation of the Mpemba effect, or the observation that water can be solid, liquid, or gaseous – depending on circumstances.
Discoveries are accidental. As for “science”, as usual the very definition varies. Even the capitalisation of the word might change its meaning. At least one researcher believes so, anyway –
Anyone who claims to be a “Professor of Climate Change Science” is at least ignorant and gullible, or possibly completely off with the fairies.
In short, science is about discovery that leads to knowledge and understanding of how the universe operates as it does. Not why, how.
We are in agreement even if a nuanced difference in phraseology exists.
“Discoveries are accidental.”
Generally true but not in absolute terms.
Some discoveries are due to intentional investigation to determine the source of a phenomenon.
We had Einstein e = mc^2 and deliberately investigated and discovered how to turn that conjecture into useful technology. Failed experiments lead to new failed experiments and the trail of trials continued until the eureka moment.
Of course the eureka moment came from an accidental discovery by Archimedes, hence supporting your point.
This woman Corrine is reported above with these 2 lines in succession:
“Science is behind all great discoveries.
“There is enough momentum in this transition to make a major dent in global emissions.”
…..
What is missing, what destroys her argument, is a link between these two lines.
That is, what science supports any need for a dent in global emissions?
A Scientific answer is needed, Corinne.
…..
Also, Corinne seems to assume that a transition has started, away from electricity produced by hydrocarbon combustion towards that produced by windmills and solar panels.
There is no such “transition”. The global amount of hydrocarbon-fuelled electricity has not dropped over the years of this non-existent, wishful-thinking transition.
….
Sadly, Corinne seems to be hell bent on continuing the mistakes and admissions of the Climategate emails of 2009. Her University of East Anglia has earned a horrible reputation for misuse of science that she seems eager to continue. Why?
Geoff S
“What is missing, what destroys her argument, is a link between these two lines.
That is, what science supports any need for a dent in global emissions?
A Scientific answer is needed, Corinne.”
Exactly.
What is the definition of the optimum climate in metrics that can be tested or measured by anyone?
How do we know we have departed from the optimum climate?
Was 1859 (or pick a date) the optimum?
How do we know we are not approaching the optimum climate?
It seems in the paleoclimate evidence we have not yet achieved an (in present time) optimum.
The evidence is that these optimum periods come along throughout the past followed by sub-optimum periods.
The Optimum climate periods were all the WARM climate periods, and all of the prior ones warmer than now.
They’ve been telling us to panic when they should be telling us to celebrate.
Except it wasn’t scientists that brought those improvements, practical engineers and entrepreneurs did.
Correction: It wasn’t science that brought those improvements….
Practical engineers and entrepreneurs succeed by trial and error, aka experimentation, building on past failures and mistakes to learn and improve until achieving success. That is pretty close to the definition of scientific method.
Science does not provide anything. It is a methodology used to discover, to know what was not known, to go where no human has gone before, so to speak.
Except for the nuances in language used, I concur.
Academics often confuse science and engineering. The latter usually precedes the former. Engineering observes and creates. Science can explain. The science is settled only as long as the observations and creations agree. My academic qualifications ( a long time ago ) are science, by life and employment is engineering. The worst engineers have Ph.Ds. See Gilbert.
I would state it somewhat differently.
Scientists strive to explain, to discover truth.
Scientists use tools to make observations leading to discoveries.
Those discoveries are used by engineers to create useful tools.
Engineers use tools to make better tools (and also to solve problems).
Science is a process.
When the explanations and reality agree, then a consensus forms that the explanations are reasonably, but not absolutely, valid.
Science is never settled.
The next discovery might just be the next layer of the onion overturning a prior explanation.
Engineering is also a process, but to evolve technology (aka make better tools).
Engineering is never settled, but often it is good enough, a distinction it enjoys that science cannot afford.
“Academics often confuse science and engineering.”
That is true because engineering relies on science and science relies on engineering.
There has never been a conference organised by a scientific body to debate and discuss whether our current warming cycle is anthropogenic, part anthropogenic or a natural bounce out of the little ice age,
“Science is behind all great discoveries.”
False.
Innovation is.
Science is of no benefit to mankind unless and until it can be engineered and a practical application brought to market profitably. This requires invention of the technology and innovation to find a use for it.
Example: The steam engine was invented in 73AD. Steam engines were developed in the 18th and 19th Century by engineers, not scientists, and in fact the science of steam power was not investigated and understood until the mid-19th Century, scientific enquiry into it stimulated by its wide application.
Our ancestors produced iron, steel, bronze, glass without any idea of the science behind these things. Vaccination was used in Africa against small pox – putting pus from a lesion of an infected person on a thorn or splinter of wood, then scratching the skin of an uninflected person – long before it was “invented” by Dr Jenner in 1896, who in any case knew nothing of the science behind it.
Was Thomas Edison a scientist, an engineer, or an innovator?
“Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration“
He was chiefly an entrepreneur & publicist, skilled at getting other people’s inventions to market under the Edison brand, by either buying patents or by employing mainly Eastern European immigrants in his Menlo Park laboratory to come up with new ideas & then patenting them in his name ( Edison held a record 1,093 patents ); He was well known for asserting ownership over all the patents produced in his labs.
Interesting snippet from AI –
No trained “climate scientist” has actually invented anything at all, according to AI. “Global temperature” is based on opinion (judgement calls).
Apparently, “climate scientists” have “discovered” that the stratosphere is colder than the troposphere, and that thermometers are affected by sunlight, amongst other stunning discoveries.
Science behind vaccines? Polio vaccines increase cases of polio:
“Four African countries have reported new cases of polio linked to the oral vaccine, as global health numbers show there are now more children being paralyzed by viruses originating in vaccines than in the wild.”
Source: https://apnews.com/article/health-united-nations-ap-top-news-pakistan-international-news-7d8b0e32efd0480fbd12acf27729f6a5
Most diseases were already in steep cline before vaccines for them were introduced.
We do not need this kind of science, just as we do not need a climate religion pretending to be science.
The topic is just another name for a human activity which has been going on for centuries.
Natural philosophy. That is what is being called science today.
Not so omnipotent, eh?