Bill Gates: $43M beachfront estate: Proof he’s a WUWT fan?

Guest “climate hypocrisy?” post by David Middleton

Bill and Melinda Gates Purchase $43M Luxury Beach House in Del Mar, CA
By Becky Bracken | Apr 23, 2020

The billionaire philanthropists Bill and Melinda Gates have purchased an exquisite beach house outside San Diego—splashing out on $43 million for an oceanfront mansion in the coastal town of Del Mar, CA. The prodigious purchase price makes it one of the largest sales in the area’s history.

The luxurious six-bedroom, four-bathroom, 5,800-square-foot home was sold to the Gates family by Madeleine Pickens, a former wife of the billionaire oil baron T. Boone Pickens, according to the Wall Street Journal. The home originally landed on the market for $48 million in January 2019.

“How long can you tread water”… H/T Bill Cosby

I don’t know which is more priceless:

  1. Climate change warrior Bill Gates dropping $43 million on a beachfront mansion.
  2. The fact that the mansion was built with oil money.

I’m actually somewhat (but not totally) inclined to give Mr. Gates a pass on the climate change hypocrisy bit. His preferred solution is to help poorer nations adapt to it. And I have to assume that Mr. Gates relied on this brilliant October 2019 WUWT post in making the decision to purchase the Del Mar property.


Ludka, B.C., Guza, R.T., O’Reilly, W.C. et al. Sixteen years of bathymetry and waves at San Diego beaches. Sci Data 6, 161 (2019). LINK

I didn’t actually refer to Ludka et al., 2019 in this post… I will have a follow up sciencey post on this subject in a few days, and I wanted to save the link and citation somewhere.

Oh… Just so you don’t think I’ve gone soft…

4 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael Jankowski
April 24, 2020 10:06 am

Can’t get any more literal than “Del Mar.”

Ian E
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
April 24, 2020 10:22 am

Not visited Wells-Next-The-Sea then (on the British Wash)?

Erik Magnuson
Reply to  Ian E
April 24, 2020 6:21 pm

With such Welsh street names as Birmingham, Chesterfield, Liverpool, and Manchester. There is Wales, but it is only 800′ long.

Do think it is hypocritical for Gates to buy that property, but he could do the right thing by tearing down the house in anticipation of rising sea levels.

Brian Pratt
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
April 24, 2020 11:07 am

Not to mention littoral too.

Reply to  Brian Pratt
April 24, 2020 12:14 pm

It’s littorally littoral.

But let’s be honest. If Gates wants to have a retirement home by the ocean, he knows he can resell at the same value or more in 20y and even if the waves were coming in the door and he had to walk away for his 43 million, well heck, that’s pocket change to Gates.

April 24, 2020 10:08 am

Not exactly your mud brick with thatched roof cottage then? Call me when these movers shakers and omniscient ones on the beachfront are fire saling and heading for the hills now won’t you?

Reply to  observa
April 24, 2020 11:47 am

I wonder what it costs to get the carpets cleaned in a place like that.

Bill Powers
Reply to  observa
April 24, 2020 1:31 pm

Yeah. Well. This falls into the category of: “Don’t do as I do. Do as i say.” Its an authoritarian thing. The 1% of the 1% in the 21st century adopted it as their globalist motto once they crossed Bubba’s Intersectional Bridge to the 21st Century.

It was a toss up between that and “Figures Lie and Liars figure.” but the authority felt this latter motto would shine a skeptical light on CAG, their One World Strategy of Centralized Authoritarian Governance.

The great unwashed masses, placated with their “smart” phones, “Woke” Culture and pending 5G are sliding quite comfortably into Huxley’s “Brave New World” and it is just over half a century until CAG evolves to 2084. As it turns out Orwell missed the mark by about 100 years.

Reply to  Bill Powers
April 24, 2020 10:30 pm

I’m sure that piece of beach has been selected because of its geologic rebound.

Nick Hill
Reply to  Jean Parisot
April 25, 2020 7:58 am

Isostatic rebound?

Reply to  observa
April 24, 2020 5:24 pm

Bill & Melinda’s philanthropy does not stop at the door of their own mansion.

Robert B
Reply to  observa
April 24, 2020 5:46 pm

Not $53 M either.

Just wish that I was in the position to want to be an alarmist.

Jeff Alberts
April 24, 2020 10:14 am

$43mil will pay for a LOT of adaptation.

John Garrett
April 24, 2020 10:16 am

Mr. Middleton,

It is obvious that Mr. Gates et ux read and agreed with Kip Hansen’s numerous, superb WUWT debunkings of claims of an acceleration in “Catastrophic/dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming” created sea level rise.

His resultant purchase of beachfront realty in the face of dire warnings of imminent ocean inundation thus puts him in an exclusive club including one Barack Obama and Fat Albert Gore.

Reply to  John Garrett
April 24, 2020 6:52 pm

John Garrett
All your post does is show you are clueless about the predicted rate of sea level rise. Even the IPCC’s worst case scenarios will make little or no difference in the remaining years of Bill Gate’s life. And even if it lapped around his ankles tomorrow, so what? He can buy another one. I say good luck to him. It is the same brainless argument goes on here about Obama buying land close to the beach.

Reply to  Simon
April 24, 2020 7:44 pm

1) Rich people that can afford to buy and live on the beach are fine in doing so.

2) Government entities should restrict the use of ocean front property so as to protect society from harming itself.

3) The Rich People that directly and indirectly agree with and encourage #2 are the same ones that are involved in #1

4) People who point out the hypocrisy of #1-3 are brainless.

Please, further elaborate on your point (#4); I don’t understand your tie in.

Reply to  Simon
April 25, 2020 3:10 am

So sea-level rise is completely negligible. That’s wonderful news!

Reply to  Graemethecat
April 25, 2020 4:51 am

See Harlech ( and Caernarfon) castle sea gate. Only 1000 years ago. WAIS?

Reply to  John Garrett
April 25, 2020 11:19 pm

Also, Mini-Mike Bloomberg who has a mansion on his own island in the Bahamas to which he flew every weekend while Mayor of NYC.

Ron Long
April 24, 2020 10:21 am

Barrack on one coast and Gates on the other, looks like the people in the middle don’t have to worry about climate change induced sea level rise, or any other CAGW threat. “Do as I say, not as I do?” coming into play here? Hypocrisy writ large? Meanwhile the fake news crowd is going wild with the notion that President Trump advised people to inject bleach to counter the Chicom-19 virus. Day 35 of the Quarantine and my dogs are looking strangely at me. Stay sane and safe.

Walter Sobchak
April 24, 2020 10:26 am

It is much closer to the water than Obama’s place. Maybe Gates expects the uplift of the Pacific Coast Range to keep it high and dry.

Obama’s place:

April 24, 2020 10:26 am

David, typo?

Should “will” be “with” in “The fact that the mansion was built will oil money”?

Stay safe and healthy, all.

Reply to  David Middleton
April 24, 2020 1:26 pm

Beat me to it ! lol

April 24, 2020 10:35 am

So is Bill Gates finally coming around to reality on global warming alarmism, as he has recently done on green energy nonsense?

It is unfortunate that Bill Gates. who has enormous resources to do good, is fixated on a non-problem and prepared to dedicate his life to it.

The Madness of Crowds…

I wrote this on Bill Gates blog one year ago (December 2017) – he is slowly coming around to reality on energy, but still regards increasing atmospheric CO2 as a problem. It is not a problem.

Regards, Allan

Bill wrote:
“The main disagreement I have with Smil is about how quickly we can make the transition to clean energy.”

Bill, I really like your work on malaria and on vaccines – I probably like a lot of other things you are doing too.

But Bill, I have spent my career in energy and have studied global warming alarmism since 1985 – you are an intelligent man, but it appears that you are being ill-advised on climate and energy.

Below is reference to a primer on the subject – take your time, study it, and contact me via my website if you want to discuss.

The term “climate change” is so vague and the definition is so changeable that it is NOT a falsifiable hypothesis. It is therefore unscientific nonsense. The term “catastrophic human-made global warming” is a falsifiable hypothesis, and it was falsified long ago – when CO2 rose sharply after ~1940 while temperature declined from ~1945 to ~1977. As my co-authors and I wrote in 2002, “the alleged global warming crisis DOES NOT EXIST”.

Current forms of clean/green energy are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy. All they do is destabilize the grid and drive up energy costs, which increases Excess Winter Deaths among the elderly and the poor. Sure there may be better forms of energy out there – but current “solutions” are costly fiascos, due primarily to intermittency. My co-authors and I wrote this conclusion in 2002, and since then tens of trillions of dollars of scarce global resources have been squandered on green energy nonsense.

[end of excerpt]

April 24, 2020 11:40 am

I like your comment, Allan!

Though, Gates has a history of single minded stubbornness; each time he came face to face with reality (instead of sycophants and advisors) he experienced an epiphany then completely redirected his efforts.
I hope Gates comes face to face with climate reality.

Reply to  ATheoK
April 26, 2020 8:02 am

Hi Theo.

Re Bill Gates’ “sycophants and advisors”, he seems to have utterly incompetent people advising him. I don’t know who they are, but they have been consistently wrong on climate and energy.

Bill has changed is position and is now negative on intermittent green energy nonsense (grid-connected wind and solar), but is still dead wrong on runaway global warming. This is disappointing, because he is wasting is efforts and his reputation on global warming and climate change falsehoods – the greatest scientific scam in human history.

Some people have ascribed the worst motives to Gates – I don’t know him, but I reject that hypothesis. I think he is trying to do good things for humanity with his fortune – but he is being ill-advised, and that is most unfortunate.

Regards, Allan

Nigel in California
April 24, 2020 12:48 pm


John Bell
April 24, 2020 10:40 am

Good catch! that is what gets my goat – all the climate hypocrisy from the high (Gates) to the low (leftists I know) and they all have one thing in common, that the rules they want others to follow does not apply to themselves. GRRRrrrr..!

April 24, 2020 10:47 am

After reading about what Bill Gates vaccines did in india, mexico, africa etc etc I Absolutely hate him and his whole organization 😐

He is on news channels saying all 7+ billion people need to be vaccinated or we cannot go to work or shopping… Fauci, WHO U.N are all vile and cancerous!!

April 24, 2020 10:47 am

RL: Exactly…“Do as I say, not as I do?” I bet the private yachts and jets alone of the elite class make up a hefty % of fossil fuels used for transportation. We should be saying to those that want to dispense with fossil fuel usage “you first” and we can start with the activists who drive to demonstrations and are nourished by food made possible with the same fossil fuels.

April 24, 2020 10:54 am

> “I’m actually somewhat (but not totally) inclined to give Mr. Gates a pass on the climate change hypocrisy bit. His preferred solution is to help poorer nations adapt to it. ”

He believes in CAGW and deserves to be roundly derided for that alone.

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
April 24, 2020 5:25 pm

“He believes in GACW” I’m betting he believes in no such thing. Most likely he sees the mass of misguided morons who do believe and sees a way to profit from it.

Reply to  Cube
April 24, 2020 7:50 pm

He is married to an emotionally driven misinformed sterotype, and wants sex every once in a while.

As he ages and his sex drive drops, he will begin to make more and more of his own decisions … you’ll see more and more reasonableness from him in the future.

April 24, 2020 11:01 am


Former President Barack Obama recently purchased an estate on Edgartown Great Pond on Martha’s Vineyard. It sits on 39 Acres, price $11.5 Million. Not as elite as Mr. Gates, but then Mr. Obama’s place is just … a summer cottage on a summer retreat island, right? Also, Mr. Obama is not as wealthy, and earned the money for the purchase from his salary as President for eight years. Right?

Deep irony: at the height of the last glaciation the Laurentide Ice sheet famously descended down to cover (what is now) Chicago, Boston, and New York City to a height of 1-2 miles deep, depending.

But … it also “created” Martha’s Vineyard. That’s right, the ice sheet ended at a distinctly visible line right across what is today Martha’s Vineyard Island, by pushing an unimaginable refuse of earth, gravel, rocks and gigantic boulders in front of it. When the ice retreated, it left everything behind. Martha’s Vineyard is what geologists call a “terminal moraine with an outwash plain.” Mr. Obama’s little cottage is on the outwash plain.

Having studied this personally while living there for three years back in the 1970s, I’d say the edge of the ice was a mile or three north of the location of the 39 acres in question.

[begin speculation, with irony] What if Mr. Obama obtained this information and chose this location deliberately, safe in the knowledge that when the Ice returns (any day now) his property will not be obliterated. It will have an interesting backyard, however. [end speculation, the irony is forever.]

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  windlord-sun
April 24, 2020 2:25 pm

You said, “Deep irony: at the height of the last glaciation the Laurentide Ice sheet famously descended down to cover (what is now) Chicago, Boston, and New York City to a height of 1-2 miles deep, depending.”

It was probably at least a mile high at the center of the zone of accumulation. However, I imagine that it was only a few hundred feet high at the southern margins.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 24, 2020 5:10 pm

Not from all the many claims I’ve seen. Two miles deep. That’s the number I keep seeing for the thick sections of the Laurentide Ice Sheet.

People don’t really grasp that. Try to visualize it. How far away is two mile from where you live, then visualize walking it and make believe you are going vertical.

The Antarctic ice is 2.7 miles deep some places. Also Greenland, nearly two miles deep.

On the one hand, certain wild variations here and there. Check out this graph:

comment image

I think there is a way for scientists to rationally estimate the depth at any given point. I have not checked into that.

And yes, you might think it would be thin at the edges. Perhaps not!

John Tillman
Reply to  windlord-sun
April 24, 2020 6:29 pm

While some two miles thick in its center, the Laurentide Ice Sheet was still probably about a mile thick over New York City, where it dug its terminal moraine, aka Long Island.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Tillman
April 25, 2020 4:15 pm

Can you cite any modern glaciers, such as in Antarctic or Greenland, that are more than a few hundred feet thick at the terminus?

I have stood on the terminus of the Greenland ice sheet east of Thule AFB. I climbed a ladder in a vertical shaft in the ice tunnel that the Army had driven into the snout, and after going only tens of feet, I could see the glow of daylight and hear a meltwater stream. I was in charge of what was to be the final deformation survey (1966) of the ice tunnel before closure of the base; I understand that there were, however, subsequent surveys as late as 1970. I can assure you that it was not a mile high. Camp Tuto, where I was temporarily stationed, was a staging area for convoys providing supplies for building and maintaining Camp Century. If they had found it necessary to climb >5,000′ to get to the top, they would have never made it.

Reply to  John Tillman
April 25, 2020 6:03 pm

@ Clyde Spencer

What in all the world is the problem here. Why are you obsessing over one little detail, as if I’m Al Gore trying to prove you need a forklift to get to the top of the pile of money he’s made.


This is supposed to be a light-hearted thread about the absurdity of Gates. I added a parallel to Obama. I was expecting a few humorous short agreements with me, to tie these two gentlemen together by their hypocrisy. Instead you are on the warpath of some trivial thing.

I am not the only one making the claim that the ice was a mile thick over Chicago, Boston, and New York City, all of which are very close to the edges of the sheet. Check this graphic

comment image

There are a skillion other more formal assessments of the depth at the edges. AGWs do not dispute it. Why would they?

Boston is a few feet away from Edgartown Great Pond.

{note to others: Mr. Obama’s place is no safer than Mr. Gates. That “pond” is basically North Atlantic Ocean with a sandbar meekly holding back the sea. When the Global Warming Apocalypse happens, Bill will drown just fast as Barrak.}

Not to mention, a zillion other mentions that the Laurentide Ice sheet, like the current Antarctic sheet and Greenland, are two miles thick. In many/most/some/varied/random places.

Now, if you are that insanely obsessed with backing me/others off the claim that the very edges might also have been thick, even a mile thick, then guess what. I provisionally redact the fun tiny inferred claim as unsupported in this thread, by me, at this time. It is, however, plausible and feasible.

By the way, can you find a claim, by anyone, that everywhere at the edge of the Laurentide sheet the ice was only a few hundred feet thick. Go ahead. Were you there? Additionally, how far in from the “edge” did it heave up to two miles thick?

All of the above can be reduced to: Do you have a [expletive redacted] point?

Reply to  John Tillman
April 25, 2020 7:12 pm

@ David Middleton


David, I have something interesting with reference to (and new confirmation of) your 2010 piece on IceCores vs Stomata, posted at DebunkHouse. That page appears to be still open for comment, is that right? Will you see it if I post there? Or, how can I contact you?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Tillman
April 26, 2020 12:28 pm

It is just a personal thing that I take exception to people who make claims that are obviously wrong, or being questionable, do not provide facts to support their claims. It is a common misconception, even among some geologists, that the ice sheets presented a mile-high wall at the terminus, and that there were talking mammoths around to marvel at the shear wall.

While I’m at it, I can believe that Chicago may have had nearly a kilometer of ice over it. It is not the terminus of any of the great glacial advances. It is, instead, about half-way between the center of the Laurentide center of accumulation and the terminus during the Kansan and Nebraskan advances. The East Coast is more problematic because with lowered sea levels, most of the evidence of the extent of glaciation is not directly observable. That is, the terminal moraine is probably under water. Instead, what is more commonly observed are the recessional moraines that are still still above water after the oceans rose.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 26, 2020 1:30 pm

Yeah, you are right. That is the most important thing about the ice, and a crucial aspect of this post by David Middleton. Yep. We have to pound away at any deployment of metaphor and plausible assumption about the depth at edge. That is so [&$#*$(@] important.

Thank you for the slap down.

By the way, you avoided my question. Please provide the depth of the Laurentide Ice Sheet at intervals of 1000 yards in from the edge at all places along the boundary. See, in my metaphor, I consider “near” the edge to include the incredible, awe-inspiring one and two mile thickessess.

So slap me again: at what Lat/Long is the shortest you have to go in-glacier to reach a depth of one mile and two miles, and all the increments in between. In your wisdom, this ought to be easy for you to answer.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Tillman
April 26, 2020 3:37 pm

You invited me to “… slap me again:” Do you really want to get into some kind of flame war over something you called “one little detail?” You are taking it too personally.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 26, 2020 3:45 pm

No, no flame war. And no, there is nothing for me to take personally. You have not said anything that even remotely touches my person. You have no idea (even though I have hinted it strongly) why I’m rejecting your attack on my statement.

Just for laughs, I’ll retract “slap” since you don’t respect the sarcasm.

Now… when will you respond to my challenge?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Tillman
April 26, 2020 3:39 pm

“Recovering?” I haven’t even started treatment! I’m still in the denial stage.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Tillman
April 27, 2020 4:12 pm

You say, “In your wisdom, this ought to be easy for you to answer.” That demonstrates how little you know about glaciology. Your question doesn’t even take into account which advance you are concerned about, whether you want the thickness while the glacier was advancing or at the terminal stand. The thickness of the ice will be impacted by distance from the zones of accumulation, the general slope of the land, and whether there are obstructions such as the Adirondacks, Green Mountains, and White Mountains that impede the movement of the glacier. But, I don’t think that you are really interested in learning anything. You are just defending your pride after making a claim that can’t be supported, probably by anyone. The movement of glacial ice has much in common with the movement of water, except that ground and surface temperatures can affect the flow, and rough topography can cause turbulence at the base, and ice can shear over the obstructions, when it gets deep enough. However, the most serious constraint on supporting a mile-high escarpment of ice is the strength of the ice on the unrestrained face moving away from the source. Ice has only a fraction of the strength of most rocks. While it can and does move plasticly at depth, it will behave brittly at the unrestrained face, that is, the terminus. However, what this all depends on is a principle stated by James Hutton: “The present is the key to the past.” There are no mile-high escarpments of ice known anywhere in the world today.

Reply to  David Middleton
April 27, 2020 5:30 pm

Indeed, that certainly dumbfounded me. I nearly melted with fear. But then I froze, just in time.

Reply to  David Middleton
April 27, 2020 5:51 pm

In this case, lack of patience is not the problem. Clyde’s insults (due to lack of patience, I suppose you mean to say) are trivial.

It is the erroneous bull combined with obsession that was off the track from the get-go that is disturbing. Seriously, what the hell is he all about?

Reply to  John Tillman
April 27, 2020 5:47 pm

I would draw the attention of anyone still reading this absurd diversion …

1) i made no claim that the ice at the edge of any glacier was a mile or two miles high. Please re-read my original post, and my responses. I never claimed it!;
2) I did claim that the ice was a mile high over Chicago;
3) it was the other person who made the claim in dispute here: quote: “It was probably at least a mile high at the center of the zone of accumulation. However, I imagine that it was only a few hundred feet high at the southern margins.”
4) both ends of that claim, as ‘imagined’ have not been proven by the claimant;
5) does the claimant claim, indeed, that the depth of ice at the center of the zone of accumulation of the Laurentide Ice Sheet was in the vicinity of a mile? Further, does he deny there is two miles of ice over a huge amount of Antarctica, and up to 2.7 in places? Today?

I await apology for attributing to me a claim that I never made. I despair, however, since avoidance of my counter-challenge has been remarkably brilliant.

April 24, 2020 11:03 am

Oh, come on, Mr Gates bought beach-side property so when sea level rises he could have a front door mooring for his latest toy, and get on the board strait from the first floor terrace, without having to put his shoes on.
Some years ago, much younger Mr. Gates came to present his latest version of Windows to the UK journalists, I had opportunity to exchange only few words, my impression was of a pleasant and approachable man.

Reply to  Vuk
April 24, 2020 11:22 am

…. that would be the ‘second floor’ in America
comment image

James francisco
April 24, 2020 11:11 am

If I had Bill’s FU money, my vacation home would be just down the road on the top of the hill in La Jolla. What a view of the ocean and San Diego, America’s finest city as the locals like to say. Hard to argue against that.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  James francisco
April 24, 2020 11:50 am
Another Scott
Reply to  James francisco
April 26, 2020 7:00 pm

He also bought a 200 acre horse facility in Rancho Santa Fe – the Del Mar house is probably to go along with it, Del Mar is a beach city that boarders Rancho Santa Fe (sort of)

Stan Sexton
April 24, 2020 11:16 am

Gates should work on crappy Windows 10 and really crappy Outlook.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Stan Sexton
April 24, 2020 2:28 pm

I’ll second that! Both W10 and Outlook are a serious disappointment.

Dave N
Reply to  Stan Sexton
April 24, 2020 8:40 pm

I expect he may have improved his outlook with this recent purchase?

April 24, 2020 11:17 am

Bill Gates is one of the very few greenies who supports advanced nuclear power, in his case molten salt small modular reactors which can either burn Thorium or uranium. He has contributed millions to the development of one particular design.

tsk tsk
Reply to  ColMosby
April 24, 2020 6:36 pm

No, he supports traveling wave breeders. What could go wrong with liquid sodium cooling loops?

Eric Harpham
April 24, 2020 11:37 am

I’d be more worried about a tsunami than sea level rise.

Reply to  Eric Harpham
April 24, 2020 12:26 pm

Indeed, the Atlantic coasts both sides of the pond are not immune to a significant tsunami being generated by a few different means and causes. Anything significant represents a huge problem for a lot real estate. Even a storm surge, combined with a wrong phase of the Moon and tides etc, could cause a lot of damage such as super storm Sandy did. If the same storm Sandy had hit a few days earlier or later, and not at a full Moon and extreme high tide situation, much damage would have been averted. Just luck of the draw, but you don’t hear much about this little fact.

Reply to  Earthling2
April 24, 2020 2:07 pm

Atlantic coasts or Pacific coasts?

John Tillman
Reply to  Mr.
April 24, 2020 2:43 pm

IMO Earthling is refering to east and west coasts of the Atlantic, ie with Europe and Africa on one side and the Americas on the other. A big tsunami of course could also affect the Arctic Ocean on the north and Antarctica on the south.

Citizen Smith
April 24, 2020 11:46 am

Where’s the pool? He paid $43mm and din’t even get a pool. Nothing completes an ocean front luxury property like a pool.

Reply to  Citizen Smith
April 24, 2020 11:59 am

A pool shows up in Zillow.,0

I know someone who bought a much nicer home in La Jolla for $4.5 mil, though it’s not on the beach.

John Tillman
Reply to  Scissor
April 24, 2020 2:24 pm

Zillow’s $7 million estimate is a little low. Must not be many comps.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Citizen Smith
April 24, 2020 7:06 pm

No grass to mow.

James R Clarke
Reply to  Citizen Smith
April 25, 2020 4:56 pm

43 million dollars and only has 6 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms. I have exactly half that and pay $700/month. Of course, my home is not on the beach, but it rained really heavy the last few days and there are puddles in the front yard.

Thomas Burk
April 24, 2020 12:06 pm

It’s one of the great oceanfront spots in California. I lived and bodysurfed in Del Mar for several years. Perfect place for family fun at the beach and in the water. He’s a little close to the fairgrounds to me, and slightly further south near 15th St. is even better. But God bless him and I hope he enjoys our beautiful state.

April 24, 2020 12:17 pm

Data from says that relative sea level at San Diego is rising at a rate of about 2 mm/yr and land is subsiding at about the same rate. I.e., it’s all subsidence. No change in actual sea level at all.

And if Google Earth Pro is correct, his ocean front doorstep is about 13 feet above mean high water. That should give him about 600 years before high tide is there.

A good buy for all but Methuselah, unless a tsunami hits.

John the Econ
April 24, 2020 12:22 pm

Don’t you see? By buying that doomed oceanfront property, he’s sparing some less wealthy individual from making a horrible mistake.

Reply to  John the Econ
April 24, 2020 7:37 pm

Well bless his heart!

( People South of the Mason-Dixon line will get that. Anyone else? Not so much.)

Chris Wright
Reply to  John the Econ
April 25, 2020 2:38 am

Yes, he’s probably saved the lives of some other mega-rich folks when the sea level ‘pocalypse comes roaring in!

April 24, 2020 12:27 pm

Various billionaires who believe in rising sea levels buying sea front properties proves nothing really. They have so much money that if the property became worthless in ten year’s time it wouldn’t matter in the slightest. Whether the lack of rising sea levels will cause them to finally see the light? Well, only time will tell.

Reply to  Stonyground
April 24, 2020 2:03 pm

Or ….
” You have to trust science, and the current science consensus is that your property is going to be submerged by the ocean in 25 years time, it will be loosing 18% of its then value in each year. In 2045 it will be worth less than 1% in today’s money. I’ll make you an offer you are unlikely to get in 12 month’s time, how about it, do we have a deal?”

Stephen Fitzpatrick
April 24, 2020 12:41 pm

Gates is 64, and looks like hell for 64. He is not likely to be around in 25 years. He probably figures the $43 million investment is not going to be harmed by a 2 or 3 inch rise over his remaining time on Earth.

Reply to  Stephen Fitzpatrick
April 24, 2020 1:30 pm

64? He looks like 74 or older.

Stephen Fitzpatrick
Reply to  Scissor
April 24, 2020 1:43 pm

DOB: October 28, 1955

John Tillman
Reply to  Stephen Fitzpatrick
April 24, 2020 2:09 pm

Melinda is only 55.

Reply to  John Tillman
April 25, 2020 4:58 am

Christ, really? She looks a lot older. Mrs W is older, a little 😎, and looks younger.

John Tillman
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
April 25, 2020 10:14 am

All the more remarkable since they live in a cloudy, rainy environment, hence little sun damage. Maybe too little vitamin D.

April 24, 2020 1:36 pm

Bill built a great money machine. If he wanted to he could easily be the richest man in the world. He just chose a different path after he got PTSD from the anti-monopoly lawsuit in the 90’s. Agree that he looks much older than his years. Al Capone supposedly ran a soup kitchen in Chicago and Pablo Escobar really did build a neighborhood for the poorest people in Medellin, Columbia. Big deal. They simply don’t believe most of what they feel the need to bend the knee to. We know that.

High Treason
April 24, 2020 1:51 pm

An earthquake and tsunami will literally have him dropping that 43 million-in to the ocean. Haven’t some of the doomsayers been claiming that earthquakes are caused by climate change? There is a conundrum here, isn’t there?
Conundrums seem to be part of Gates-on one hand, he has stated there are too many people on the planet, on the other hand he is demanding everyone be vaccinated with verification (microchipped) against COVID.
Glad that others have noticed Gates looks older than his years. You would think someone with that much money could have the best of skin care. If he only has 20 years left in him, sea level rise won’t be enough to cause problems to the mansion.

Another Scott
Reply to  High Treason
April 26, 2020 6:48 pm

A tsunami would drop the ocean onto the house rather than Vice Versa? It’s at sea level already unlike houses in the area up on bluffs that look like they could get dropped into the ocean…

April 24, 2020 3:24 pm

The percentage of Gates income that he spent on the Del Mar mansion is roughly equivalent to what a median income worker would spend on a cat calendar.

John Tillman
Reply to  Dave
April 24, 2020 5:42 pm

Gates can’t turn his MSFT shares into cash instantly, or their value would tank.

His disposable income thus isn’t anything like $102 billion. It’s still a lot, but $43 million out of pocket isn’t chump change for him. However, he and Melinda aren’t going to buy a new retirement home every year.

Their youngest of three kids graduates high school this year. Except that schools are all on line now. The oldest is entering med school, equestrienne daughter Stanford grad.

son of mulder
April 24, 2020 3:47 pm

The guy’s a multibillionaire, $43M is loose change.

April 24, 2020 4:49 pm

That property has a nice high sea wall so Bill won’t have to worry about sea level rise in his lifetime. It’s much smarter than buying bluff-top property a few miles south where people may actually lose their houses in the coming years as the bluffs continue to collapse into the sea as they’ve done for thousands of years.

April 24, 2020 6:12 pm

I can’t wait until someone like Gates invests in fusion energy development. To me that would mean there’s some breakthrough on the horizon.

April 24, 2020 6:50 pm

The patio features a 10-person spa, gas fire-pit, – I WONDER IF THEY’LL USE THE GAS FIRE PIT??
they can celebrate with gas while the waves roll in and engulf them
– lots of lighting featured for the sale = will he convert to solar cells made in China or the US?
– or just keep using fossil fuels to power all the mod cons
– or is this area of Yankee land powered by a nuclear reactor??
Bill can look that up!!

April 24, 2020 7:06 pm

On Google Earth the complex is 12 – 15 feet above sea level on dry land – good for at least 100 years.
(unless there is a tsunami !).


Reply to  Jon P Peterson
April 25, 2020 5:00 am

Unlike Oh Barmy’s house. 3-5 feet and on sand.

Howard Dewhirst
April 24, 2020 8:09 pm

Good to see he doesn’t believe in accelerating sea level rise

April 24, 2020 8:41 pm

43 million divided by 100 billion net worth? .00043 Does one begrudge a man with a $100k net worth investing $43 on a particular stock or just pissing it away on a few drinks at the bar? Did Kat Timpf write this article? How does Gates digging in the couch cushions for the downpayment and leveraging historically low interest rates qualifiy as hypocrisy? Ridiculous strawman attack.
Taytay says it, “You need to calm down”

April 25, 2020 2:15 am

I’m guessing that he hasn’t heard about the Rose Canyon Fault.

April 25, 2020 2:35 am

meh….chump change for Bill and Mel, they simply follow the old maxim ” only gamble with what you can afford to lose” So when apocalyptic , unprecedented , catastrophic, accelerating sea level rise engulfs the place they just move 100 yards upslope.

Tombstone Gabby
April 25, 2020 11:27 am

I haven’t bought or sold any real estate in California for many years. Going back 20+ years, the RE Agents commission was 6%. $2.88 M – not a bad days work.

Christopher Paino
Reply to  Tombstone Gabby
April 26, 2020 9:58 am

That house will never be a home.

Another Scott
April 26, 2020 6:42 pm

You know who else owns a house right on the beach in San Diego County? Mitt Romney.

Robert Bissett
April 27, 2020 9:21 am

“Bill Gates is backing the first high-altitude experiment of one radical approach called solar geoengineering. It’s meant to mimic the effects of a giant volcanic eruption. Thousands of planes would fly at high altitudes, spraying millions of tons of particles around the planet to create a massive chemical cloud that would cool the surface.

“Modeling studies have found that it could reduce the intensity of heat waves, for instance, apparently it could reduce the rate of sea level rise.” Search for “This Bill Gates-funded chemical cloud could help stop global warming”

%d bloggers like this: