Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t James Delingpole – Microsoft founder and entrepreneur Bill Gates has joined the growing ranks of green activists, who think that ordinary people aren’t qualified to choose who should govern them.
According to Gates;
… Those who study energy patterns say we are in a gradual transition from oil and coal to natural gas, a fuel that emits far less carbon but still contributes to global warming. Gates thinks that we can’t accept this outcome, and that our best chance to vault over natural gas to a globally applicable, carbon-free source of energy is to drive innovation “at an unnaturally high pace.”
When I sat down to hear his case a few weeks ago, he didn’t evince much patience for the argument that American politicians couldn’t agree even on whether climate change is real, much less on how to combat it. “If you’re not bringing math skills to the problem,” he said with a sort of amused asperity, “then representative democracy is a problem.” What follows is a condensed transcript of his remarks, lightly edited for clarity. …
Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/we-need-an-energy-miracle/407881/
Some other highlights – Bill Gates on Renewable energy;
Well, there’s no fortune to be made. Even if you have a new energy source that costs the same as today’s and emits no CO2, it will be uncertain compared with what’s tried-and-true and already operating at unbelievable scale and has gotten through all the regulatory problems, like “Okay, what do you do with coal ash?” and “How do you guarantee something is safe?” Without a substantial carbon tax, there’s no incentive for innovators or plant buyers to switch. …
On the need for more government;
… Realistically, we may not get more than a doubling in government funding of energy R&D—but I would love to see a tripling, to $18 billion a year from the U.S. government to fund basic research alone. Now, as a percentage of the government budget, that’s not gigantic. But we are at a time when the flexibility—because of health costs and other things, but primarily health costs—of the budget is very, very squeezed. But you could do a few-percent tax on all of energy consumption, or you could use the general revenue. This is not an unachievable amount of money. …
Bill Gates has attracted significant controversy during his career, for example when he accused developers of free software of being communists, when they refused to give Microsoft unfettered rights to exploit their work. Gates has also spent a lot of time in courtrooms defending Microsoft from accusations of sharp business practices, of being a monopoly, of violating anti-trust laws. So to me personally, it is no surprise that Gates’ response to the difficulty of convincing people to accept his point of view on climate change, is to express authoritarian contempt for ordinary people having such freedoms.
As for Bill Gates ability to predict the future in a field where he should have known better:
“Here’s the legend: at a computer trade show in 1981, Bill Gates supposedly uttered this statement, in defense of the just-introduced IBM PC’s 640KB usable RAM limit: ‘640K ought to be enough for anybody.’ ”
Of course he has persistently denied he ever said it – but then again ???
Back in ’81, 680K was more than enough.
I wrote a C program for NASA JSC that controlled a Sony U-matic video player, going through a tape cassette frame by frame, scanning for certain features, then writing the coordinates to a file. The whole program was around 48K.
I am pretty sure the bootstrap program used to boot IBM MVS in 1972 was the same as it was before MVS went to 31bit addressing (1990’s-ish).
My first desktop had 640K and a 20meg hard drive.
It ran everything I needed it to run.
Of course back then RAM was hideously expensive. I investigated buying the 360K upgrade so my computer could have 1meg of RAM. It was something like $400. In 1990 dollars.
RAM prices finally dropped below $100/meg sometime around 1998.
It takes a lot of money to drop out of Harvard. When the fortune Mr. Gates has made since is figured in, he is practically immune from any of the policies he or any other CAGW priest/fanatic promulgates.
Bill Gates wants whatever Bill Gates wants.
No rhyme, no reason, just irrational rants, (perfect word Eric).
Bill Gates has never tolerated criticism, no matter how constructive; he refuses compromise until he’s already lost a lot of money.
Bill Gates never minded using the ideas of others to steal their business. His software then included little dead ends for competitive software users.
According to Bill Gates, everyone was a software thief, yet he had no problem sponsoring free or downright cheap software deals to encourage users to ‘change’ suppliers. Those years of software wars between Microsoft, Borland, Lotus, Wordperfect and others were glory years for us users as it was easy to purchase new software inexpensively.
This was also the same period that Bill Gates railed about communistic thieves stealing his software and treating his proprietary software as common goods; all the while Microsoft grew larger and richer. Bill Gates became incredibly wealthy.
As Microsoft captured those software markets, free or inexpensive software disappeared with the competitors. Remaining free software opportunities are when Microsoft releases beta versions for saps to test and debug for Microsoft.
Oh yeah, Bill Gates believes we need to go Socialist. This week. Next week he’ll want something else and we will all be communist bastars.
For different reasons, I’m beginning to believe that representative democracy IS a problem. There are two problems with it:
– people can vote to take your stuff and give it to themselves.
– people are, in general, not that bright (you and I included from time to time I’m sure) and can be convinced to vote for things that are either bad for them, bad for their country, or both.
Of course, I don’t have any viable solutions. Just being a whiner.
Dear Mr Gates
I read your recent article in Atlantic. I have the following observations. I agree that many large organizations suffer from a malaise that tends to strangle innovation. I like the idea of smaller centers of excellence. Bring smart minds together and remove the obstacles so that they can pursue innovation. I also appreciate your 2B share for kicking it off.
I also observe that you have made up your mind concerning CAGW and have also made up your mind that it is reckless to conduct a worldwide climate experiment. I am a CAGW skeptic, but for the sake of finding common ground, I am open to your idea of finding cheaper, cleaner, reliable energy.
I emphasize the words cheaper, cleaner and reliable. It would be good to accomplish this goal.
Unlike you, I do not think it is necessary to make the current world suffer for an unproven risk. I do however agree that innovative energy would be useful to society. Please remove the sense of urgency from your plea. It scares people and mostly it scares the young and impressionable.
We could even have simultaneous tracks of research ongoing. By that I mean we could set up a very transparent and well designed center of excellence to pursue above reproach evidence collection concerning CAGW. By doing this simultaneously, we could keep an eye of the pulse of urgency. As it stands now, there are numerous flaw in the data that is being used to debate CAGW. This is silly and we should fix this once and for all. It would set an example to the world of how good, decision quality information is generated.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks
Mr G
Please excuse the typos and grammar flaws.
I’ve got this stupid word replacer setup and it drives me crazy. Cant seem to turn it off. Maybe one of the centers for excellence can fix this nonsense.
Notice, Knute, that Bill Gates favors carbon taxes. So, he favors boosting the price of fossil fuels. Not exactly a level playing field, is it?
I’d like to bring mass to the table and accelerate it in the direction of this sociopathic slimeballl. The hoped for result, being a momentum conserving, inelastic collision with any unmentionable part of his anatomy. 😉
Gates is right, there are huge problems with representative democracy, in fact:
And one further problem is that there is no accountability for the actions made in public office. With power comes responsibility, and all those engaged in public office (including those seeking to influence public servants) should be held financially responsible for failed decisions that were negligently taken.
So for example, those putting forward policy that does not result in the reduction of CO2 should be held accountable for that policy since its fails on its primary objective. The movers and shakers should at least ensure that any policy implemented at least works towards the goals that under pin the policy.
Obviously NGO that have a scientific arm should be held accountable for the failed science that underpins their lobbying positions.
Being held accountable for their actions would at least make politicians (and their ilk) think carefully about their actions and the policies that they wish to introduce.
+1
If I had billions of dollars, my comments wouldn’t just disappear into the either, they would haunt me forever.
It ain’t so bad after all.
“Gates believes that by 2050, wealthy nations like China and the United States, the most prodigious belchers [sic] of greenhouse gases, must be adding no more carbon to the skies …”.
=======================
I don’t believe Gates said that, it must be something made up by James Bennet; Gates isn’t so stupid as to confuse carbon dioxide with visible soot pollution.
I meant ether, I spent 10 minutes looking for the right word and still got it wrong.
Grrr.
Ah, so that explains Windows 10.
Little Brother is watching, a size 12 ego in a size 3 soul.
My skin crawls when I see and hear people with more money than I placing me down at the bottom of the food chain because of this difference. If he had a hand in designing the atrocious Windows 10 then I place him several social orders below me!
And Windows 8 was even worse.
I know a lot of people who after installing Windows 9, went back to Windows 8.
Every one is super intelligent in certain areas of expertise. He is super intelligent in computer software and computer marketing. He is dumb on global warming/climate change and Co2. For some reason I think i am more intelligent than him about CO2 and “global warming” . I think that a lot of people posting here are more intelligent on this matter than him. Just sayin…
As my dear departed grandpa used to say: “he’s talking through his hat”.
Did they sit on their hats in your grandpa’s day?
Somebody tell him that neither oil, coal or gas emit “carbon”. I do not think anybody who does not know that in the year 2015 should part-take in this discussion.
+1
“If it was just about economics, if we had no global warming to think about, the slowly-but-surely pace of these transitions would be okay.” –Bill Gates
If I didn’t have that CO2 monster in the closet to think about, the one I’ve never seen but know is there, I wouldn’t have much to worry about, and everything would be okay.
The guy is used to working with fields f science where the science is well-done and reality-tested. In fact, he was a major player in the reality-testing of a lot of that science, and to his great benefit, he regularly found that it worked. Bill Gates is accustomed, for good reason, to trusting what is popularly reported as science.
His experience in a business where science dictates what will be done more than does the popular belief, suggests that technocracy, not democracy, is best. What I see in his statement is not that we should abandon democratic control of government, but that people should be “bringing math to the problem” because as he sees it, uninformed and uncritical voters are worse than useless. I actually agree with him. On the other hand, his experience in computer-science does not translates to climate-science so I don’t believe he’s adequately critical or informed.
His rational ignorance is shining through
I just bought a new mega PC with Windows 7! From Costco and upgraded the hard drive. I had to buy a gaming PC! Gamers know to stay away from untested downgrades. I skipped The abortion Viasta as well as 98 and 2000. NT was good at work… But I do like 7.
“I think dozens and dozens of approaches should be funded at the R&D level, and then people like myself, who can afford to take big risks with start-up companies, should—because of climate change—be willing to put some number of billions into the spin-offs that will come out of that government-funded activity.”
Let the government fund all the research and development, and when they come up with a discovery that looks promising, I will swoop down and market it. Then, with the help of subsidies or carbon taxes, I will make another huge fortune while saving the planet at the same time. Is that what Bill is saying?
He’s absolutely right, and the sooner the world comes to its senses and enthrones me as Emperor the better it will be for everyone.
When it comes to telling other people what to do, nobody has more experience than I do.
So I would be the logical choice. Stand aside peon.
“we want to give a little bit of money to the guy who thinks that taking sunlight and making oil directly out of sunlight will work.”
How would that oil be different from the oil we already have? Is there an oil that we can make from sunlight that doesn’t emit CO2 when it burns? Or is he talking about making oil to put on his salad?
Louis I think Roha was making a joke. Oil is from Plant mass, produced by ah,, sunlight. Unless I’m being to clever.
michael
“Louis I think Roha was making a joke.”
No, trying to get a job. Emperor of Earth would pay pretty well, don’t you think?
Don’t know about the pay, but I suspect the fringe benefits are pretty good.
@Mark & RoHa;
It usually doesn’t end well for tyrannical rulers – assassinations, beheadings, torn asunder, etc., but in general they have a blast while it lasts. If either one of you make it to ‘Emperor,’ don’t worry about a pension. Just sayin’.
For a guy who is worried about global warming, he looks like he could do with some time in the sunshine. Looking a bit pasty there Bill, you should get out of the office more and away from your computer…..(you might notice how nice it is outside)
Has anyone ever asked why setting up an ICT platform for Facebook makes Mark Zuckerberg ‘bigger than Governments’, ‘above the law’ etc etc?
Do you lot think that firefighters who gave their lives on 9/11 are less worthy Americans than Mark Zuckerberg, a geek from Harvard who could write a few lines of code?
How about military medical personnel rescuing fallen soldiers on battlefields??
How about folks who build you houses to keep you from dying of cold when the arctic air comes down as far south as Florida, Texas and the interior of California??
You lot need to learn that over-paid geeks who can write a few lines of code aren’t superior human beings, they’re superior specialists.
If Gates, Zuckerberg et al want to be politicians, well let them run.
But make sure you make them aware of quite how little they actually have done on this earth in comparison to the 500 million odd other Americans, most of whom struggle to get recognised at levels greater than $30k a year.
Put them in their place where they deserve to be.
Stop giving them political BJs.
None of them have done one thing in politics, and not one of them deserves to be above the law……
I agree with him – in some respects.
Politics is the only safety-critical career that you can enter with no education and no experience. The bar needs to be lifted for aspirants to any House of Representatives. — Tirtiary education plus fifteen years in designated industries. Or thirty years in a skilled industry. And no lawyers, because their entire profession is based upon dissembling.
Only then might representative democracy begin to crawl out of the mess that it has made.
Ralph
Quite right about Lawyers Ralf, they really have become destructive. What a waste of first class intellect.
Lawyers have been suspected of being the problem for generations. Bill (not this one) had Dick (not me) make a statement which I dare not quote, five spies and all that.
I’ve favored creating a minimum age for politicians. Somewhere around 50 should do.
I’m in favor of a minimum net worth for politicians. And they day they put their name on the ballot, 90% of it goes to the government.
That’s putting your money where your mouth is.
Writes ralfellis:
Oh, hardly.
To secure a genuinely representative democracy (whyever in hell would anyone WANT a “four wolves and a lamb dickering on what to have with dinner” democracy?), it would be far better to select a district’s U.S. representative by lot, the way veniremen (potential jurors) are selected from among a jurisdiction’s registered voters.
The qualifications have to be absolutely minimal, the better to ensure that the designated victim – who might likely have to be dragged away from his home and work (if he’s fortunate enough to have a job in our Obozo’d economy) under a two-year sentence of servitude in the House of Representatives – be genuinely reflective of the people living in his polity.
We accept the principle of conscription in the defense of our republic. Why not exercise that principle in governing it?
>>To secure a genuinely representative democracy
>>The qualifications have to be absolutely minimal
Interesting viewpoint. I would suggest that we try this first with airline pilots – and you can be the first aboard. And then we can progress to doctors – and you can be the first under the knife.
After that, you can come back and tell us whether your idea was good or not…..
Ralph
In response to the proposition that rather than impose the police power in civil society under the administration of megalomaniac popularity contest winners who succeed to their offices by deceit, delusion, and extortion, we have ralfellis putzing:
Of course, the electoral process is so effective at selecting for competence, probity, and responsibility, ain’t it?
Obozo, anyone?
Hm. Just give some thought to what THAT lying bastard represents….
Ralph:
Neither doctors nor airline pilots are supposed to be representative of society as a whole. By definition, they require uncommon skill and education.
ralfellis: Precisely what specialized skills to you believe politicians require? How many years of training does it take before you are qualified to be one?
The solution to a constant and reliable supply of electricity without using fossil fuels has existed for decades. It uses nuclear technologies, of which there are several variations, a couple of which have been developed and then shelved despite being demonstrably practical and safe. Constant and irrational fear mongering by the self same green elites is preventing the world from harnessing this source. It being more important to them to prevent economic development as a way of preventing supposed climate shifts than it is to improve the lot of the world’s poorer folk by making electricity available. This is criminal, so instead of slating democracy, Mr Gates should use his position to push even harder for an international effort to harness nuclear energy. I understand he in favour to a degree.