*DEADLINE EXTENDED* February 8

Submit your suggestions and nominate (yourself or others) as a co-author for the 2026 edition of the 10 New Insights in Climate Science

Dear Sir Paul, Re: Royal Society Code of Conduct I am sure that many scientists have written to you about the specific question of Elon Musk’s Fellowship and whether, under the Royal Society’s Code of Conduct, his retaining that Fellowship is appropriate. I will not rehash these issues. Instead, as a female scientist with extensive experience of activities aiming to increase equality, diversity and inclusion in the engineering and physical sciences sector, I am writing to you (in a personal capacity) to ask you to reconsider the statements you have recently made in this context to the UK press about the Royal Society’s Code of Conduct and how it is applied. A 2018 report from the joint National Academies of the United States of America, concluded that “sexual harassment is common in academic science, engineering, and medicine” and that “greater than 50 percent of women faculty and staff and 20–50 percent of women students encounter or experience sexually harassing conduct in academia”. This report described codes of conduct that make clear that sexual harassment is unethical and will not be tolerated as a “powerful incentive for change”. The authors also noted that sexual harassment can have significant and damaging effects on the integrity of research. In my own praxis, I have found that clear and consistently-implemented codes of conduct that address these issues make female scientists and engineers safer, and allow them to focus more effectively on their research. For codes of conduct to have such a positive effect, it is vital that sanctions for actions which transgress the code are meaningful and substantial.

I was hence aghast to realise that in an interview with the Financial Times published on 9/1/26, you appear to have suggested that the Royal Society “should only expel fellows if their science proved “faulty or fraudulent or highly defective””. Moreover, in a further interview with the Guardian on 11/1/26 you suggested that the code “may need to be looked at again”, with the implication that your aim would be to remove the option of sanctions on Fellows for reasons not strictly related to faults or defects in their research. I suggest that changing the Royal Society’s code of conduct so that the likelihood of serious sanctions for sexual harassment is reduced, would directly endanger women who interact with the Royal Society at events or otherwise, and would provide a licence to harass to the already powerful people on whom the Society bestows fellowship. The implications of your words - that under your leadership the only infringements of the code which are likely to receive the sanction of the Fellowship being removed are those related to research misconduct - already risk empowering harassers. You stated, in the Financial Times interview, that “there’s many bad people around, but they have made scientific advances”. Given this awareness of the possibility of bad actors in our scientific community, it is wholly irresponsible to suggest that the Royal Society would not act to sanction these people if they harass more vulnerable scientists. I am hence writing to request that you retract any suggestion that the Society’s Code of Conduct should be changed so that the only reason a Fellow might be sanctioned by the removal of their Fellowship is “faulty or fraudulent or highly defective” research. This action is necessary to safeguard female scientists, a requirement placed on the Society by safeguarding legislation and UK statutory guidance. Yours sincerely, Professor Rachel A. Oliver.

Following coverage over the weekend of Sir Paul Nurse's comments that suggested that the only reason that a Fellow should be expelled from @royalsociety.org is scientific misconduct, I have written to him to explain the risks such an attitude poses of increasing sexual harassment in STEM.

Figure: SPM.1 .

Where is this 34% coming from ? It’s more like 65%.
See IPCC AR6 WG3 SPM

www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/w...

I'm starting to get the emails. Reporters: please see my comments below.

I've put together my predictions for 2026 and 2027 temperatures over at The Climate Brink. I expect 2026 will likely end up similar to 2023 and 2025 at ~1.4C, while 2027 will likely be considerably warmer (conditional on El Nino): www.theclimatebrink....

Hydrogen emissions are ‘supercharging’ the warming impact of methane - Carbon Brief The warming impact of hydrogen has been “overlooked” in projections of climate change, authors of the latest “global hydrogen budget” say.

The Global Carbon Project has just published the most comprehensive Global Hydrogen Budget to date.

H2, although not a GHG, has an indirect Global Warming Potential 37 times more potent than CO2.

Carbon Brief:
www.carbonbrief.org/hydrogen-emi...

Research paper:
www.nature.com/articles/s41...

Please read

www.forbes.com/sites/marsha...

I really wish we'd stop calling them climate "skeptics" or "vaccine skeptics", if you jump off a cliff we don't call you a "gravity skeptic"

bsky.app/profile/pfri...

Last year record increase in atmospheric CO₂ (3.7ppm), well above the decadal average of about 2.5 ppm, was due to the El Niño conditions.

That statement is misleading:
…” the concentration of carbon in Earth’s atmosphere rose more in 2024 than in any other year ..”
“Climate scientists unanimously agree that last year’s increase was provoked by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels like oil, coal and natural gas.”

Increasing tree size across Amazonia - Nature Plants A global research network monitoring the Amazon for 30 years reports in this study that tree size increased by 3% each decade.

For once, some good news about the Amazon tropical forest 🌳

www.nature.com/articles/s41...

Eager for more details?
👀 Check our full Research Highlight here:bit.ly/4qMYPEy

With @docaharper.bsky.social from @universityofga.bsky.social @exeter.ac.uk, Gabriel Abrahão, from @pik-potsdam.bsky.social and @rosieafisher.bsky.social, from @cicero.oslo.no

👏

Bill Gates’s climate comments are a dangerous distraction People do not have to dismiss or exaggerate the climate threat to justify concerted action.

👏
“When it comes to climate change, the “end of the world” and “good for you” are “the two lowest-probability outcomes”.

www.nature.com/articles/d41...

Study casts doubt on carbon capture Current approaches to carbon capture can increase air pollution and are not efficient at reducing carbon in the atmosphere, according to research from Mark Z. Jacobson.

Direct air capture is not currently viable strategy. Likely increases carbon pollution (more carbon energy required to than saved). See @mzjacobson.bsky.social's work: news.stanford.edu/stories/2019... & Joe Romm's review for our center (@penncssm.bsky.social): bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/web.sas.upen...

Très bel entretien 👍

Au GIEC, une bataille très politique autour des dates de publication du prochain rapport d’évaluation Pour la quatrième fois en deux ans, les pays n’ont pas réussi à s’accorder sur le calendrier du rapport phare du groupe d’experts du climat. Certains pays veulent repousser sa parution pour amoindrir ...

Au GIEC, une bataille très politique autour des dates de publication du prochain rapport d’évaluation. Pour la 4e fois en 2 ans, les pays n’ont pas réussi à s’accorder sur son calendrier. Certains pays veulent repousser sa parution pour amoindrir l’action climatique www.lemonde.fr/planete/arti...

Bar chart showing estimates of remaining carbon dioxide budgets that give a 50% likelihood of staying below each temperature level, relative to pre-industrial levels. A baseline label shows global emissions in 2025 at 42 gigatonnes (Gt) per year. Three vertical bars show remaining CO2 budgets: stay below 1.5°C — 170 Gt, labeled as 4 years of current emissions, with a note that if emissions stay at 2025 levels the 1.5°C budget will be exhausted within 4 years; stay below 1.7°C — 525 Gt, labeled as 12.5 years of current emissions; stay below 2°C — 1055 Gt, labeled as 25 years of current emissions, with an annotation saying that by 2050 we will have exhausted the 2°C budget unless emissions are reduced now. Footer note states these estimates have uncertainty and depend on changes in non-CO2 greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide. Data sources listed as IPCC, Forster et al. (2025) and Global Carbon Project (2025). License CC BY.

How much CO₂ can the world emit while limiting global temperature rise?

You could also mention that the projected atmospheric CO₂ growth rate will be much lower in 2025 (2.6ppm, red dot on the figure).

bsky.app/profile/pfri...

You are confusing CO₂ emissions and CO₂ concentrations.

And thank you for your contribution 🙏

The world’s carbon emissions continue to rise. But 35 countries show progress in cutting carbon In 2025 the world has fallen short, again, of peaking and reducing its fossil fuel use. But there are many countries on a path to greener energy.

theconversation.com/the-worlds-c...

ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2

www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/global-car...

www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-fos...

@hausfath.bsky.social
bsky.app/profile/haus...

Other posts/additional resources

Additional resources:

@glenpeters
bsky.app/profile/glen...