How To Avoid Climate Disaster The Bill Gates Way

Reposted from Forbes

Tilak Doshi Contributor Energy
I analyze energy economics and related public policy issues.

Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft Corporation MSFT +0.1% MSFT +0.1% and one of the world’s richest men and philanthropists, has written a new book that hits the stores on February 16th. Unlike his two previous books, this one is not about software and the digital revolution. Mr. Gates’ new book covers grounds far beyond the author’s background in software engineering and his active philanthropic interests in global development, public health and US public education via the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (founded in 2000).

According to the blurb, “In this urgent, authoritative book, Bill Gates sets out a wide-ranging, practical — and accessible — plan for how the world can get to zero greenhouse gas emissions in time to avoid a climate catastrophe”. In the introduction, Gates explains how he got involved with the climate change field via the problem of energy poverty that he came across in looking at issues of public health in developing countries. In field visits to parts of India and Sub-Saharan Africa, the initial impression of “why is it so dark, where are the lights” naturally led to understanding that an essential part of poverty was the lack of reliable access to electricity for over a billion people in the world, half of them in Africa. Gates asks, “Where is the reliable and affordable electricity for offices, factories, and call centres, for lights to read by and for keeping vaccines chill in working refrigerators 24/7?”

The first parts of the book give readers an idea of Gates’ intellectual journey. He cites the Cambridge physicist David Mackay who showed the link between per capita income and per capita energy use. This historical correlation between energy use and standards of living led Gates “to think about how the world could make energy affordable and reliable for the poor”. The work of economist Vaclav Smil on the essential role of fossil fuels in the evolution of human civilization is also commended by Gates.

The Link between Climate and Energy Use

It was only later, in 2006, when Bill Gates began to focus on the link between energy and global climate. In his words, “I kept learning everything I could about climate change. I met with experts on climate and energy, agriculture, oceans, sea levels, glaciers, power lines and more”. Gates read up on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and consulted the work of experts such as Prof. Richard Wolfson who gave a series of lectures on the Earth’s Changing Climate. “Eventually it sank in”, Gates says. It dawned on him that for global health and development, energy had to be not only cheap and reliable but also “clean”. Gates was now convinced that “the world needs to provide more energy so that the poorest can thrive, but we need to provide that energy without releasing any more greenhouse gases”.

Soon, Bill Gates was convinced of three things: to avoid a global climate catastrophe, we have to quickly achieve “net zero” emissions of greenhouse gases; we have to deploy tools we already have (like solar and wind power) “smarter and faster”; and we need to create and roll-out “breakthrough technologies” to get us the rest of the way. For Bill Gates, it all came together around the meetings leading to the 2015 “COP 21” climate change conference held by the UN and the resulting Paris Agreement.  He decided “to do more” and “speak out more often” on climate change, joining an illustrious group of visionaries and VIPs that had long been at the vanguard of the climate change establishment such as Prince Charles, Richard Attenborough, former Vice President Al Gore, and former UN climate head Christina Figueres.MORE FOR YOUFox News Abruptly Cancels ‘Lou Dobbs Tonight’Why Are We Still Talking About Hydrogen?Offshore Wind Plans Will Drive Up Electricity Prices And Require ‘Massive Industrialization Of The Oceans’

Having established why net zero is necessary (to avoid global catastrophe) in Chapter 1, the author then explains why the goal of net zero is so hard in chapter 2 (energy use is pervasive with modern life, and net zero would require wholesale changes in all aspects of society, economy and politics). Chapter 3 guides the reader to having an informed conversation about climate change, as the author tries to “cut through the noise” of conflicting statistics and uncertainties in climate science. Chapters 4 to 9 bear the good news that “we can do it” despite the hard tasks ahead, with various clean energy options available now and potential technologies of the future to handle emissions in the electricity generation sector (“how to plug in”), manufacturing (“how to make things”), agriculture (“how to grow things”), transport and mobility (“how to get around”), and the buildings sector (“how to keep cool and stay warm”).

Cool Technologies and Breakthrough Inventions

In these chapters, the reader is introduced to an array of new technologies and hoped for breakthrough inventions, ranging from solar and wind power to “green hydrogen” via electrolysis using clean electricity, batteries, pumped storage hydropower, thermal storage via molten salts, direct-air carbon capture, heat pumps (to replace gas or oil-powered heating), modular nuclear technologies and so on. Gates the technophile gets into his element as he describes “cool” technologies that would electrify every process possible, decarbonize the electricity grid, capture and store carbon, and use materials more efficiently. Chapters 10 to 12 conclude by proposing “a plan based on guidance by experts across all disciplines” in the hard and social science, with a focus on the policies that governments can adopt and what each of us can do to play a role in the quest for net zero.

For Gates, the case for net zero is “rock solid”. The science is settled, and he is convinced that “the only way to avoid disastrous outcomes is to get to zero”. For readers already convinced of the “climate crisis” and the imperative to go to “net zero” by 2050, this book holds no surprises. For those more sceptical of popular discussions of climate change, what is most striking is that Gates – among the world’s most celebrated and successful data scientists — is so curiously unaware or indifferent to data that challenge many of the presumptions contained in the book.

Thus, for example, while Gates is aware of the low energy density and intermittency of solar and wind power (when the sun sets and the wind does not blow) and the prohibitive costs of batteries to store electricity at grid-scale, he nonetheless finds it imperative that we have policies “to force an unnaturally speedy transition”. Net zero “requires the US to build as much wind and solar we can build and find room for”. Indeed, it would seem that Gates’ optimism sees nothing but promise in affordable decarbonization.  Getting the US electricity system to zero-carbon would increase retail rates by 1.3 – 1.7 cents per kwh, roughly 15% more than what people pay now or $18 per month premium for a household – “pretty affordable”. He cites a European trade association which suggests that decarbonizing the power grid by 90 – 95% would cause average tariff rates to go up about 20%. Again, this seems “pretty affordable.

This might remind some readers of the former German federal environment minister Jürgen Trittin who famously said in 2004 that the burden placed on households by the renewable energy surcharge of Germany’s famed Energiewende green policies would amount to “only around one euro per month, the price of a scoop of ice cream.” But the renewables boom of the following years quickly inflated the green surcharge, making Trittin’s figure obsolete and an easy target for ridicule.

Follow the Science

One looks in vain for Gates to assess the actual evidence to date regarding the experience of countries and states that have done precisely that, “forcing an unnaturally speedy transition”, such as Germany, California and South Australia. There is no attention paid to the deleterious impacts of shutting down coal and natural gas plants on electricity prices (Germany for instance has among the world’s highest household prices for electricity), grid stability (with California now entertaining regular rolling blackouts as the norm caused by green energy regulations) and energy poverty in rich countries such as the UK. Nor does Gates find it necessary to engage with substantive arguments in  well-researched published work by well-known  environmental sceptics such Bjorn Lomborg (who recently published “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet”) and Michael Schellenberger (the best-selling author of “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All”).

Either Gates is not aware or finds it inconvenient that the very authorities he consults with hold views at odds with the assertions made throughout the book. Vaclav Smil, the widely-respected energy scholar praised by Bill Gates (among others), concluded that it would take 25-50% of all land in the US to go 100% renewable, a practical impossibility. Today, the US uses just 0.5% of its land for energy. In 2009, David MacKay, another leading authority on energy technologies that Gates cites favourably in the book, showed that providing all the UK’s energy with 100% renewables would require a greater area than the landmass of the entire country, an “appalling delusion” as he called it.

Gates’ book is meant for the general reader concerned with climate change, one who needs the “noise” removed from statistics and scientific uncertainty as the author promises to do. In this context, it is rather disconcerting to find that what Gates often asserts as facts seem to be in stark contrast to what a cursory search of the literature (“ask Google GOOG +1.7% GOOG +1.7%”) might suggest. Let’s take the case of heat pumps. Furnaces and water heaters, utilizing fuel oil or natural gas, account for a third of all emissions that come from buildings. According to Gates, the “good news” is that electric heating and cooling by heat pumps “saves you money”. Whether you are retrofitting or starting construction from scratch, according to Gates, you will save money if you replace a natural gas or oil- powered furnace (for heating) or an electric air-conditioner (for cooling) with an electric heat pump.

Yet, the UK government’s Committee on Climate Change recently conceded that heat pumps would be ‘the heating solution in fewer than 200,000 homes’. Despite thousands of pounds of subsidies offered since 2011, only 30,000 units are currently being installed each year – just two per cent of the 1.5 million replacement boilers sold annually. Indeed, there have been just 16 million heat pumps installed in the entire world, across all sorts of buildings – not just homes.

Bill Gates appeals to a world whose imminent end he prophesizes. In the missionary style of exhortation, his book paints a catastrophic future which is convincingly described, even “proved”. After a sermon of warnings and threats which accompany the horror of a predicted Armageddon (rising sea levels, extinction of many species, extreme weather, food shortages, mass migration, etc.), a technophilic way forward is presented which offers the possibility of salvation. “Following the science”, as understood by Gates and his fellow illuminati, presents a clear way forward in a therapy of carbon conversion (“we can do it”).

Alas, ‘following the science’ is neither straightforward nor consensual. The diversity of scientific views on every aspect of climate change which one would have expected Bill Gates to be conversant with are not to be found in this book. Indeed, he dismisses contrarian arguments as products of “small and politically powerful groups not persuaded by the science”. In the meantime, the business of living by the vast majority of ordinary people of the world becomes inexorably more difficult as affordable fossil fuels become the target of “policy corrections”. Bill Gates’ proposed environmental salvation – forced by policy elites and activist businessmen in “an unnaturally speedy transition” towards decarbonization – will be a fearsome sight to behold, a road to hell paved with good intentions.

4.8 33 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John V. Wright
February 6, 2021 10:06 pm

Shame about the schoolboy error of confusing Richard Attenborough, a fine movie director, with David Attenborough a BBC eco-loony ranter.

Edward Hanley
February 6, 2021 10:15 pm

Mr. Gates has been given some bad information, or his confirmation bias has kicked in, if he thinks changing CO2 output will significantly change a planetary climate which is affected by many more factors than greenhouse gases. There’s a serious disconnect between his “Where are all the lights here in Africa?” reaction and the lack of realization that Africa needs fossil fuel to turn the lights on. I’ve worked in South Africa and started negotiations to bring electricity into “dark” parts of Natal. (It was years ago; the project never happened.) It was obvious to me then, and remains so, that solar panels and windmills will not bring southern Africa into the first world. Barack Obama’s proclamation, ‘You can’t have cars and air conditioners here in Africa! The planet will boil over!’ notwithstanding.

Reply to  Edward Hanley
February 6, 2021 10:49 pm

I find it hard to believe Gates personally read all the research on “his” books subjects, personally wrote all the paragraphs, personally edited every chapter & personally formatted the finished product to a publisher. It sounds more like Gates had considerable human assistance in collecting ideas, which were presented to him in some text formats that he then ad libbed from & probably dictated out. As evidenced by what E.Hanley termed the “serious disconnect” where-in Gates espouses a position (ex: Africa needs light) & in another section indirectly would impact that position (ex: costlier is not significant) – pointing to different brains generating assorted content rather than cohesive conceptualization by just Gates brain.

Last edited 2 months ago by gringojay
Reply to  gringojay
February 7, 2021 1:02 am

Interesting thought. My thought as I read this post was “What would have happened to Gates if he never came across the guy who wrote the original program which became Microsoft?”

Would Bill Gates on his own ever have become so famous and wealthy? It is more like he was in the right place at the right time, and thus we have Microsoft.

Reply to  goldminor
February 7, 2021 1:40 am

And the IBM drones who let him do it need shooting, by their shareholders.

John Garrett
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
February 7, 2021 7:23 am

It’s way too late. The miscreants at IBM who allowed it to happen are long gone and those who are still alive are living on fat pensions.

IBM’s fat, dumb and happy management allowed and facilitated the greatest theft of corporate wealth the world has ever seen.

Reply to  goldminor
February 7, 2021 5:38 am

“…he was in the right place at the right time, and thus we have Microsoft.”
Nah! We would have had Microsoft (the spy listening under our Windows(TM)) we would just have had another dweep in pastel jerseys, or one with a wild beard and a ring through his nose, what’s the difference?
Bill Gates’ parents were at the right place at the right time to say “Give us that, I think my boy can do that. Give Ted and his kids the news business” or somesuch.
DARPA just needed a conduit, and Billy da Patch was it.
If he has written anything in his life, other than cheques, I should be wally surprised.

Lurker Pete
Reply to  goldminor
February 7, 2021 5:54 am

It wasn’t right place right time, it was right family right time. It was his (Bankers daugher) Mothers relationship with IBM CEO John Opel…

EDWARD ANDRUS: ” I do remember very well, actually. Bill Gates at the time at the beginning of our relationship with them was living on pizza and Pepsi
Cola in Albuquerque, New Mexico. And his mother happened to be on the
United Way board with our chairman and asked our chairman to help him.
And you know, when the chairman comes in and tells you to go help this
kid, nine hundred people get on the plane Monday morning and they all go
down to try to help Bill Gates.

So I don’t see Bill Gates as this great, creative person. I see him
as an opportunist. And, in fact, in those days there was a lot of
sharing of software code. People gave it away in Silicon Valley; they
would share everything. He came in and he tried to control everything
and put a price on it.”


Jim Whelan
Reply to  Lurker Pete
February 7, 2021 7:40 am

Beyond being an opportunist, Gates is ruthless. When it came to business ethics were not a consideration for him.

Reply to  Lurker Pete
February 7, 2021 2:33 pm

Thanks for sharing that info. That was informative.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  goldminor
February 7, 2021 7:39 am

Gates didn’t really “write the original program which became Microsoft.” Like most of what Microsoft did it was stolen or misappropriated. The “original program” was not as many beleive MS-DOS, which was also stolen, but Microsoft Basic which was actually Dartmouth Basic and offered on almost every microcomputer in the early “hobby computing” days.

Reply to  Jim Whelan
February 7, 2021 12:22 pm

Just like Jobs ripped off the Xerox Star, nothing original has ever been done by Micro$oft. I know that as a fact because I helped write a high fidelity M$ emulator and had to use a hardware debugger (Periscope) to debug it. When the Internet happened they ripped off BSD Unix without even acknowledging it. It’s still all there even in Windows 10. Active Directory is just LDAP, which has been “embraced and extended” to the point where it is incompatible with the original open source. Nice front end though…

Reply to  yirgach
February 7, 2021 2:09 pm

I believe you. In 1988 I wrote a ”real-time multitasking preemptive re-entrant” OS, that only used ~8k of EPROM, to run on the very nice RISC-like Intel 80C196 16 bit microcontroller. Intel ws so impressed they had me consult on next-gen architecture for that line (sadly, never built). To test it I wrote one of the earliest ”virus-like” programs — virus-like in the sense that it self-replicated; I needed to fill the queues and have them contend for resources. Microsoft didn’t achieve true multitasking until, what, c.2000? If then? I’m not too impressed with them.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Rod
February 7, 2021 4:01 pm

I wrote a multi-taksing Kernel for NCR mainframes in 1968 that was used extensively for all on-line, real time processing (banking, retail, airlines). It had to run in 4K. It was based on work done in universities years earlier. Multi-tasking was an old technology when Microsoft picked it up. Original Windows didn’t use multi-tasking (I guess it was beyond them) but rerlied on apps telling the OS when they were done and keeping track of operations themselves. Not only inefficient to program but very susceptible to apps bringing down the entire system.

Reply to  Jim Whelan
February 8, 2021 4:02 am

Remember Wordperfect, the great word processor that MS ‘stole’ using their monopoly power? Running under MSDOS, which as you know was an in-line code OS, WP would actually run background print jobs, yes maybe interrupt driven but multitasking non-the-less. The eloquent consumed by the base.

Reply to  yirgach
February 9, 2021 4:22 pm

Apple paid for their time in the PARC with Xerox.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  goldminor
February 7, 2021 7:52 am

In the ‘Good Old Days,’ I used to attend the Homebrew Computer Club meetings at Standford. The rumor then was that some kid named Bill stole the source code for the BASIC computer language and used it to start a business.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  gringojay
February 7, 2021 7:48 am

As I read the article, the first thought I had was “I wonder if he paid a ghost writer to produce this book?” My second thought was, “No way am I going to buy this and contribute to his wealth!” It’s bad enough that I have to suffer through using Windows 10.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 7, 2021 9:49 am

You don’t “have to suffer through Windows 10”. Linux!

Reply to  Jim Whelan
February 7, 2021 2:20 pm

You got that right. I use Mint 19.3 Cinnamon. Works like W10, uses most of the same shortcuts, only much much better. I dual boot, and on those rare occasions when I need W10, I’m almost always rudely reminded why I hate it so much. Mint boots in seconds and is immediately stable. Unlike Windows, very stable and secure. No AV needed or available, for that reason. You do need to get used to scrolling with right mouse clicks, but that is worth the price.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Rod
February 7, 2021 4:04 pm

I used 19.3 for some time and just finished moving to 20. I could scroll with the mouse wheel on both.

Reply to  Jim Whelan
February 8, 2021 8:09 pm

Well yes the wheel works. But in 20 did they fix the mouse cursor so it left clicks correctly when scrolling? [I suspect some kind of a licensing issue is going on with the scrolling issues.]

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Rod
February 8, 2021 8:47 pm

This is getting a bit esoteric. Systems and apps,differ in lots of little things like left and right click mouse behavior. I adapt rather than insist the some specific behavior is “correct”.

I have no idea what “left clicks correctly when scrolling” means. Left click usually selects. Depending on what is being done left click and hold may allow selection of many objects and Mint 20 (as well as 18 and 19) does that. In images and Google maps (for instance) left click and hold moves the map in the window. What else do you expect?

If you want 100% windows behavior I suggest you stick with windows.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jim Whelan
February 7, 2021 8:54 pm

I tried Linux about 1998. It wasn’t ready for prime time then. I should probably take another look. I’m disgusted with W10.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 8, 2021 8:03 am

I agree. I tried Linux in it’s early years and it wasn’t ready for general use. It’s main problem now is that some commercial software doesn’t run on it. My main difficulty is with tax software which I don’t trust to any freeware or amateur development and it doesn’t run with the various windows environments like “wine” available on Linux

Reply to  Edward Hanley
February 7, 2021 3:42 am

I loathe Gates but as an elite he knows how to play the game. He would be de platformed if he went against eco fascists.

Komerade cube
Reply to  Derg
February 7, 2021 8:27 am

He’s just angling for more money and more control as all of our betters are. The book is just propaganda to keep Griff and the other morons sufficiently duped.

Reply to  Edward Hanley
February 7, 2021 5:10 am

Gates’ “Where are all the lights here in Africa?” moment, appears to be less about fixing Africa, and more about making America look like Africa.

Reply to  Edward Hanley
February 7, 2021 8:23 am

The plan will either worsen and prolong poverty or drain wealthy country populations via forced mandates. It’s the old UN North-South disparity play with a climate twist.

Bob Hunter
Reply to  Edward Hanley
February 8, 2021 9:41 am

Gates was on 60 Minutes several years ago claiming Wind & Solar are not viable options. Gates used Tokyo as an example stating Wind & Solar were intermittent and it was physically impossible to have battery storage for a city.
I don’t understand how he could have changed his opinion

And I suspect Gates has only talked with alarmists ‘scientists’ which is wrong

February 6, 2021 10:38 pm

Gate’s is a megalomaniac and can stick his book where the sun doesn’t shine.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  mikebartnz
February 7, 2021 7:57 am

not lower case “megalomaniac but bold upper case underlined MEGALOMANIAC! Like most such he is incapable of seeing anything other than his way once he gets his mind set on something. I interviewed once for a job at Microsoft and one thing came across loud and clear: You had to consider Gates as a god in order to work there.

Reply to  Jim Whelan
February 7, 2021 7:19 pm

I taught computer science courses at a university from which two students went to work at Microsoft after graduating. I believe it was sometime during the 1990s. After they hacked into and read some of Gates’ email, they were of course promptly fired.

But the god-like wrath of Bill caused him to issue an order that no future student from that university should ever be hired to work for Microsoft. However over time, I know that this decree became ignored as currently, many of our alumni have been hired to work at microsoft.

Big Al
February 6, 2021 11:18 pm

Billy G for sure had ghost writer.

February 6, 2021 11:40 pm

Once again Bill Gates proves that Idle Hands are the Devil’s Workmate. Bill Gates should go back to tinkering with things like software and stop fantasising about non-problems to be solved with other people’s money.

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
February 7, 2021 4:05 am
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?’

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

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]
For the record, the rest of my June 13 2018 note to Bill Gates is here:
ALLAN MACRAE Jun 13, 2018

“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
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.
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.

Flight Level
February 7, 2021 12:17 am

Next in the pipeline, urgent executive orders for the cancellation of old style supremacist thermodynamics and outdated capitalist laws of physics.

Reply to  Flight Level
February 7, 2021 7:50 am

People generally give the warmist cabal too much credibility – alarmism is a tactic – these people know they are lying – they’ve known it all along.
Situation Assessment – first published many months ago:
It’s ALL a Marxist-Democrat scam – false enviro-hysteria including the Climate and Green-Energy frauds, the full-Gulag lockdown for Covid-19, the specious linking of these frauds (“to solve one we have to solve the other”), paid-and-planned terrorism by Antifa and BLM, and the mail-in ballot US election scam – it’s all false.

The Climate-and-Covid scares are false crises, concocted by wolves to stampede the sheep.
The tactics used by the warmist propagandists are straight out of Lenin’s playbook (below). The Climategate emails provided further evidence of the warmists’ deceit – they don’t debate, they shout down dissent and seek to harm those who disagree with them – straight out of Lenin.
The purported “science” of global warming catastrophism has been disproved numerous ways over the decades.

Every one of the warmists’ very-scary predictions, some 50 or so since ~1982, have failed to happen. The most objective measure of scientific competence is the ability to correctly predict – and the climate fraudsters have been 100% wrong to date.
There is a powerful logic that says that no rational person can be this wrong, this deliberately obtuse, for this long – that they must have a covert agenda. I made this point circa 2009, and that agenda is now fully exposed – it is the Marxist totalitarian “Great Reset” – “you will own nothing, and you’ll be happy!”
The proponents of both the very-scary Global Warming / Climate Change scam and the Covid-19 Lockdown scam know they are lying. Note also how many global “leaders” quickly linked the two scams, stating ”to solve one we have to solve the other”- utter nonsense, not even plausible enough to be specious.
Regarding the sheep, especially those who inhabit our universities and governments: The sheep are well-described in this essay by Nassim Nicholas Taleb as “Intellectual-Yet-Idiot” – they hold the warmist views as absolute truths, without ever having spent significant effort to investigate them. The false warmist narrative fitted their warped worldview, and they never seriously questioned it by examining the contrary evidence.

Vincent Causey
February 7, 2021 12:34 am

Ah, now I see where the problem lies. Gates apparently had normal ideas that the world needed more affordable energy. Then it all went wrong after he was introduced to the “climate experts.” These people poisoned his mind with psuedo science and apocalyptic models based on pure speculative assumptions. If he had had been a bit more aware he may have found other – real – climate scientists like Lindzen, Spencer, Willie Soon and many others. How different his journey would have been. He could have been a spokesman for realism.

Komerade cube
Reply to  Vincent Causey
February 7, 2021 8:33 am

They didn’t poison his mind- they showed him the path to true power and control.

February 7, 2021 1:02 am

Bill Gates was convinced of three things: to avoid a global climate catastrophe, we have to quickly achieve “net zero” emissions of greenhouse gases; we have to deploy tools we already have…

I think a lot of tools have already been deployed including Mr Gates

Reply to  Redge
February 7, 2021 7:29 pm

I think you misspelled “tools.”

February 7, 2021 1:06 am

He cites a European trade association which suggests that decarbonizing the power grid by 90 – 95% would cause average tariff rates to go up about 20%. Again, this seems “pretty affordable.

Try telling that to the 2.4m households in the UK alone who are in fuel poverty and countless others across the world.

Reply to  Redge
February 7, 2021 4:19 am

Gates undoubtedly uses a great deal of energy to support his lifestyle – but in reality it’s cost is miniscule compared to his income. Energy prices could double or triple and he would barely notice. For him personally a 20% increase would be utterly insignificant. On the other hand, for most normal families living on a normal income (let alone the elderly living on a fixed pension) energy is a major and unavoidable expense that devours a significant portion of their income, For normal people a 20% increase in energy cost means having to go without something else like food, clothes or shoes. The reason that Gates observed lack of lighting in Africa is nothing to do with the lack of reliable electricity – after all small generators are readily available in all corners of the world – and everything to do with poverty, if you can’t afford to eat you probably won’t worry that you can’t light your home in order to read in the evening. So in effect Gates wants to level the living standards of the developed world down to that of rural Africa in order to save humanity !

Reply to  Martin
February 7, 2021 12:38 pm

The rising cost of “Green” energy will increase the velocity of money and hence the cost of goods and services. In other words the use of “Green” energy will cause inflation, and if they’re not careful, hyperinflation.

The several trillion in “stimulus” will not help this picture at all.
It’s a good time to buy “stuff”, like gold.

Much better than letting your money sit in a bank and turn into toilet paper.
Talk about alchemy!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Redge
February 7, 2021 11:36 am

It is not “pretty affordable” when considering electricity is used economy-wide, in some instances a significant portion of total costs. The multiplying negative impacts of electricity price increases seems to be an alien concept to big thinkers. Unintended consequences, anyone?

February 7, 2021 1:09 am

That says it all, about Gates quality of his “visions”:
“640K Ought to be Enough for Anyone” (disputed quote)

Last edited 2 months ago by Krishna Gans
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 7, 2021 5:16 am

It was one of those times in history. The Intel 8086 could only address 1MB of memory (in 64 KB banks), and the memory-mapped I/O architecture chosen by IBM meant that that was all the memory available for programs. Later, the 80286 and 80386 improved the memory space considerably. However, the previous CPU architectures were limited to 64 KB, so 640 KB was still a big improvement.

However, none of that excuses his blatant desire to destroy human civilisation.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Hivemind
February 7, 2021 3:10 pm

“…the memory-mapped I/O architecture chosen by IBM…” Sorry, but I thought that was defined/chosen by the guy that designed/architected the Intel 8080 chip which was later chosen for the PC. From what I remember the IBMer that came up with the original design of the PC chose the 8080 because of price and availability. The Z80 was a better architecture but they weren’t quite ready and couldn’t build ’em reliably at the time.

February 7, 2021 1:10 am

One looks in vain for Gates to assess the actual evidence to date regarding the experience of countries and states that have done precisely that, “forcing an unnaturally speedy transition”, such as Germany, California and South Australia. There is no attention paid to the deleterious impacts of shutting down coal and natural gas plants on electricity prices (Germany for instance has among the world’s highest household prices for electricity), grid stability (with California now entertaining regular rolling blackouts as the norm caused by green energy regulations) ‘

I’m sorry, you can’t just keep on repeating this nonsense…

Germany has high electricity prices from its choice to tax electricity and the mechanism by which it funded early adoption of renewable supply, especially solar. Those 2 things don’t and won’t apply in future roll out (or necessarily outside Germany).

California’s grid problems come from record demand on a grid stressed by an extreme heatwave ( and from wildfires). Those in themselves symptoms of climate change. The California grid saw problems in the past, when fossil fueled, during extreme heat.

Reply to  griff
February 7, 2021 3:45 am

“ The California grid saw problems in the past, when fossil fueled, during extreme heat.”

Griff you truly have no idea how dumb you are.

Reply to  Derg
February 7, 2021 5:18 am

To be accurate, the previous California grid problems were caused by the government refusing to permit more generating capacity and line work.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Hivemind
February 7, 2021 11:43 am

In the late 1970s we began telling the CA politicos about the consequences of their ideological decision making. Since they were politically driven and ignored sound engineering and economic advice, CA has lurched from disaster to disaster ever since.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Derg
February 7, 2021 5:32 am

He makes similar statements about Australia too equally dumb.

Reply to  griff
February 7, 2021 6:17 am

We pay produced electricity, we pay not produced electricity, we pay the give away electricity, we pay the negative priced electricity, we pay the net, we pay the handling, we pay the intervention activities to stabiilse the net at 50hz, the subsidies and we pay the taxes. So what do you think will happen to the prices in future ? Paying less ?? 😀 😀 😀
That is the scoop of icecream price promised by our Green !

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
February 7, 2021 8:29 am


You said, “California’s grid problems come from record demand on a grid stressed by an extreme heatwave ( and from wildfires).” I see that you have been uncritically reading the MSM propaganda.

I lived in California for decades. I can assure you from personal experience that there have been plenty of times when it was very hot in California. Like shortly after getting out of the army in 1968, I was camping on the North Fork of the American River on the 4th of July weekend. During heat waves like that, the isotherms run north to south along the foothills of the Sierra Nevada. I listened to the radio in my truck and they reported 120 deg F in Sonora, about 50 miles south. It was the hottest I had ever experienced on the ground! (And I did my senior Summer field mapping in the White Mountains just north of Death Valley!) I had left a 5-gallon flexible water container sitting on the gravel bar in the sun. After the sun went behind the mountains, it cooled a bit and we got out of the water. I went to pour some water out of the container. It was too hot on my hands to stand!

Once in the ’70s, I had been day hiking on top of Mt. Lassen at 11,000 feet elevation; it was about 85 deg F. When we got down to Red Bluff I stopped for gas (petrol). The thermometer said 118 in the shade. For the next 4 hours driving in the Sacramento Valley, every time I went up the small rise created by an overpass, the engine in my Scout would start to vapor lock. It was the only time in the approximately 40 years I owned that 4WD I experienced the heat problem. (And, I have driven it in Death Valley in July.) I would guess the temperature was about 125 deg F.

Yet, with those exceptional heat waves, and frequently seeing temperatures over 100, California did NOT experience the problems it is currently experiencing. You are talking about things you have no personal experience with and relying on things written by people who also have no personal experience.

I suggest that you lay off the Kool Aid!

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 7, 2021 10:44 am

“things written by people who also have no personal experience”

More importantly written by people with an agenda.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 8, 2021 11:10 pm

I have an interesting anecdote from 1957. In that summer towards the end of July my father and mother took my brother and i on a fishing trip to the world famous Trinity River to fish for steelhead. This was quite a journey for us back then. I was 7 years of age at the time. There are several interesting weather related interactions which occur at this time.

The first was that not long after leaving San Francisco at the ungodly hour of around 4 am my mother woke me up as I was asleep in the back seat of our 1950 Ford to say “Look at the fire”. At this point in time we were around 1 hour north of SF on Highway 101, and part ways into Sonoma County. I was on the right side in the rear seat of the car. Looking out to the east I saw the greatest fire which I had ever witnessed in my life, even to this day. This was the Great Clearlake fire of 1957.

Flames soared into the dark morning sky, perhaps several thousands of feet into the sky on top of the ridge line to the east. The ridges there are around 2,000 to 4,000 feet in height, and the solid sheets of flames soared almost as high from what I could see. It took around at least a solid hour to drive past this scene from Hades in the eastern dark sky. This was the first major fire to completely burn the Clearlake region to the ground. At this time the forest which was burning was all second growth large conifers as high as 150 feet. That is why this fire was so massive. When the fire was burned out the Clearlake region was never the same, even to this day.

Part two to this story is that when we arrived on the Trinity River in Willow Creek around 12 hours later on in the day we found that a massive heat wave was underway. Temperatures in Trinity county were in the triple digits the entire time of our stay which we eventually had to cut short after about 6 days because my mother was carrying my younger brother. The heat was almost unbearable for her. Even the local Hoopa Indians in Hoopa valley stated that they had never felt such heat before. Temps rose to an estimated 118F. Yet this area was only around 40 miles inland from the coast. The lowest daily temps were maybe about 110F.

Now here is the strange part. You will not find any records of the above occurrences recorded anywhere. Records from 1957 and 1958 were somehow lost or destroyed. I have looked and have yet to find any accounts of either the massive fire, or the out of the ordinary heat wave. This was very likely one of the greatest wildfires which California has ever seen even to this day. You can see how the heat wave was likely linked to the great fire. So this is the second record setting natural event which I observed in my life where all the records of the event have disappeared. The other weather event was the Great Snow of 1970/71 in the Tahoe area where the snow was the exact equivalent of the Donner Party snow. This second incident may have some records if someone could find local news archives from the local Lake Tahoe newspaper from back then. I have yet to find any.

One last comment. The year 1957 was the first and last time where I watched the Trinity River boil from bank to bank from the fish run. The runs were anywhere from 100 to 200 yards in length and around every 10 to 15 minutes for days on end. The dam on the Trinity River was completed in 1958.

Last edited 2 months ago by goldminor
Komerade cube
Reply to  griff
February 7, 2021 8:36 am

Oh, here we are, our Chinese shill has spoken up and authoritatively negated all the hard won facts with his commanding assertions! Still beating your wife, Griffy?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
February 7, 2021 5:37 pm

California’s grid problems come from record demand on a grid stressed by an extreme heatwave ( and from wildfires). Those in themselves symptoms of climate change.

I usually expect people of your low intellect and poverty of understanding to get most of your assertions wrong. But you’ve surpassed even your own low standards by getting everything wrong.

February 7, 2021 1:33 am

Does Bill Gates understand that a heat pump is just an air conditioner running in reverse? And air conditioners are power hogs. If some of those buildings that lack a/c have their fuel oil/gas heaters replaced with heat pumps, guess what? They now have a/c, so their summer power use may go way up.

AND does Gates understand that the evidence of a correct theory is correct predictions? A test that the AGW ‘theory’ miserably fails.

He should read the WUWT post on CO2 saturation. Inconvenient?

What is he really after? A one-world government?

Reply to  Rod
February 7, 2021 4:24 am

Many models of heat pump run on 3 phase electricity – a sure indicator that they demand a huge amount of energy to operate.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Martin
February 7, 2021 8:41 am

Where I live in Ohio, I have a lot of trees in the back. If the machinery could even get back there, it would kill a lot of the trees by severing their roots doing the trenching. The narrow thinkers consider that because something might work in special circumstances that it can be a universal solution.

It is not unlike the oft repeated recommendation to put solar panels on all roof tops. With most cities laid out on NS grid-lines, roughly half the homes are not oriented properly to efficiently take advantage of the sun. For those of us who rely on shade from deciduous trees to help keep our homes cool, we’d have to remove the trees and crank up the air conditioning!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 7, 2021 11:54 am

Rooftop solar is currently not controllable; the system gets the most output when it least needs generation. CA has mandated rooftop solar for all new buildings and I assume they will require the ability for the utility to control all of them. Imagine a homeowner’s surprise when they cut off his own generation when it is the most valuable and he must buy makeup energy from the utility.

Reply to  Rod
February 7, 2021 5:19 am

Also that heat pumps stop working if the outside air goes below about 4C, which means that they’re essentially useless in the NH winter?

Last edited 2 months ago by Hivemind
lee riffee
Reply to  Hivemind
February 7, 2021 9:17 pm

Yes, that is absolutely true. I live in central Maryland and heat pumps should never be used (at least for heating) in this part of the country. But the thing is when new homes are built most builders install them (especially if there is no city gas available) because it is cheaper for them to do so. They have no qualms about sticking the homebuyer with the operating and replacement costs.
I’ve never had a good experience with heat pumps, and this is only (luckily) in other people’s homes. IMO there are few things worse than having it be in the 20’s (F) or colder outside and having nothing but cold, dry air blasting out of vents! Doesn’t matter where you set your thermostat – nothing but cold air. Sorry, a heating system should produce, well, heat….

Richard M
Reply to  Rod
February 7, 2021 6:38 am

I had a heat pump many years ago and they worked fine when the temperature was mild. However, on days such as last night where we enjoyed -20°F, the heat pump would not have kept the house warm. We had electric resistance backup. The price of that energy was beyond belief. It often cost close to $20 for one day. This was in the 1980s.

Komerade cube
Reply to  Rod
February 7, 2021 8:42 am

Gates is setting himself up as global royalty. The rest of us can either serve him and his Bilderberg cronies, or quietly starve.

February 7, 2021 1:38 am

Further proof Gates of hell was lucky, not clever.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
February 7, 2021 8:44 am

There is usually a Publisher’s Clearing House lottery winner. And, it isn’t always those most worthy or in need.

February 7, 2021 1:40 am

It’s all about TerraPower.
Gates is crafty.
More renewables = more need for his kit.
If he was stupid he’d denounce renewables. He’s not stupid.
He also knows batteries are a hoax.

Hans Erren
February 7, 2021 1:50 am

Low energy density generation like wind and solar to replace high energy density energy geberation like gas and nuclear will consume enormous amounts of space.

February 7, 2021 1:58 am

Gates mentions the link between energy use and poverty, supposedly ‘discovered’ by his physicist Mackay. Well, this link was identified in 1968 by James Hill and F. Clark Huffman [Fig 1-4, pp. 9 ”Solar Electrics and Their Integration, A Mid 1970’s State-Of-The-Art Survey, R.L. Bailey, Univ Fla, Final Report, 11-15-78, DOE contract EC-78-S-05-5624]. So, knowing that raising the cost of energy can be expected to impoverish more people, I hope Gates rethinks his position.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Rod
February 7, 2021 7:49 am

Correlation is not causation, but causation requires correlation. The thing is that even when there is causation you have to be careful not to improperly identify the direction. Poverty causes a lack of energy simply because poorer societies can’t pay for it. And the reason for a society being poor is usually a refusal to embrace free markets and capitalism. Socialsim and socialistic policies as well as central dictatorship result in poverty.

Reply to  Jim Whelan
February 7, 2021 2:36 pm

Sort of. But many of the very poor 3rd world population never had an opportunity to electrify. Here is a simple way to see the relationship between energy use/capita vs. GDP/capita: Plot a scatter diagram where each nation gets a point, then curve fit. Very interesting. Nations basically line up by wealth. Shows the same relationship Gate claims his physicist found.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Rod
February 7, 2021 4:06 pm

Poverty and bad government prevented electrification, nothing else. And most of the poverty was caused by poor government.

February 7, 2021 2:02 am

Like the ‘robber barons’ of the 19th century, Gates is looking for ways to improve his image in the eyes of history. The example that first comes to mind is Andrew Carnegie who built thousands of libraries. When I was a kid, most people knew about Carnegie libraries and most people couldn’t have told you what Carnegie did to earn his money in the first place.

Gates is a very smart person but there are actually a very large number of very smart people. You might argue that they are outnumbered by dumb people, but very smart people aren’t actually in short supply. It’s like very talented musicians. The number of very talented musicians vastly exceeds the number of particularly successful musicians.

It’s a bad mistake to think that, because Gates was successful in one line of endeavor, that he is particularly competent at anything else. It would be safer to treat him as a dilettante.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  commieBob
February 7, 2021 3:29 am

“most people couldn’t have told you what Carnegie did to earn his money in the first place”
He did it by ruthlessly exploiting his workers.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 7, 2021 6:54 am

Yep. That was common. For instance, miners were still getting black lung disease well into the middle of the 20th century. It’s one of the reasons wealthy industrialists were called robber barons.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  commieBob
February 7, 2021 7:43 am

But then when old and feeling guilty, they’d give much of their wealth away to “good causes”- especially when it got them nice tax breaks.

Dave Fair
Reply to  commieBob
February 7, 2021 12:00 pm

It would be safer to treat him as someone on top of the economic heap, intending to stay there. Let them eat cake. Of course, I’d guess that French nobility didn’t foresee their heads rolling into the basket.

Eric Vieira
February 7, 2021 2:03 am

I’m not so sure about the “good intentions”. Gates (and others such as Bezos) has purchased vast stretches of high quality farmland in the US. He’s the biggest agricultural land owner of the country. Since he obviously doesn’t do any farming himself, why is he buying so much land and even outbidding farmers who need farmland to make a living? I’m also astounded to see that there’s no or little mention of nuclear technology which would be the best solution by far, although he was (or still is?) a nuclear energy advocate. Could be that he’s found out that vaccine production for yearly occuring (self generated?) pandemics is much more profitable… I think it’s all about the great reset (or “build back better”) which involves tearing everything down, thus enabling the technocrats to take over. There’s a saying that the worst actions are often well minded…

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Eric Vieira
February 7, 2021 6:20 am

Could it be that he is buying up farmland relatively cheaply so he can later sell it on to windfarm builders at a tidy profit?

Last edited 2 months ago by Dave Andrews
Reply to  Dave Andrews
February 7, 2021 6:42 am

By selling ‘carbon free’ stocks, Al Gore has become wealthy. link

If you ramp up the demand for something by promoting climate alarmism, and you’re in a position to profit therefrom, your motives are crystal clear.

Peta of Newark
February 7, 2021 2:03 am

“”Gates is not aware or finds it inconvenient that the very authorities he consults with hold views at odds with the assertions made throughout the book.””

And that, is all you need to know.
Please please please tell me you actually have read ‘Mackay’ – that alone would have rendered this book stillborn dead on delivery.
It don’t do a lot for his personal integrity (or his own foot he just shot) that Mackay got a mention, no siree…

That applies to everyone, get yourself onto some solid ground before you start slagging-off anybody else.

Another 2 pieces of solid ground are:

  1. CO2 does not radiate at temps below 33 Celsius – there is NO radiative forcing from any amount of the stuff no matter where it is on Planet Earth
  2. Even if there was radiative forcing, no matter where you go in the atmosphere (feet, metres, tropopauses, hectopascals, furlo-fetlocks, Rhode Islands, micro-nove-nove-kilo-inches) above the surface, everywhere below you is warmer and any energy radiated is not absorbed. Has no effect. There is No Forcing. Thus a Point 2a might be to have understanding of Entropy

Bill Gates is running scared. He is frightened that the muppets who do believe in fantastical things such as ‘downwelling radiation’ are after his money to sort it out. ##
Thus we see a humongous piece of Virtue Signalling, in order to get himself onto the winning team in an attempt to save himself.
frankly. beyond. pathetic.
(I could pull some jokey craic about being a man or a mouse, maybe’ll save that one for someone worthy of the joke. Sorry Bill, first apologise for Windows 10))

## There is always 2 sides and thus provisos.
Maybe he does know that the idea of Trapped Heat is pure unadulterated & total crap: thus that any amount of money will never fix it.He knows that it will clear him out completely.
So the book is an attempt to ‘buy time’ or to ride-the-storm.
Can anyone berate the guy for that?
childish games eh.

While the article raves about the manifold joys of Human Evolution brought on by the use of Fossil Fuel

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 7, 2021 2:26 am

Got a bit excited there and fouled up. Did anyone notice. Tell me you did.
Re Point 2
Instead of “Even if there was radiative forcing”
so scrub that

That should sayEven if CO2 did radiate” blah blah blah etc etc ad infinitum

Last edited 2 months ago by Peta of Newark
Dave Fair
Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 7, 2021 12:06 pm

Sorry, Peta. I didn’t notice because I quit trying to make sense of your ramblings some time ago. Its just more of your “blah blah blah etc etc ad infinitum.” Life is too short to spend time trying to understand the the mutterings of cranks.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 7, 2021 6:36 pm

Just a suggestion, but I believe your meaning might become considerably clearer if you paid a little bit more attention to your prose. You couldn’t go far wrong by reading George Orwell’s informative essay, Politics and the English Language. If only you follow his seven points your writing will improve.

February 7, 2021 2:08 am

How did Billy boy miss these parts of the IPCC writings:
Quotes & Facts from the IPCC (which is considered the bible of climate)

1. Earth only warmed 0.78 degree C up to 2012.
   “Using Had-CRUT4 and its uncertainty estimates, the warming from 1850–1900 to 1986–2005 (reference period for the modelling chapters and Annex I) is 0.61 [0.55 to 0.67] C (90% confidence interval), and the warming from 1850–1900 to 2003–2012 (the most recent decade) is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] C (Supplementary Material 2.SM.4.3.3).”
   Pg. 209 of

2. We do not have enough data to say that hurricanes have increased.
   “Confidence remains low for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.”
   pg 178 of

3. We do not have enough data to say that storms have increased.
   “Confidence in large-scale trends in storminess or storminess proxies over the last century is low owing to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the SH). {2.6.4}”
   pg 178 of

4. No evidence that normal sea level increase has accelerated.
   (Note that sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age – the issue is whether it is rising faster.)

   “When a 60-year oscillation is modeled along with an acceleration term, the estimated acceleration in GMSL since 1900 ranges from: 0.000 [–0.002 to 0.002] mm yr–2 in the Ray and Douglas (2011) record, 0.013 [0.007 to 0.019] mm yr–2 in the Jevrejeva et al. (2008) record, and 0.012 [0.009 to 0.015] mm yr–2 in the Church and White (2011) record. Thus, while there is more disagreement on the value of a 20th century acceleration in GMSL when accounting for multi-decadal fluctuations, two out of three records still indicate a significant positive value. The trend in GMSL observed since 1993, however, is not significantly larger than the estimate of 18-year trends in previous decades (e.g., 1920–1950). “
   Page 306 of 

5. No evidence that floods have increased (per IPCC)
   “AR4 WGI Chapter 3 (Trenberth et al., 2007) did not assess changes in floods but AR4 WGII concluded that there was not a general global trend in the incidence of floods (Kundzewicz et al., 2007). SREX went further to suggest that there was low agreement and thus low confidence at the global scale regarding changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods or even the sign of changes.”
   pg 230 of

6. No evidence that droughts have increased
   “Confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, owing to lack of direct observations, methodological uncertainties and geographical inconsistencies in the trends.”
   pg 178 of

7. Prediction of future climate is not possible.
   “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. “ (IPCC third Assessment Report (2001) Section, page 774) and Page 771,


Dave Fair
Reply to  JimK
February 7, 2021 12:11 pm

Who you gonna believe? Me or your lying (IPCC) eyes?

Ed Zuiderwijk
February 7, 2021 2:26 am

David Attenborough has gone completely eco-demented. His latest effusion on the BBC ‘A Perfect Planet’ (until we came along) is just a series too far. Utter climate nonsense packaged in beautifully shot sequences of the natural world deserving a better fate. Last night’s episode made me shout at the telly again until my other half had the good sense to switch to another channel.

Last edited 2 months ago by Ed Zuiderwijk
Eric Vieira
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
February 7, 2021 2:39 am

That’s the issue the media are facing: the more rubbish they bring the less people watch them, the more government subsidies they need, the more politically motivated rubbish they have to bring… a circular problem… The worst are the “science” documentaries full of esoteric hocus-pocus. The science is simply not there…

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
February 7, 2021 3:02 am

Turn the sound off … just enjoy the wonderful pictures

Shawn Marshall
February 7, 2021 3:54 am

Bill Gates is uneducated – is he a physics expert?

Matthew Sykes
February 7, 2021 3:55 am

What is it with rich people, that they want to make the lives of hardworking every day Joes worse?

February 7, 2021 4:43 am

When you’re a billionaire everything seems pretty affordable, including unicorns.

February 7, 2021 4:51 am

hed like fridges for vaccines
most people would like a fridge AND FOOD to put in one in poor places
and reliable power to it.
hes now THE biggest farmland owner in usa
guess thats going to open all that land to his fave gmo crops
more money via his monsanto shares too
sooner he drops off the perch the better for the planet

Joel O’Bryan
February 7, 2021 4:56 am

When Billy-Bob and Malinger sell all their mansions and estates, sell their 4 or 5 jets, and sends the Gates mega-Yacht to Davy’s Locker… then he might have some authority to speak from regarding climate and anthro-CO2.
Until they do that, they are just a bunch of crackpot hypocrites with too much money who simply need to STFU about mine and your CO2 emissions. Really.

Last edited 2 months ago by joelobryan
Nick Graves
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
February 7, 2021 5:08 am

He could help reduce world energy consumption by removing all the pointless bloatware from his crappy OS for a start.

Hypocrite is too kind a word.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Nick Graves
February 7, 2021 6:19 am

I can’t tell you how much I HATE having to use Word or Excel without using expletives. But those are the standards now and they come with most PCs. I curse Bill Gates name every time I can’t find a simple function hidden deep within some submenu.
And this guy is our savior??

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
February 7, 2021 7:53 am

Install Linux with Libre Office!!! if you insist on sticking with “Microsoft owns your computer” Windows then get OpenOffice.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
February 7, 2021 9:01 am

I can live with the MS Office package, although it could be improved. What I hate is the monthly updates that are forced on me. I’ve had to retire 3 printers that were working fine before the updates. The splash screen during boot is blurred. And, recently, the calendar/mail program has stopped sending and retrieving mail from my AT&T account. There are other problems, and they are all issues that started after an update.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 7, 2021 9:58 am

It’s those forced updates that make me say “Microsoft owns your computer”. That, for me is 1000% of a reason to go to Linux. Don’t put up with Microsoft forcing changes you don’t need and which break things.

I spent a 45 year career in software development (most of it designing and developing operating systems) and I know how attractive it is for a company to force everyone to the newest system (responding to problem reports and fixing problems in old systems is painful). I also know the tendency of new developers to think they can do it better and make arbitrary changes that break customer’s operations just to satisfy their ego. But I was lucky enough to work for a company that cared more for its customers than developers’ egos and was willing to put in the effort to satisfy the customers regardless of how old their system was.

February 7, 2021 5:00 am

He must want MUCH LARGER insects like 6 foot long centipedes running around, and massive wildfires that can’t be put out.

Excuse me, my cat is having an anxiety6 attack about the photos of Bill Gates.

Patrick MJD
February 7, 2021 5:27 am

It should be titled how to steal IP and get away with it.

Lurker Pete
February 7, 2021 6:15 am

However his PR machine tries to dress it up, it’s really about usurping democracy & Population control.

” Another guest said there was “nothing as crude as a vote” but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.”This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest. “They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.”Why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” he said. ”


Further research:

Richard M
February 7, 2021 6:28 am

Picking and choosing “the science” they want to accept is the problem with so may true believers. For example, here’s “science” that Gates would deny.

“The results of our study show the near-identical heating curves when we change from air to 100% CO2 or to Argon gas with low CO2 concentration.”

The experiment described in this paper has never been explained by the climate faithful.

February 7, 2021 6:28 am

I wonder if Gates, anywhere within this new book, explains what the major catastrophic threat is to mankind (apart from the rise in CO2) and what will befall the human race if we do absolutely nothing?

John K. Sutherland
Reply to  JoHo
February 7, 2021 10:26 am

Joho…. And the answer to your question is…?

I hope you will say that it is…. tada…. IGNORANCE.

Dave Fair
Reply to  JoHo
February 7, 2021 12:25 pm

Did Gates ever hear of William Nordhaus? Nobel Economics Prize for showing CO2 warming was a nothing burger. What existential threat? UN IPCC AR5 CMIP5 high-ECS climate models flogged with RCP8.5 couldn’t deliver. What does Bill know that the IPCC doesn’t?

Kevin kilty
February 7, 2021 7:01 am

Gates is a great deal like Al Gore. A personality inclined toward authoritarianism, and prone to be set off on messianic missions through an encounter with a intellectual. We used to call these folks zealots and avoid them.

Last edited 2 months ago by Kevin kilty
John Garrett
February 7, 2021 7:13 am

Gates can’t possibly be that stupid…, can he?

John Garrett
February 7, 2021 7:30 am

I still don’t understand why anybody bought Windows 95.

It was truly awful— and no real improvement on MS-DOS, IBM OS/2 or, hell, CP/M for that matter.

But, I give Gates credit for the insight that controlling the operating system was the way to monopolize everything else.

Last edited 2 months ago by John Garrett
Reply to  John Garrett
February 7, 2021 1:36 pm

My first computer ran on Windows 3.2 – that was a few years before Windows 95.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Garrett
February 7, 2021 9:10 pm

You are assuming that it was Gate’s idea.

Clyde Spencer
February 7, 2021 7:41 am

The fact that someone is wealthy is not an indication that they are smart. In my opinion, it is often a reflection of them being lucky, larcenous, or both. Gates is clearly working outside his area of expertise, whatever that might be. It is interesting how wealth will give entertainers and business men the mistaken impression that they have special insights on science and politics.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 7, 2021 5:48 pm

The fact that someone is wealthy is not an indication that they are smart.”

True. We’ve just sent the latest example of that back south.

“In my opinion, it is often a reflection of them being lucky, larcenous, or both.”

Gates was quite lucky. He was born into a fairly wealthy family, and had access to computers while still a teenager. But most of his luck came from his inherent curiosity, intellect, and work ethic. He was certainly imperious earlier in life, but grew a sense of right and wrong after he got married. Hence, the world’s most effectively driven private NGO, the Gates Foundation.



Jim Whelan
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 7, 2021 6:50 pm


Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jim Whelan
February 7, 2021 9:08 pm


Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 7, 2021 9:07 pm

You claimed that Gates “had access to computers while still a teenager.”
Just what computer(s) might Gates have had access to in 1970? The Apple II and TRS-80 didn’t come to market until 1977, when he was 22-years old.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 8, 2021 7:59 am

Gates’ “official” biography says his expensive private school had computers for students to use. My guess is DEC PDP series.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jim Whelan
February 8, 2021 12:01 pm

And when I was in the Army, 1966-1968, the lab I was at had a DDP-24 with punched-paper tape input for FORTRAN, and we had teletype terminals connected to the Dartmouth Kiewit Computation Center, running the newly-introduced BASIC.

While I missed the access to computers after I got out of the Army, at that time they were a far cry from the convenience of personal computers. The university I attended after going back to school did not have computer access for students. The geology department spent $4,000 on a calculator what was the electronic equivalent of the mechanical Friden calculators that Lockheed (where I had worked prior to being drafted) used during the 60’s. [Lockheed MSC also had an IBM 360, and later a Univax 1170, that only processed batch jobs with Hollarith card input.] The community college that I taught at in the 70s didn’t get its first computer, an HP-1000, until 1978. I got my first personal computer, an Atari 800, in early-1979, when Gates turned 24-years old.

The rest is ‘recent’ history.’

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 8, 2021 12:08 pm

In 1961 the community college I attended obtained an LGP-30 for computer classes. I was assistent for the teacher of that class and helped him set up the computer and taught myself how to program it before the class began. I operated the computer and helped other students use it. We had pretty much free use of it. I call it my “first personal computer”. I think the cost was $10,000 to $20,000. My point is that an exclusive private school could certainly afford a computer for students in the late 60’s and early 70’s.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jim Whelan
February 8, 2021 10:03 pm


I guess my question is, how were such early computers used? My experience with early computers is that time-sharing ones may have been used for inter-office mail, and programs written in COBOL and FORTRAN might have been run in batch mode. If you learned assembly language, you had some additional flexibility.

However, in those early days, if there were even any graphics output, they tended to be vector based. BASIC hadn’t been invented yet, and even when BASIC came out in 1964, it was typically used in conjunction with a teletype interface. Spreadsheets first appeared on the Atari as something called Visicalc about 1980. The internet was perhaps a twinkle in someone’s eye working on Arpanet.

So, the earliest machines that Gates might have been exposed to were primarily useful for business accounting and scientific calculations, in batch mode, and typically required an auxiliary keypunch machine. They also served to teach students how to program in those two languages. However, the computing paradigms that drive our modern computing world weren’t available to a young man who might have used his experiences to improve on the way things were done. Indeed, when Gates started out, the hardware was primitive, and the software options were very limited. Bottom line, I find it a stretch that the early exposure that Gates had to computers of the day were a significant advantage to him, as claimed by bigoilbob.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 8, 2021 10:35 pm

Given that my early experience with a computer influenced my life as a software developer, I disagree. Regardless of how you enter data or get output, the experience of programming a computer teaches logic and rigorous expression of how things are done. Computers are unforgiving if you make a mistake in a program.

Certainly a PDP system in the late 60’s or even my LGP-30 in the early 60’s were as capable as one of the early hobbyist microsystems for which Gates got his start. And computing languages are all pretty much the same now as they were then. I don’t know of any “modern paradigms” which wouldn’t have been easily added to a repertoire of earlier “paradigms”.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 8, 2021 10:53 am


oily bob is never wrong & never exaggerates. If need be he will refer you to the abacus in the corner of Bill’s 4th grade classroom.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  DonM
February 8, 2021 12:05 pm

I have found him to be infallible and a ‘goto’ source of information unknown to anyone else! Indeed, a legend in his own mind.

February 7, 2021 8:15 am

The recipe: mix in a 5th grade level education on income and energy use, then pile in heaps of agenda science spiked with some half truth and carefully omitting cycles, then write a book about your travels with the authority of unrelated wealth. Epilog: The latest model of long range private jets are out at a dealer near you.

Gordon A. Dressler
February 7, 2021 9:12 am

“authoritative book”

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Jim Whelan
February 7, 2021 9:41 am

“Gates the technophile gets into his element as he describes ‘cool’ technologies that would electrify every process possible”

And there you have it! The depth of Gates’ scientific knowledge. It’s “cool” so it must be good.

Reply to  Jim Whelan
February 7, 2021 10:34 am

…including his stock picks

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 7, 2021 3:14 pm

Yes, don’t ever doubt that he will get even more fabulously rich from all this crap

February 7, 2021 12:36 pm

Climate change is the only public policy topic arena where you are better off not knowing much, having limited context, or inclination to fact check anything. All are welcome in the house of Gaia–but bring money or big ideas on how to shake down others.

Tom Abbott
February 7, 2021 1:08 pm

From the article: “For Gates, the case for net zero is “rock solid”. The science is settled, and he is convinced that “the only way to avoid disastrous outcomes is to get to zero”.”

Mr. Gates ought to talk to Dr. William Happer, who has a new paper out describing how CO2 has a natural ceiling on how much warmth it can add to the Earth’s atmosphere.

Dr. Happer contends that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere at current levels will not cause the rise in temperatues that are predicted by the climate models.

What this means, Mr. Gates, is that CO2 is not going to overheat the world. We are currently at about its temperature limit according to Dr. Happer and additional CO2 won’t be a problem with regard to temperature.

You can relax, Bill. If Dr. Happer is correct then we have already seen the worst that CO2 can do to us and the Earth’s climate.

My money is on Dr. Happer. Perhaps Bill will fund an effort to confirm or deny Dr. Happer’s paper. It would be the best money he has every spent.

Maybe I’ll talk my nephew, Kyle, into talking to you on this subject. You remember Kyle, don’t you? He’s a pretty smart kid (not a kid anymore). He retired young after working at Citadel for some years, after he traveled to California and visited with you about a job. He’s probably glad he retired before the Game Stop fiasco happened. Citadel was supposedly heavily involved in the trading. My nephew used to run the hgh-speed computer trading part of Citadel’s business. I personally think high-speed computer trading should be outlawed. I think it skews the market to the detriment of the small trader. I’ve told Kyle that in the past. He just smiles. 🙂

But Dr. Happer is who you should really be talking to, Bill, if you want to solve this CO2 problem. It may not be nearly as difficult as you think it is now.

What do you have to lose? Talk to Dr. Happer.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tom Abbott
Gordon A. Dressler
February 7, 2021 1:35 pm

From the second paragraph of the above article: “. . . this . . . authoritative book . . .”

Well, I guess that’s a hint that the book will be available for purchase on April 1.

February 7, 2021 1:45 pm

Gates wealth allows him the luxury of watching what others are doing and assess via media, without them telling him to stay out of their way… unlike the local car shop when I try to watch them change my muffler….plus he actually has no ability to do their work….

Last edited 2 months ago by DMacKenzie
Tom Abbott
Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 8, 2021 4:51 am

“unlike the local car shop when I try to watch them change my muffler”

I do that, too. 🙂

February 7, 2021 1:54 pm

“…to avoid a global climate catastrophe, we have to quickly achieve “net zero” emissions of greenhouse gases…”

Not zero? “Net zero” is another way of saying “pretend zero”. If our CO2 emissions are indeed causing dangerous global warming we have to stop pretending to take action and actually achieve zero emissions.

But the reality is, actual zero would be disastrous, causing billions of deaths and nobody would stand for that, so we’ll just keep on pretending because the actual goal is not saving the planet but rather subjugating the populace under socialism.

But Bill doesn’t actually know what’s going on, that he’s just a tool for the warmist cabal.

Last edited 2 months ago by Art
February 7, 2021 1:55 pm

If Bill Gates hadn’t dropped out of college to turn a free resource into his trademarked patented for-sale monopoly, and actually tried to learn science all those years, he wouldn’t be such a sucker for the leftist environmentalists hell bent on making him one of their top useful idiots.

Read my lips, Bill: CO2 can’t cause global warming with its weak puny 15 micron -80C photons that can’t melt an ice cube. It’s a gigantic hoax.

Now why doesn’t Gates get real and declare that CO2 global warming is a hoax and send out zillions of books waking people up, then funnel some of his billions into stopping the renewable energy scam and promoting nuclear power instead, along with more billions for a foundation that fights CO2 warming agitprop and promotes real climate science sans CO2 moose hockey.

Danley Wolfe
February 7, 2021 2:00 pm

Bill Gates should have never retired. He has too much time on his hands. The problem with wealthy, successful retirees is they have too much time and money on their hands to pontificate about things they know nothing about.

Pat from kerbob
February 7, 2021 3:12 pm

Gates is a big part of the problem

February 7, 2021 5:09 pm

Gates is a monopolist who’s objective is power and control. Inventing a catastrophe to scare the population into compliance is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Rory Forbes
February 7, 2021 5:24 pm

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

~C.S. Lewis~
Such wisdom is wasted on the Bill Gates of the world, and his followers.

Brent Qually
February 7, 2021 5:49 pm

Bill bought a beachfront home in Del Mar last year … hypocrisy or stupidity?

February 8, 2021 12:48 am

The primary reason so many African countries lack lights, and nationwide power grids is the complete lack of capitalism in almost all African countries and their sad devotion to failed Socialist/Communists economies.

Economic freedom is abysmal in Africa (with the sole exception of Mauritius, which is ranked 21st in the world and is rapidly enjoying economic growth), so as long as Africa lacks economic freedom, Africans will lack: economic, social and electrical power.

The African counties with the worst economies are ranked the worst in the world in economic freedom:

$10’s of trillions in African aid have been wasted in Africa and nothing will change unless capitalism is adopted by African counties.

All future African aid should be limited to only countries that obtain economic freedom scores exceeding 70 points. If they don’t adopt capitalism, they don’t get any more aid…

This, of course, will never happen so Africa will continue to suffer economic hardship and abject poverty and $trillions of African aid will continue to be wasted…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  SAMURAI
February 8, 2021 12:11 pm

“$10’s of trillions in African aid have been wasted.”
It hasn’t been wasted. Many dictators and despots have profited handsomely from the money, as have their families and supporters.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 9, 2021 7:23 am



Much of the foreign aid was squandered by despots and ended up in Swiss bank accounts, or buying weapons, feeding “soldiers”, and growing their “armies” to stay in power…

February 8, 2021 1:59 pm

Pay no attention to the Great Bat Chernobyl or the nuclear programs in NK, Iran, and all the others and go with the travelogue book instead.

Ned Nikolov
February 8, 2021 8:17 pm

This book is an example of the confusion of a person (Bill Gates), who did not get a formal education in physical science (or any science for that matter) to be able to distinguish truth from fiction when it comes to the physics & drivers of climate… Yes, Bill Gates was misled by scientists, who themselves did not understand the absurdity of the “Greenhouse” hypothesis proposed in the 19th Century as a conjecture that was never verified by observations.

Luckily, there is a NEW emerging climate science now that’s entirely based on modern NASA planetary observations spanning the breadth of the Solar System. You can learn more about this new climate-change paradigm by watching 2 recent video presentations made at the AMS 101st Annual Meeting last month:

February 9, 2021 11:39 am

This is one way to lower your security and property insurance costs in the cancel culture Portlandia Era.

February 9, 2021 8:11 pm

Dear Bill,

I would think someone with your intelligence could look at high school-levell Chemistry, Physics, and Biology, and 2nd year University Geology, and realize that there is no way that the miniscule percent of CO2 that fossil fuel consumption has contributed to the Earth’s atmosphere could cause massive harm to the planet. First, CO2 is fertilizer, and the CO2 content of the Earth’s atmosphere is very near at a low point in the history of the planet. Second, the Earth’s atmosphere has had far higher concentrations of CO2 in the past and there was no runaway warming. Third, the Earth has had much higher average temperatures than it does now, and the planet thrived. Fourth, all of the scary stories about melting glaciers, dying polar bears and reefs, droughts, floods, etc have proven to be empty cries of wolf by the professional alarmists. Oh, and by the way you just spent, what, $43mm on a house on the beach in California (Bill and Melinda Gates Purchase $43M Luxury Beach House in Del Mar, CA. Are you really THAT afraid of rising sea levels?

Bill, get real.

Or continue to tout the alarmist garbage, but at least do one thing that is logical, beneficial, practical. Get off of the wind/solar band wagon and get on nuclear power. Simple high school math show that neither wind nor solar nor both together will EVER be able to produce enough electricity to power the world economy as it now exists, let alone also power the electrical needs of the 2 billion people who have little or no access to electricity now.

Really, I honestly believe you are a very intelligent man, but you have allowed your intellect to be hijacked. 

Robert Girouard
February 10, 2021 4:22 am

One of the richest and most influential man on the planet, Mr Gates is obsessed with the idea of saving the world. For him, climate change is the biggest opportunity to become richer and more influential.

February 16, 2021 6:33 pm

Bill Gates will be joined by Don Cheadle this Friday 2.19 to talk about this book!

%d bloggers like this: