CLINTEL puts hard climate questions to Bill Gates

Reposted from CFACT

By David Wojick |September 23rd, 2020|Climate

Bill Gates is throwing several billion dollars at climate change. Mind you he is not throwing it away, because it is mostly venture capital for new energy technologies, which could pay off handsomely without climate change.

Gates can do what he likes with his riches, but he is a leading figure and lately he has become a serious climate change scaremonger. This has prompted CLINTEL to put some hard questions to him, in the form of a registered letter.

On the scaremongering side, last month Gates published an article claiming that climate change will be far worse than the present Covid outbreak. He imagines many millions dying from climate change. The press spread his doomsday words far and wide.

Here are some doomful excerpts:

I am talking about COVID-19. But in just a few decades, the same description will fit another global crisis: climate change. As awful as this pandemic is, climate change could be worse.

I realize that it’s hard to think about a problem like climate change right now. When disaster strikes, it is human nature to worry only about meeting our most immediate needs, especially when the disaster is as bad as COVID-19. But the fact that dramatically higher temperatures seem far off in the future does not make them any less of a problem—and the only way to avoid the worst possible climate outcomes is to accelerate our efforts now. Even as the world works to stop the novel coronavirus and begin recovering from it, we also need to act now to avoid a climate disaster by building and deploying innovations that will let us eliminate our greenhouse gas emissions.”

If you want to understand the kind of damage that climate change will inflict, look at COVID-19 and spread the pain out over a much longer period of time. The loss of life and economic misery caused by this pandemic are on par with what will happen regularly if we do not eliminate the world’s carbon emissions.”

According to Gates’ Energy Plan, progress is the problem. He puts it this way:

These challenges are only getting more urgent. The world’s middle class has been growing at an unprecedented rate, and as you move up the income ladder, your carbon footprint expands. Instead of walking everywhere, you can afford a bicycle (which doesn’t use gas but is likely made with energy-intensive metal and gets to you via cargo ships and trucks that run on fossil fuels). Eventually you get a motorbike so you can travel farther from home to work a better job and afford to send your kids to school. Your family eats more eggs, meat, and dairy, so they get better nutrition. You’re in the market for a refrigerator, electric lights so your kids can study at night, and a sturdy home built with metal and concrete.

All of that new consumption translates into tangible improvements in people’s lives. It is good for the world overall—but it will be very bad for the climate, unless we find ways to do it without adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.”

As a rebuttal, the CLINTEL open letter asks him these six central questions:

1. How much or how little global warming does mankind really cause on top of the natural contribution?

2. Why does projected global warming exceed observationally-derived warming by more than 200%?

3. Have the large benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere been properly accounted for?

4. Does the cost of attempting to abate global warming exceed the benefit in the avoided cost of adaptation?

5. What of the tens of millions who die every year because they cannot afford expensive “renewable” electricity and are denied affordable, reliable alternatives?

6. Has history not shown us repeatedly that adaptation to change presents a powerful survival and evolutionary strategy?

Professor Guus Berkhout, CLINTEL President, asks a more personal question:

CLINTEL particularly blames Bill Gates that he takes advantage of his riches-based fame to frighten the public with extreme modeling predictions (question 2), but does not reassure them with the fact that these scaring modeling results never agreed with observations in practice. ‘Why this one-sided message, Mr. Gates?’

It will be interesting to see how Bill Gates responds. I urge others to send similar letters to the misguided billionaires who are funding the climate false change scare.

In related news CLINTEL has posted an updated listing of its 900+ international
member scientists and related professionals, all signatories to the World Climate Declaration. They are listed by nationality, with 34 countries listed to date.

Author

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see

http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html

For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see

http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/

Available for confidential research and consulting.

92 thoughts on “CLINTEL puts hard climate questions to Bill Gates

  1. It will be interesting to see how Bill Gates responds

    I suspect he’ll respond the same way all the other climate scaremongers do: by ignoring the hard questions.

    • Those are easy questions, and he’ll ignore them all. The media will publicize his alarmism prominently, but they won’t even mention that anyone asked the questions.

    • I’ve given up on Bill Gates – he changed his wrong opinions on green energy a few years ago when he finally recognized that green energy was not green and produced little useful (dispatchable) energy, but he is wedded (or welded?) to global warming alarmist falsehoods.

      “As a rebuttal, the CLINTEL open letter asks him these six central questions:
      1. How much or how little global warming does mankind really cause on top of the natural contribution?
      2. Why does projected global warming exceed observationally-derived warming by more than 200%?
      3. Have the large benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere been properly accounted for?
      4. Does the cost of attempting to abate global warming exceed the benefit in the avoided cost of adaptation?
      5. What of the tens of millions who die every year because they cannot afford expensive “renewable” electricity and are denied affordable, reliable alternatives?
      6. Has history not shown us repeatedly that adaptation to change presents a powerful survival and evolutionary strategy?”

      Professor Guus Berkhout, CLINTEL President, asks a more personal question:
      “CLINTEL particularly blames Bill Gates that he takes advantage of his riches-based fame to frighten the public with extreme modeling predictions (question 2), but does not reassure them with the fact that these scaring modeling results never agreed with observations in practice. ‘Why this one-sided message, Mr. Gates?’”
      _______________________

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/bill-gates-backs-advanced-nuclear-power-to-solve-the-climate-crisis/#comment-2573283

      I wrote this on Bill Gates blog in 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

      gatesnotes.com/Books/Energy-and-Civilization

      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 [new note – cancel vaccines, it’s been a disaster] – 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]

      wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/15/bill-gates-steps-down-from-microsoft-to-focus-full-time-on-climate-change-and-philanthropy/#comment-2939668

      For the record, the rest of my June 13 2018 note to Bill Gates is here:
      ALLAN MACRAE Jun 13, 2018
      wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/11/nasas-jimbridenstine-has-reversed-his-position-on-climate-change-and-can-no-longer-be-trusted/#comment-2376151
      [excerpt]

      “I’ve added a few points to my 2008 and 2015 papers that “close the loop” on my observed ~9 month delay of atmospheric CO2 trends AFTER global temperature trends.”
      Regards, Allan MacRae, P.Eng.
      ___________________________

      My June14, 2008 Climate and Energy Primer written for Bill Gates and posted on his blog GatesNotes is here:
      ALLAN MACRAE Jun 14, 2018
      CLIFFSNOTES ON CLIMATE AND ENERGY
      WHAT DRIVES GLOBAL TEMPERATURE?

      The correct mechanism is (approx.): Equatorial Pacific Sea Surface Temperature up –>; Equatorial Atmospheric Water Vapor up 3 months later –>; Equatorial Temperature up ->; Global Temperature up one month later ->; Global Atmospheric dCO2/dt up (contemporaneous with Global Temperature) ->; Atmospheric CO2 trends up 9 months later

      The base CO2 increase of ~2ppm/year could have many causes, including fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc, but it has a minor or insignificant impact on global temperatures.

      What drives Equatorial Pacific Sea Surface Temperature and Global Temperature? In sub-decadal timeframes, El Nino and La Nina (ENSO); longer term, probably the Integral of Solar Activity. Longer still – probably Milankovitch cycles.

      ON GLOBAL PRIMARY ENERGY Fully 85% of global primary energy is generated from fossil fuels – oil, natural gas and coal. The rest is generated from nuclear and hydro. Hardly any useful (dispatchable) energy is generated from so-called “green” sources, despite tens of trillions in wasted subsidies.

      Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society – it IS that simple. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.

      EPILOGUE
      In a few decades, the destructive impacts of false global warming alarmism will be viewed in the same context as the destructive impacts of the 30-year ban of DDT in the fight against malaria. Both acts will have resulted in tens of millions of needless deaths, but global warming alarmism will also have wasted tens of trillions of dollars in subsidies, representing scarce global resources that could have provided clean water and sanitation systems in every village on the planet; and the remaining funds could probably have gone a long way to eliminating world hunger.

  2. The twat! I was running WFH systems in the late 80’s/early 90’s, no help from him while he was stealing the name “SEQUEL” from Hawker Siddeley.

    • A quick search says the name is still owned by Hawker Siddeley Dynamics. Did they manage to drive off the pirate, this time?

      • The thing that complicates things is that SQL is often pronounced ‘sequel’. link Is that a result of Microsoft skullduggery? The video in the link makes me think it might be.

        Has Microsoft ever operated in an underhanded manner? Yep. embrace extend extinguish

        • Worst than that, they use to do joint development contracts with small companies that had technology they wanted to acquire. At the end of the contract, which they rairly extended, they had acquired the technology, came out with their own implementation and put the smaller company out of business.

          • We had this happen to us when OLE was introduced. My team developed the OLE APIs based on the book. There was nothing in Windows at the time. MS invited us out to Redmond for a week, to show them what we had done. Of course we gave them code on DVDs so we could project it. The next release of Windows had our code in it. All water over the dam in an HTML world, but an interesting experience nonetheless.

    • For a variety of reasons I switched to Linux when Windows XP came out.

      I just had to get a ‘new’ ten year old laptop because my previous laptop wouldn’t run 64 bits. Naturally, the ‘new’ laptop was very cheap. The joy of Linux is that it will run on everything from embedded systems to super computers where it is the dominant operating system.

      Like my ‘new’ laptop, old hardware gets a new life by running Linux.

    • SQL, not “SEQUEL” is a relational database access language developed in the 1970’s. I don’;t believe that name is copyright or owned in any manner. BUT: The Microsoft SQL Server was stolen from Sybase (a company I worked for at the time). Microsoft entered into a contract with Sybase to port the Sybase SQL Server to Windows and Intel systems in exchange for revenues from the ported product.

      Then Microsoft brought the lawyers into play and claimed that the contract gave them complete ownership of the Sybase source code and that any profits they made from the Microsoft owned source code belonged to Microsoft, not Sybase. Sybase buckled under the legal pressure and expense.

      Bill Gates is not even close to being on of the “smartest people in the world” He made his fortune by ruthlessly exploiting the work of others. I don’t believe anything he has was created by him. It was all stolen.

      • Bill Gates is a genius ….. at stealing other’s ideas. He’s the Lex Luthor of the tech business world, only with more hair.

    • SQL was developed by IBM in the early ’70s. Way before M$ time.
      As an old Mainframer, I still despise M$ though.

  3. As a start, Mr. Gates needs to show he’s serious about climate change and turn off his heated driveway at the Yellowstone Club in Big Sky, MT. (I’ve been told that elk hang out on the driveway in the winter)

  4. Wasn’t bill gates on Epsteins plane? 60+ thousand vile pictures of children were found on a computer in his personal house, Yet we have to listen to this cancerous human on covid and “climate change” 😐

    • Doesn’t Gates hold some kind of patent on Covid? Why would a man who is obsessed with climate change, be pushing the biggest health scare panic of all time, which is literally destroying the western economy – and doing exactly what greens wanted? It’s inexplicable.

  5. Bill Gates isn’t stupid, so what is he actually doing? Is he virtue-signaling to keep the howling hordes away from his business interests (and choosing where his investment money goes so it’s a win-win)? Is he just throwing away a few billion to achieve some other objective, like a political one? Bill and Melinda Gates (and their associate, Dr. Fauci) are heavy supporters of anti-HIV problems in Africa, while owning stock in the Big Pharma companies also involved. This might be a clue to his current public statements. The punch line for me is that not even Bill Gates can save Kalifornia from itself.

    • Gates’ behavior is a replay of that of John D. Rockefeller (Sr.) who employed the public relations tactic of handing out dimes to children in an effort intended to keep the lynch mobs at bay.

  6. “5. What of the tens of millions who die every year because they cannot afford expensive “renewable” electricity and are denied affordable, reliable alternatives?”

    What of them, indeed? Wouldn’t a better question be ‘What initiatives do you offer to them?”

    I would guess that Mr Gates wants them to become richer so that they can afford his overpriced products….

    • “so that they can afford his overpriced products….”

      And they will need reliable, voltage and frequency stable electricity to run them.

      Wind and solar NEED NOT APPLY.

  7. “This has prompted CLINTEL to put some hard questions to him, in the form of a registered letter.”

    A registered letter! Well, that’ll show him that CLINTEL is serious. Very serious.

  8. Open letter are really stupid.
    they should ask him to make them a sandwich

    1. How much or how little global warming does mankind really cause on top of the natural contribution?
    See Ar5

    2. Why does projected global warming exceed observationally-derived warming by more than 200%?
    Assumes facts not in evidence

    3. Have the large benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere been properly accounted for?
    Assumes facts not in evidence

    4. Does the cost of attempting to abate global warming exceed the benefit in the avoided cost of adaptation?
    See Nordhaus or Tol

    5. What of the tens of millions who die every year because they cannot afford expensive “renewable” electricity and are denied affordable, reliable alternatives?
    assumes facts not in evidence

    6. Has history not shown us repeatedly that adaptation to change presents a powerful survival and evolutionary strategy?
    overly broad generalization.

    next

      • As Pat Frank points out, what happened to him is a paycheck. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

    • All of the supporters of dangerous human caused global warming also assume facts not in evidence, generally more so than skeptics. If even one major claim is shown to be unsupported, the hypothesis is falsified. Essentially all of the claims have been falsified or at least not fully supported. Your general support for the “problem” is failed.

    • 1. How much or how little global warming does mankind really cause on top of the natural contribution?
      See Ar5

      The WG1 report for AR5 is just over 1500 pages long. The WG2 and WG3 contributions are of similar size.

      Responding to legitimate questions with “The answers you seek are somewhere in those 4500 pages” isn’t exactly helpful.

      – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

      The relevant section in WG1 is 10.3.1.1.3, “Attribution of observed global-scale temperature changes”, pages 881 to 888 [ there, see how easy that was ? ].

      “In AR5” it says :

      Although some inconsistencies between the simulated and observed responses to forcings in individual models were identified (Gillett et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2013; Ribes and Terray, 2013) overall these results support the AR4 assessment that GHG increases very likely caused most (>50%) of the observed GMST increase since the mid-20th century (Hegerl et al., 2007b).

      Time series analyses, such as those shown in Figure 10.6, seek to partition the variability of GMST into components attributable to anthropogenic and natural forcings and modes of internal variability such as ENSO and the AMO. Although such time series analyses support the major role of anthropogenic forcings, particularly due to increasing GHG concentrations, in contributing to the overall warming over the last 60 years, many factors, in addition to GHGs, including changes
      in tropospheric and stratospheric aerosols, stratospheric water vapour and solar output, as well as internal modes of variability, contribute to the year-to-year and decade-to-decade variability of GMST (Figure 10.6).

      Even looking only at “since the mid-20th century / the 1951-2010 period” that AR5 limits itself to, a “scientific” response to the question as posed would be something like either
      “The anthropogenic contribution = X +/- Y percent of the total [ and therefore natural variability = (100 – X)% … ]”
      or
      “The 95% confidence interval for the anthropogenic contribution goes from X(low)% to X(high)%”.

      In order to demonstrate your erudition to all observers here, please “show your working” in going from “GHG increases very likely caused most (>50%) of the observed GMST increase since the mid-20th century” to (at least ?) one of the above versions of a scientific answer to the question actually asked, preferably providing specific page numbers to the parts “in AR5” that you require which are not included in my extracts above.

      • What part of “drive-by English major” don’t you understand, Mark?

        Cut-and-paste the original, add a comment of a few words, cut-and-paste that, if the cookie cutter response just can’t fit, make a couple of thoughtless adjustments, then dismiss the topic with “next?“ Move on to troll the next posting.

        Unserious comments should get less attention.

        • Mark’s reply is great, just in case my comment is misunderstood. But mosh has no intention of putting any actual effort into his trolling. His only message is “I’m right, you’re wrong!”

          Or to be more precise:
          im rite ur rong next

    • “If you want to understand the kind of damage that climate change will inflict, look at COVID-19 and spread the pain out over a much longer period of time. The loss of life and economic misery caused by this pandemic are on par with what will happen regularly if we do not eliminate the world’s carbon emissions.”

      Assumes facts not in evidence.

      • “The loss of life and economic misery caused by this pandemic are on par with what will happen regularly if we do not eliminate the world’s carbon emissions.””

        Oh look, another BS fantasy, backed by… NOTHING. !!!

      • Actually the damage done like the response to CAGW is virtually all response induced.

        If the pandemic had been allowed to propagate of its own will as per say Italy say then the death toll would likely have been limited to a few million and all before now with a GDP decline by now in strong recovery.

        the parallels are very strong and adaption is the way forward as the predictions are daft in both.

      • “If you want to understand the kind of damage that climate change alarmist policies will inflict, look at COVID-19 and spread the pain out over a much longer period of time. The loss of life and economic misery caused by this pandemic are on par with what will happen regularly if we implement climate change alarmist policies

        Fixed that for him.

    • Oh Steve! Your first two sentences were brilliant, the best you’ve ever written here on WUWT. The rest, not so much. Perhaps you can take some snarky rebuttal lessons from my buddy Griff, he is a professional, after all.

  9. “Bill Gates is throwing several billion dollars at climate change. ”
    Bill Gates is also throwing billions promoting the covid crisis!
    What’s the connection? Covid is cover for the Big Green Economic Reset.

  10. Not so many days ago William H. Gates II, the father of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, has died at an age of 94.

    On Bill gates own website he writes:
    “His wisdom, generosity, empathy, and humility had a huge influence on people around the world.”

    Has this sad event influenced Bill Gate’s aggressive statement on Climate Policy?

  11. Working from home. What a PR stunt expert. No he’s flying wherever he likes. If he was sincerely worried about CO2 he’d pull Windows from the market and shut down his data centers.

  12. Gates may have been a decent programmer at one point but this shows how little he knows of basic math.

    One of the questions should have been “Is the average global temperature going up because maximum temperatures are going up or because minimum temperatures are going up?”. It’s obvious that he hasn’t yet figured out that you can’t tell from an AVERAGE. And this question is very important. Minimum temperatures going up present very little danger to mankind. It means things like fewer deaths from cold temps (which are always higher than heat deaths), longer growing seasons, and more nighttime growth of food crops.

    I am just constantly surprised and dismayed by the uneducated “elites” that seem to control so much of our society today. They are leading us down the primrose path to perdition.

    • We should hope that it is evidence that they are “uneducated”. The alternative is that you are pointing out the inconsistencies of their intentional lies.

      It is getting harder to dismiss as a “conspiracy theory” the reality that many elites have ulterior motives that they are pursuing. I still doubt the formal conspiracy aspect, because as I see it, we can easily explain the situation as many independent actors pursuing their perceived selfish interests. They all see an angle in pretending to believe the new religion. Their financial schemes depend on people believing the dogma, so it’s in their interest to add to the chorus of propaganda.

      • “many independent actors pursuing their perceived selfish interests”

        This is why I have stopped viewing film with Leo.

        • Ha ha, Carl. Actor has more meanings than skuespiller as you know. But DiCrapio is actually an example of my point. Why does he proselytize for GreenChurch? Because there’s no such thing as bad publicity for an attention whore.

      • Rich,

        “I still doubt the formal conspiracy aspect, because as I see it, we can easily explain the situation as many independent actors pursuing their perceived selfish interests”

        Adam Smith’s invisible hand?

        • That would probably be the opposite of what I said, if I really even understand what you mean.

          My view is that there is little to no formal coordination, but lots of leeches pursuing their own interests and echoing what others say when it advances their own interests.

          It’s absurd to think that billionaires coordinate with anarchists and communists. The billionaires expect to make money “building the future”, but fully understand that it’s a false promise. If they sell 100,000,000 windmills that don’t actually have any value, they still keep the profits. The commies would like to eat the billionaires but they’re happy to let them support the pseudo-religion so long as they can manipulate opinion toward “socialism” being necessary to reach Green nirvana.

          Lots of other leeches—politicians who can ride a popular delusion and divert OPM into crony schemes with kickback “contributions” that keep their electoral machine humming. Environmental activists who are the needy missionaries of Greenchurch. Climastrolgists who can suck down grant money and rub elbows with the elite in exotic locales…

          None of them need talking points from KAOS central. Just glomming onto the gravy train. It’s a crowdsourced scam.

    • Gates may have been a good programmer (I think decent is going a bit too far), however he certainly was not a software developer. There is a big difference. The only thing he was good at (like Jobs) was stealing other’s IP, either outright or through the famous “embrace and extend” road, thereby trapping your customers into using your product line.

    • Gates was never a programmer, he did not write DOS. MS-DOS was a renamed form of 86-DOS – owned by Seattle Computer Products, written by Tim Paterson. He just rebadged it and sold it.

  13. BLM focus on black lives lost at the hands of white people, but ignore the far larger loss of life of blacks at the hands of other blacks and that more white people die at the hands of blacks than the other way round.
    The EU mandated that landfill must stop and consequently huge amounts of plastic now ends up in the Pacific instead of safely in the ground in Europe.
    The EU mandated carbon neutral targets so that while decrying the cutting down of rain forest to grow Palm Oil it’s Ok to import palm Oil if it is used as a bio Fuel.
    The hysterical focus on the loss of life to SARS Cov 2 is so pervasive that those easily influenced think that no one dies of anything else and we’ve never had viruses before and that economies can be switched off. Death from Heart disease or Cancer still eclipses this cold related virus and not all deaths are peaceful. In addition the deaths caused by measures to ‘defeat’ this virus will bring about more deaths from other causes such as poverty and other serious side effects of suspending civilisation.
    Bill Gates wants, as a matter of urgency, to get the entire human population of 7billion plus vaccinated against SARS Cov 2, even though this is a temporary mutation of the Coronavirus. The challenge of vaccinating against cold and flu viruses is they all mutate all the time and we also quickly develop immunities. There is the additional insanity of Covid Zero.
    Becoming Carbon Neutral or Carbon Zero is being done in the name of Science except science would take care with taxonomy and it’s particulars. Carbon is a building block of all life so it is a dangerous and meaningless assertion to get rid of Carbon. If it is argued that this really means Human produced CO2 then science does not or should not play fast a loose with terminology because key definition is lost. If the focus is truly about eliminating the 35 billion tons of Human produced CO2 then what are we going to do about the 700+ billion tons of naturally produced CO2?

  14. bilygates donates/funds a lot of stuff
    of course he then makes a huge tax saving in return I guess?
    hes just suckered ausgovt into megamillions and signing onto his pet GAVI project
    he seems to visit Aus far more than is made public, at the time
    guess hes got a bunker here
    and maybe still being besties with gillard KRudd and others?
    seems ghouliar keeps in touch with sorestlooser killary too

  15. Thomas Sowell’s intelligentsia on perfect display. A intellect, lacking wisdom, spouts off ideas and is under no threat of consequence if he is wrong.

    This is ironic, considering Gates was a genius in technology world.

    • That’s debatable. A genius in business maybe. A more accurate description may be a remorseless thief of intellectual property and a dishonest purveyor of schlock software that is foisted on customers who are forced to provide quality control and are then required to pay again (and regularly) for the (partially-) repaired product.

      • Quite. I think MS Office has introduced huge inefficiencies into many businesses because much time is spent just communicating which has been caused by the technical ability to work anywhere. A face to face conversation between competent people is still the quickest and most efficient way of communicating.

      • Yep, he bought DOS from someone else because IBM came to him looking for an operating system for the PC. His genius was getting IBM to let him keep the rights to sell it for all other machines. Microsoft has been caught multiple times stealing intellectual property. Disk Doubler for one. Hard pressed to come up with something that Microsoft is known for that wasn’t a copy of some other companies concept. Because he had a monopoly on the operating system he was able to update the applications before everyone else could every time he changed the OS. That gave him a head start so even if another companies application was better, people would use his because it was available when the os changed. He would have been right at home with the robber barons of the 19th century.

    • As Rich Davis says, Mr. Gates appears to be thriving businessman.

      Forgive me if my memory fails me: At the time where MS-DOS was emerging, I was asked by Vestas what operating system to choose for the small PCs. I think I suggested Q-DOS. Q-DOS could multitask and run in both character mode and semi-graphic mode. At the time Q-DOS was well ahead of MS-DOS, but Mr. Gate had pursued far better promotion. Therefore Vestas chose MS-DOS, knowing that MS-DOS was overtaking Q-DOS in popularity.

  16. “Your family eats more eggs, meat, and dairy, so they get better nutrition. ”

    Nutrition, another subject Gates knows nothing about.

  17. ‘What of the tens of millions who die every year because they cannot afford expensive “renewable” electricity and are denied affordable, reliable alternatives?’

    They don’t exist, do they?

    Unless someone can list the numbers, by country and show that it is the extra cost of renewable electricity killing them…

    • The reference is to Africa, you dolt. People living on a dollar a day, denied the opportunity to use reliable energy. What’s their life expectancy compared to the EUssr? Do they just have inferior genes? Or is there something detrimental to health in breathing smoke from wood and dung cookfires?

      Use your head for more than a hat rack!

    • Duckduckgo search on excess Winter fuel poverty deaths

      The evidence is readily available, and damning to the climate nut cases.

      All you need do is simply look, griff.

      But you didn’t look before sounding off, did you. Perhaps the cognitive dissonance produced by the answer is too much for you to bear.

    • “They don’t exist, do they?”

      You mean they all died …?

      The policies of the AGW agenda help make sure of that.

      Immutably linked to depopulating the planet.

      You should read the thoughts of your own anti-human, anti-life AGW priests, griffool.

  18. Gates or Bezos, two people with the same coin.
    In 1914 – 18 to 24 year olds got to go off to fight in WW1 (whether you think it was justified or not).
    In 1929 the stock market crashed and for the next decade (and many argue that) d/t policies by the government, unemployment reaches as high as 25% (24.9% in 1933) and all people are affected and struggle to survive.
    In the 1940s – 18 to 30+ year olds go off to fight in WW2 after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Many argue that this was the “greatest generation” and as a boomer I wouldn’t dispute that. These people coming out of the depression then being attacked and facing fascism and Naziism they responded with determination and valor – even those who did not serve directly.
    In the 1950s – 18 to 24 year olds went to war in Korea (whether you think it was justified or not).
    In the mid to late 1960s – 18 to 24 year olds went to war in Vietnam which ended in 1975 (whether you think it was justified or not).
    In 1983 – 18 to 24 year olds invaded the island of Grenada. Also in the 80s
    In the 1990s Saddam invaded Kuwait and – 18 to 24 year olds went to war (whether you think it was justified or not).
    In 2004 we invade Iraq as a response to the attacks of 9/11/01 – 18 to 24 year olds went to war (whether you think it was justified or not).
    Now President Trump is finally removing troops from the mid east, the military draft was ended in 1973 and it has been a voluntary army since then and 18 to 24 year olds have a lot of time on their hands, so I’m wondering…
    Now I hear commercials from Amazon narrated by a “sustainability engineer” about “climate change being the fight of our generation” and I wonder, do people need actual things to fight or they’ll make up their own? Again, don’t care that much about your opinion as to whether or not the above conflicts were justified – although I’m sure we’d agree on at least one (WW2), I just note that it seems that without a (perceived or actual) enemy, each generation goes out of its way to have a “conflict” – something to fight to give their lives meaning.

  19. Here are few other pointed questions for Bill Gates.
    1) Why ‘park’ money in energy startup funds when you can be active in the best of breed public companies in renewable energy? I’m referring to the ones with the largest R&D budgets in the industry and the largest capex applied to major capacity additions and LCOE drops. And why not acknowledge the curious seeding of grants and loans with taxpayer funds to political, non-entities in renewable energy by the Obama Administration with the tag line of “we don’t pick winners”?
    2) By how much should we retard progress in the middle class of the U.S. and Europe to make up for the rise of middle classes elsewhere?
    3) Does low quality due diligence in renewable energy startup ventures by you and taxpayer-directed political leaders provide anything other than wasted time and money in the climate emergency you claim to address? See Ivanhoe, Crescent Dunes, and Solyndra for lax due diligence projects that got funded in an industry that was already making them obsolete relics if they ever made a product or had measurable output.
    4) Does wealth creation in information technology and organized personal data mining in one part of the planet really end actual mining and drilling elsewhere on the planet or does it divert it out of your back yard and impaired vision?
    5) Will the policy crafted overpricing of energy and materials in the developed countries lead to faster development of oil resources in the Russian Arctic and mineral resources in unregulated mines of Africa?

  20. Gates and other climate groupies suffer from a myopic disorder that solves a problem that is not properly defined or cannot be solved but looks like “.. a really good thing to do, e.g. … for the good of mankind). In that regard, reminding one of the Rod Serling – Twilight Zone episode titled “How to Serve Man.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVWUynJ2604. Rule 1 should be to properly define the problem to be solved. Gates has had a enormously successful / rewarding career … one of his notable earlier achievements with Paul Allen was to define an algorithm to solve the “Pancake Flipping Problem.”

  21. In the meantime, Bill Gates lives in a 66,000 square foot mansion. What is YOUR “carbon footprint” Mr. Gates? Typical hypocrite. What’s good for thee ain’t what’s good enough for me!

  22. The weekly (daily) queue of climate emergency pronouncements continues. Why not tell the truth and state what carbon tax rate you are pushing for? Ever since the Waxman Markey bill stalled in Congress the wearing down strategy has been the constant effort targeting the American public. The Dark Lord is stirring for another assault on Middle (class) Earth.

  23. Bill Gates has made some good comments on the subject. Primarily, he rejected the idea of implementing small scale solutions, when the science is saying you need 80%(now 90%) reduction in emissions.
    He advised the solution is to get to the 80% reduction, and not spend time and resources on small reductions.

    This is why he is pursuing energy technologies that could pay off even without global warming, basically adopting the Roger Pielke Jr approach- the solution is not to tax carbon so much that people will be forced to use renewable energy, but to make renewable energy so cheap people will flock to it.

    Is Bill Gates pushing smart grid, smart appliances(running Windows no doubt), hybrids or electric cars?

  24. Climate change policy will not impact the billionaire class or their family’s lifestyle in any measurable way. Except may be to make it easier for them and their families to enjoy beaches and mountain ski slopes without having to share them with the middle class they obviously despise.

    Everything about today’s climate change policy is geared towards producing a 2 class Western society: a feudal society of Lords and their close associates, and the serfs, you and me by putting us in energy poverty.

  25. Amazon is doing the same as Gates with their recent greenwashing advertisement blitz. They crow about their spending on intermittent energy and their carbon neutrality goals, with obligatory images of electric trucks and wind turbines. On another ad, they have one of their “sustainability” (ugh) specialists yammering about what they are doing to save the planet. Of course, such ads are click-bait for their youthful, brainwashed customer base. As for me, I try my best to avoid buying anything through Amazon, especially so with these ads demonstrating that their management appears to be brain dead.

  26. How does a scientist with credentials but not a high-profile public name get on the list of 900+?

    It would be good if WUWT provided information on that. I realize that many people who would like to be on the list have no credentials and their solicitation to be included might overwhelm the administrators. But there are many of us whose names on the list would add weight to the position.

  27. From the article: “All of that new consumption translates into tangible improvements in people’s lives. It is good for the world overall—but it will be very bad for the climate, unless we find ways to do it without adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.”

    Everything would work out nicely if CO2 was not bad for the climate, Gates says.

    Mr. Gates, there is no evidence demonstrating how CO2 interacts with the Earth’s atmosphere. Everything is pure speculation.

    So what if you are wrong Mr. Gates, and CO2 turns out not to be a problem? Then we could go merrily on our way, couldn’t we.

    There is no evidence that CO2 will do the things you think it will do. It is all a figment of your and others imaginations.

    You should use your money to settle the question once and for all. The question has not been settled, although you claim it is an established fact. Yet, if somone like me were to ask you for that established fact, you could not provide it. You know you can’t.

    1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere? That’s the best you guys can do? Answer: Yes, it is the best they can do. They haven’t refined this figure in decades. Bill wants to build a huge, dire scenario out of guesses like this, none of which have panned out over the decades.

    You are assuming way too much, Bill. That’s not scientific.

    You are trying to sentence vast numbers of humanity to poverty because of your delusions about CO2.

    Yes, you are deluded, Bill. Spend some of your money getting your head on straight.

  28. until he and others of his ilk begin to truly believe and live it will I even begin to be partially persuaded./ Sell your humongous yacht your huge houses maybe then he might become more believable than even the great Greta

Comments are closed.