The climate alarmist establishment is in veritable disarray, as one of its most influential patrons appears to have defected from the faith. Last week, billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates wrote a long missive from his digital pulpit GatesNotes, titled ‘Three tough truths about climate: What I want everyone at COP30 to know‘.
What upset devotees of the Church of Climate was Gates conceding that climate change will not cause humanity’s extinction:
Although climate change will have serious consequences — particularly for people in the poorest countries — it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future.
This departure from the apocalyptic fervour that once aligned Mr Gates with the high priests of environmental doom — figures like Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Michael Mann and UN Secretary General of “global boiling” fame António Guterres, who prophesied planetary demise unless humanity submits to the ironclad dogma of ‘Net Zero by 2050’ — was met with righteous indignation by upholders of the faith.
Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania, who concocted the infamous global warming ‘hockey stick’ chart, wrote to HuffPost that he observed “an alarming shift in Gates’s rhetoric on climate change in recent years”. The reliably Leftist-progressive outlet quoted Mann’s accusation:
It was hardly surprising to me to encounter Gates’s dismissive recent words downplaying the threat of climate change and the need for urgent action. They simply reinforce the fact that he has been misguided on climate for some time now.
PBS reported that Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Centre for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, called Gates’s essay “pointless, vague, unhelpful and confusing. … There is no reason to pit poverty reduction versus climate transformation. Both are utterly feasible, and readily so, if the Big Oil lobby is brought under control.” Robert Bryce refers to Laura Mauldin, an academic at the University of Connecticut, who writes in the New Republic that Gates’s essay was a “great example of why we shouldn’t be listening to people like him”.
Bill Gates was on the right side until he wasn’t, and one can imagine Mann, rather Greta-like, spluttering indignantly, “How dare you?”
It must be particularly inflammatory to the climate industrial complex for President Trump to have proclaimed in his usual rumbunctious style on Truth Social: “I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue.”
Why the Pivot and Why Now?
Gates now urges a pivot away from climate alarmism toward human welfare: vaccines to combat disease, resilient agriculture to feed the hungry and a pragmatic acknowledgment that fossil fuels aren’t vanishing anytime soon. This is no minor tweak. It is a tacit admission that the climate models, once touted as gospel, have diverged wildly from empirical reality.
But why this shift, and why now? Is it the dawning of reason amid mounting scientific evidence against modern day Lysenkoism, or a calculated repositioning by one of the world’s shrewdest investors, perhaps hastened by the counter-revolution in American politics under President Trump?
To grasp the magnitude of Gates’s volte-face one must revisit the historical arc of climate alarmism, a movement that has morphed from scientific inquiry into a quasi-religious crusade. For decades, Gates was a fervent acolyte, pouring billions from his foundation into initiatives that amplified the direst projections of the climate industrial complex. His 2021 book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, read like a manifesto for technocratic salvation: massive subsidies for renewables, carbon taxes to punish emitters and a global mobilisation akin to wartime efforts. The blurb to the book declares: “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.”
This echoed the Malthusian warnings of arch-doomster Paul Ehrlich whose 1968 Population Bomb predicted mass starvation by the 1980s — prophecies that crumbled under the weight of economic growth, widespread use of agricultural fertilisers, relatively free markets for food and bountiful natural resources. Similarly, the climate models Gates championed relied on implausible worst-case scenarios, assuming hypersensitivity to CO2, projections that have consistently overshot observed global temperatures.
As I noted in my 2021 review of Gates’s book, these models ignored the adaptive ingenuity of human societies and the economic folly of mandating a rushed transition away from fossil fuels, which still power over 80% of global energy. The evidence against such alarmism has accumulated, eroding the foundations of the alarmist narrative. An independent assessment by a panel of experts untainted by the climate-industrial complex, commissioned by the US Department of Energy under Secretary Chris Wright, has authoritatively debunked the notion of imminent catastrophe. The July 2025 report concludes that while greenhouse gas emissions warrant attention through innovation and adaptation, the risks to human existence are exaggerated and are not borne out by rigorous scientific analysis.
Energy consulting giants like Wood Mackenzie, who have been eager participants in the Net Zero mantra for the past decade, now belatedly forecast that fossil fuels will dominate the global energy mix well past mid-century, rendering ‘Net Zero by 2050’ not just prohibitively costly — with trillions in stranded assets and disrupted supply chains — but technologically infeasible. The International Energy Agency under Director Fatih Birol, long a cheerleader for renewable energy, has now reversed its previous ridiculous call to stop all fossil fuel investments:
I want to make it clear… there would be a need for investment, especially to address the decline in the existing fields. There is a need for oil and gas upstream investments, full stop.
Has Gates changed his mind when the facts change? Surveying the empirical wreckage of the climate alarmist narrative, perhaps he has embraced a Keynesian humility. Alas, if only that were so. To begin with, the facts have not changed as much as scientific objectivity has had greater access to alternative media. With President Trump’s energy dominance agenda and his executive order to ‘Restore Gold Standard Science‘, contrarian scientists and sceptics have been able to pierce through the veil of Leftist-progressive media censorship that was a defining feature of the climate-industrial complex.
Bill Gates is (still) all for solar and wind power, battery storage and EVs. In this, Gates is unlike Energy Secretary Chris Wright who is aware of the need to curb Western carbon colonialism that seeks to keep African countries from exploiting fossil fuels for cheap energy. Gates wishes for the Global South have not changed:
All countries will be able to construct buildings with low-carbon cement and steel. Almost all new cars will be electric. Farms will be more productive and less destructive, using fertiliser created without generating any emissions. Power grids will deliver clean electricity reliably, and energy costs will go down.
Like his 2021 book, Gates still hankers for a technological cornucopia with a long list of ‘exciting innovations’ such as zero emission steel, clean cement, geologic hydrogen, carbon capture, sustainable aviation fuel, synthetic zero-emission fertiliser, feedstock additives and vaccines to curb cow-burped methane and the like.
What can policymakers do? Well, Democrats in the US, EU bureaucrats in Brussels and Energy Secretary ‘Mad Ed’ Miliband in the UK will be pleased to note that Gates still recommends that policymakers “protect funding for clean technology and the policies that promote them”. A tiger cannot change its stripes!
Expediency and Opportunism Perhaps?
In a satirical barb, the Wall Street Journal’s Holman Jenkins Jr captures the irony: “Bill Gates Apologises for Earth’s Survival: The science never said humanity was doomed. Now, apparently, you’re not obliged to believe it is.”
Gates is now saying that we should be free from the paralysing fear he once peddled. His epiphany carries the whiff of opportunism, a strategic pivot masked as intellectual evolution — especially in the wake of Donald Trump’s return to the White House, which has unleashed a torrent of scrutiny on the climate-industrial complex. As Glenn Beck acidly observed, Gates’s sudden ‘climate reasonableness’ smacks not of science but of political survival, a hasty retreat from doomsday rhetoric now that Trump’s administration is dismantling the globalist grip on energy policy:
Bill Gates’ Sudden ‘Climate Reasonableness’ Isn’t About Science — It’s About Trump. For years, Bill Gates and the globalist elite pushed a doomsday climate agenda: shut down economies, ration energy and let the ‘useless eaters’ fend for themselves. The plan was simple — until Donald Trump won. Now, with the WEF and UN’s grip slipping, Gates is singing a new tune: ‘Maybe we should improve lives in a warming world instead of crippling them.’
Coincidence? Hardly.
Look no further than the Senate Judiciary Committee’s probe, led by Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, into the Gates Foundation’s $11.7 million funnelled to arms of China’s Communist Government, including entities tied to the military and state-run universities bolstering Xi Jinping’s regime. In his letter to Mark Suzman, Chief Executive Officer of the Gates Foundation, Sen Grassley starts with these statement:
According to recent reports, the Gates Foundation, through grants and direct payments, has funded the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its allies. I am writing today to ask you whether these reports are true or not and, if true, how your organisation’s conduct comports with 501(c)(3) requirements.
These funds, in turn, looped back to US climate NGOs, raising the possibility of influence-peddling. Rogan O’Handley, a lawyer and conservative political commentator with a combined five million followers on Facebook, Instagram and X as of March 2024, argues that this was no coincidence: Gates amplified climate hysteria to hobble American industry with regulations, while China ramped up coal-fired dominance, perhaps in exchange for favourable deals on his software empire.
With Trump vowing to unravel such entanglements, Gates’s pivot looks less like enlightenment and more like pre-emptive damage control. This scrutiny extends to the Gates Foundation’s broader role in environmental funding and NGO advocacy, now under the microscope of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). DOGE’s early findings exposed a web of public-private partnerships that channel taxpayer dollars to activist NGOs, amplifying agendas like ‘environmental justice’ and anti-fossil fuel litigation — networks in which Gates’s philanthropy plays a starring role.
For instance, DOGE slashed $67 million in EPA grants under the Biden-era ‘Justice40’ initiative, targeting recipients like the Institute for Sustainable Communities and the Deep South Centre for Environmental Justice for pushing ideological pursuits over practical protection. Elon Musk has branded US-funded NGOs the “biggest scam ever“, accusing them of fraud and graft that bankrupts America, while congressional hearings decry these as ‘slush funds’ advancing radical causes.
Although DOGE focuses on federal waste, its investigations indirectly implicate Gates. His foundation, with an endowment over $75 billion and annual grants exceeding $7 billion, supplements Government aid through partnerships like USAID’s $40 billion portfolio, which DOGE has disrupted by suspending officials and programmes. Gates has publicly decried these cuts, warning they endanger children’s lives in HIV/AIDS hotspots, but Musk retorts with accusations of fraud in philanthropies — perhaps a veiled jab at Gates’s networks.
Gates’s Breakthrough Energy arm, committing over $2.5 billion to climate tech and NGOs like the Rocky Mountain Institute, amplifies clean energy advocacy but, amid DOGE’s pressure, has curtailed grant-making in 2025, signalling retreat. For Gates, DOGE’s axe threatens a legacy built on blended philanthropy — potentially exposing mission creep where private agendas leverage public funds.
Vaccines and Genetic Engineering
Gates’s priorities in health and development — vaccines for health and ‘resilient’ agriculture — align with his vast investment portfolio and influence networks. Consider his fixation on vaccines. Empirical history tells us that the lion’s share of human health gains over the past century stems not from pharmaceutical miracles but from foundational public health infrastructure — clean water, sanitation, nutrition and hygiene.
Plummeting child mortality in the developing world correlates with economic growth and urban sanitation, although vaccines do have an important role to play. Why, then, does Gates’s foundation channel billions into vaccine development, often at the expense of these basics? The Gates Foundation, as the WHO’s second-largest funder (providing 9.5% of its income from 2010-2023), has skewed priorities: out of $4.5 billion contributed, 82.6% targeted infectious diseases, with 58.9% ($3.2 billion) funnelled to polio alone. In 2024, Gates poured $889 million into polio eradication — roughly $3 million per each of the 289 confirmed paralytic cases worldwide — despite the vast majority of outbreaks now being vaccine-derived polio from live-attenuated vaccines, rendering eradication an impossible goal. Dr Robert Malone argues that this focus ignores root causes like poor sanitation, which historically drove polio’s decline, and perpetuates a cycle where vaccines infect people with both asymptomatic and paralytic forms.
Even more damning is the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis) vaccine saga, a vaccine which was phased out in the US in the 1980s for causing brain injury or death in one in 300 children. Yet Gates’s initiatives continue administering it to more than 160 million African kids annually. This is negligence writ large, prioritising patentable interventions over proven public health initiatives. This pharma-centric worldview extends to Gates’s outsized role in the World Health Organisation (WHO), where he ranks as the second-largest funder after the US Government.
The WHO, recipient of hefty donations from pharmaceutical giants, has faced accusations of corruption and capture, particularly in its bungled Covid response. Overnight in early 2020, the WHO jettisoned decades of pandemic wisdom favouring targeted protections for the vulnerable, as articulated in the Great Barrington Declaration, in favour of draconian lockdowns that ravaged economies, livelihoods and mental health across much of the world.
Turning to agriculture, Gates’s proposals evoke similar scepticism. He advocates ‘resilient’ crops, genetic engineering and even whimsical interventions like inoculating cows to curb methane burps — framed as a climate imperative. But with his newfound doubt on planetary doom, why persist in demonising bovine flatulence? The real levers for feeding the world’s poor lie in time-tested investments: irrigation networks, affordable fertilisers, rural extension services and pest-resistant seeds tailored to local ecologies.
Lab-grown meat and synthetic biology, cornerstones of Gates’ portfolio, smack of hubris. In sub-Saharan Africa, where malaria claims hundreds of thousands of lives annually, Gates’s malaria vaccine push diverts from proven mosquito control via improved drainage, insecticides and insecticide-treated bed-nets — interventions that eradicated the disease in many parts of the world without a single jab. Why the aversion to these fundamentals?
Perhaps because they offer scant patentable profits, unlike the biotech ventures in which Gates holds stakes. As David Blackmon astutely observes in his Substack analysis, Gates’s dialogues with energy realists like Chris Wright reveal a man grappling with the unintended harms of green zealotry: soaring energy prices, food insecurity and stymied development in the name of emissions cuts. This is not to impugn Gates’s intentions outright — philanthropy on his scale has undeniable potential to achieve much good. Yet history abounds with cautionary tales of roads to hell paved with good intentions.
Can Philanthropy and Economic Development Go Together?
What, then, is the path forward? Genuine initiatives in philanthropy would embrace the basics of economic growth and human flourishing known since the birth of classical liberalism, although Adam Smith had “never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good”.
Good governance and measured efforts toward verifiable public health basics, the fostering of energy abundance (including nuclear and fossil fuels) and adaptation to the natural variability of climate change make eminent sense. In the Global South, this could mean partnering with sovereign nations on local priorities — irrigation in India, use of hydrocarbons in Africa, flood control in Bangladesh.
Gates’s climate volte-face underscores a profound irony: the billionaire who sought to engineer the planet’s salvation may now recognise that human flourishing demands less engineering and more economic freedom.
If Gates truly means to pivot, he would begin by supporting what history has shown works: energy abundance, resilient infrastructure and economic freedom. The greatest leaps in global welfare occurred when energy, goods, ideas and people moved freely, not when elites sanctioned carbon markets or distributed patents to gene-edited crops and lab-grown food.
Whether the Gates turnaround on climate alarmism marks a true awakening or merely a tactical retreat amid the US Senate’s investigations and DOGE’s dismantling of NGO slush funds, it exposes the fragility of narratives built on technical fixes alone. The answer will shape not just climate discourse, but also the contours of global philanthropy.
Dr Tilak K. Doshi is the Daily Sceptic‘s Energy Editor. He is an economist, a member of the CO2 Coalition and a former contributor to Forbes. Follow him on Substack and X.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If I take another vaccine before I die, it will be too soon.
If you take another vaccine before I die, it will likely be the cause.
Real Epiphany or Expedient Pivot?
We all know the answer to that and it is clearly the latter. And I bet this dude has now been removed from an awful lot of Christmas card lists in Alarmworld as a result of his 180 on the climate crisis.
But Bill is no fool. He rightly senses what is heaving over the horizon and into view. The banking sector has already started the shift. Net zero is fast becoming a liability on many levels. Most western nations are still busily de-industrialising, off-shoring, whatever they want to call it, and worse – de-skilling the working population. And the result is a broken economy.
The UK is on track for its worst decade of growth in 100 years, as Rachel Reeves prepares another round of tax rises that will hammer the economy… – The Telegraph
Bill Gates should have a word with her while…
Starmer, Miliband and Sadiq Khan go 12,000 miles for COP30 summit – MSN
But he hasn’t done a 180. If you read the first comment from him on the “Neveremind” post here, you’ll find him still preaching the climate gospel.
At best he has toned it down a bit.
The problem with models is NOT that they diverge from observations, a little bit. If it was just that, there would not be much of a problem. Rather even if they were spot on, would not prove any model right. I just realized this lately when I perfectly reconstructed the atmospheric C14 concentration since 1985 with a very simplistic model. I thought it would prove my model assumptions. But then I tried with very different assumptions, and it was a perfect match – again.
That was with very few parameters emulating a relatively complex curve. Now imagine you have many more parameters to give you just a simple linear upward trend, as it is with climate models projecting some warming. The significance is zero!
Then there are far more profound issues in the way models treat water vapor feedback, and lapse rate feedback with it. Especially in the tropics they use parameters which are physically impossible. In theory there should be the “hot spot”, a strong warming of the (upper) troposphere, as below (theory is the black line, from Santer et al 2005).
So the troposphere should warm between 1 to 2.7K per 1K surface warming. On average Tz, that is the emission temperature, would then go up by ~1.8K. If the tropical emission temperature goes up from say 260K to 261.8, we can calculate the temperature feedback (=Planck Response + LRF):
(261.8^4 – 260^4) * 5.67e-8 = 7.25W/m2
These 7.25W/m2 are a negative feedback!!! If you assume a PR of 3.5 you are left with some 3.75W/m2 in negative LRF. Models instead only have it at ~1.2W/m2, +/- something, represented by the blue lines in the chart.
The same thing does the opposite direction with tropical WVF. It should be ~+1.35, but instead models have it at some +3.5W/m2. Accordinly they have the combined WVF + LRF term at 3.5 – 1.2 = +2.3W/m2. It should rather be around 1.35 – 3.5 = – 2.15. They flip the sign, turn a strong negative feedback into a positive one.
Funny, he had an epiphany shortly after the USAID/NGO money spigot got shut off.
The contras in Honduras had the same Epiphany once US money dried up.
Same with NGO-protesters around the world.
Money is the main cause for enlightenment-resistance.
Geomorphology is the study of the physical features of the surface of the earth and their relationships to its geological structures. This area of geologic science also maps the evolutionary transition of landforms from one state to another through the passage of time.
The emerging science of epiphonomorphology is the political science equivalent of geomorphology and is the study of current trends in policy and political thinking and their relationships to the basic political dogmas of various worldwide socio-economic groups.
This recently emerging area of political science also maps the evolutionary transition of political thinking from one state to another through the passage of time. It documents the individual epiphanies and their causes, as these occur through time; and places those individual epiphanies into a larger epiphonomological context.
Bill Gates and his journey along the pathways of climate alarmism thinking would make an excellent case study for anyone interested in becoming a peer-reviewed, well-published epiphonomorphologist.
Well,epiphonomorphology is way above my level.
I can barely spell it , let alone memorize,
but I sincerely hope that it takes into account that the
” evolutionary transition ” is not evolutionary at all, but a forced top-down dogma.
We have always the same origin of all “modern” Epiphanies = USA ,usually NY and California or DC/MiC.
Whatever they come up with, things that have never been a thing anywhere,
becomes the norm everywhere – at least in the western world.
Be it Ice Age,AGW, no-smoking, pronouns,wars etc etc.
Some things are being slowly induced as LGBT,genderism,forced tolerance,carbonphobia,GND
other are fast tracked = wars,sanctions,
and it is deeply pervasive,destructive and totalitarian,
as there is no deviation to be found.
It does not matter how massive and crazy absurd the obvious contradictions(the lefts crazy love for a religion that is on the total opposite spectrum)which country it is,
the “values” and norms are everywhere the same.
The chosen protected groups are everywhere the same,
the victimhood hierarchy is everywhere the same,
Everything has been everywhere standardized down to the rainbow color and selfhate and also the aggressive stance towards non-belivers and the response to covid and forced vaccines..
All kept together by relentless propagandas and attacks of MSM and big tech and so well coordinated and synchronized to that point that they all deplatform the same person on the very same day(Alex Jones)
or suddenly start to attack the same orange person they used to love for half a century on the very same day and also ignore the obvious dementia of his successor for 3.5 years.
On top of that massive meddling of CIA, NGO’s,NED etc in foreign countries and fake revolutions whose new leaders then act 100% left and 100% pro USA instead of staying neutral or shifting towards one of the other countries and direction.
This has little to do with evolution but forced transformation and devolution.
There we have the truth! The little freak was going to coin it with the carbon tax thing.
This long, repetitive and puerile attempt to describe Gates’ actions as the result of a cognitive process, is a poor attempt at propping up the last illusions about Gates being a same, thinking person.
The thing is at least partially retarded, with wealthy, CIA/Mossad parents who organized for him to be the profit centre for the world computer surveillance system.
The huge amount of money that has earned him, has given the bloody idiot (and people like today’s author) the idea that lotsa money buys only the best and most scientific advice.
Baal Getus hates you and I with passion, and he wants us all dead or enslaved, because he spends millions paying for only the best advice, and the March On The Institutions has ensured he only gets such advice as approved by his local HSBRa handler.
So, stop focussing on the idiotic utterances of a rich retard, and find out who is writing those halting, childishly optimistic speeches telling us how he will “guide our evolution”.
I mean, the frakking idiot actually still thinks evolution is a real thing, and advancing the agenda of people whose motives he is too stupid to question.
(My disregard for evolution may confuse those unfamiliar with the work of Sheldrake, Velikovsky and Chladni, a synthesis of which finally gets rid of the nonsense people think Darwin said.)
Hhmmm do we trust a “genius” that had to copy somebody else’s product (DR-DOS), went dumpsterdiving to get actual working code and never ever saw the Internet coming.
Let me think about that for a moment.
He continued his fraudulent plagiarism by stealing Double Space.
He could do all of this because he is above the law.
Just like his billionaire friend who was behind the biggest Ponzi Scheme in US history ( until Madoff) ,
Instead of going to jail in 1992 he went to the white house and told the Clintons how to set up a foundation.
What was his name?Epstein.
When Gates was doing this alleged stealing, he wasn’t a billionaire.
Dang near nobody was a billionaire then, but “Starting in mommy’s basement” has a different meaning when, at the time, mommy’s house was valued at 20 or 40 million…
While I don’t know what is in Bill Gate’s heart, I would like to think that he finally came to realize the folly of this bizarre belief in global warming. I live in a northern suburb of Chicago. This morning the temperature at my house is 41 degrees F, just what it should be for this time of year, and snow flurries are forecast for Sunday night. After forty years of relentless scare stories, I don’t see any change in the weather. I would like to think that Bill Gates finally looked out his window and realized that there simply isn’t any noticeable global warming. The forecasts of global warming are about as accurate as the forecasts of astrology. And perhaps like many other people Bill Gates is finally coming to realize the truth.
Sorry to pop your bubble,
but the only thing that Bill Gates realized is that the AGW gravy train is running out of tracks.
There is nothing to realize for him because he knew all the time that the AGW apocalypse is nonsense.
He has been the cheerleader for everything related to the globalist cause.
He was a major pusher for Covid vaccines and once the grift ended he said – Sorry, I made a mistake – and moved on.
What matters is the he is a very public figure who has effectively said Net Zero is nonsense.
How many years has it been since the collective enviro mob suggested we needed to hear what Bill Gates had to say on solving the climate crisis. But just like that, in the blink of an eye, now we have luminaries such as Bill McKibben saying “Why We Shouldn’t Care What Bill Gates Has to Say About the Climate Crisis” and George Monbiot at the UK Grauniad saying “I wish we could ignore Bill Gates on the climate crisis.”
Bottom line: Thou Shalt Not Question Any Aspect Of Thy Clima-Change™ Orthodoxy, Lest Ye Be Branded As A Heretic
Yes it is indeed seen as a heresy by climate cult priests.
Which is also why it is useful for those of us who want to Just Stop Net Zero.
It is standard mindfark technique, get the mark to agree with you on just one little thing…
You want to make deals with the devil, friend. Did you even notice how he immediately bent the conversation in the direction of genetic manipulation, hell-bent on saving us to death? And still with those darn aluminum elixirs into the arms of innocent babes….
I wish we could ignore George Monbiot on the climate crisis.
Oh wait, we do.
We certainly shouldn’t care what McKibben has to say- from his ivory tower in VT.
We shouldn’t give a rat’s kiester what Bill Gates, Bill McKibben, or George Monbiot have to say about the IMAGINARY “climate crisis.”
And it opens up a discussion about the consequences of Net Zero within the ‘normal’ population, not tainted by religious fervour. The attacks against Gates will also be noted. Now, i dont know how much that changes policy directions. I take it very little as, like in the case of Ukraine, many ‘leaders’ have staked their whole reputation/ career on it. To admit they were wrong would finish them. And the media will ultimately report what the establishment tells them to report. On the other hand it might just diminish the amount of alarmist articles little by little if the politicians feel it is a vote loser, even if it doesnt change much, policy wise.
We must take every small win. In the end we will take the big chunk.
An alternative ‘agenda 2030’.
I also see a shift in the financial world w the big grifters doubting that the ‘climate emergency’ factor will continue to work.
They would very much like to bankroll armaments as a ways to a means. But that is an even greater threat to humanity..
Actually, he never said that. If you read even a part of the drivel he published, the only thing he did was pivot his primary message to better align with attacking things people can truly see, e.g. ‘hunger’, ‘disease’. His overall message is still the same…e.g. ‘use these new miracle products from companies I’ve invested in’ . He’s still promoted fanciful future technologies e.g. ‘zero carbon steel’, a totally ridiculous idea unless you tax carbon emissions out the wazoo, and even then its a fantasy.
He still believes Wind & Solar will dominate AND be ‘lower cost’, and there’s absolutely NO sense of reality in his statements.
He will likely survive the ex-communication by the woke climate crusaders because he’s still pushing their underlying message…fixing the planet that doesn’t need fixing via centralized control. If he truly had an about face and had any self awareness he’d be investing in helping Africa build out fundamental infrastructure and exploiting their vast hydrocarbon resources which would be less costly & save far more people faster than his fanciful unproven technologies.
But then he didn’t. He’s still preaching net zero idiocy, he’s just saying the can can be kicked down the road a bit. Epiphany my ass.
“although vaccines do have an important role to play.”
A recent meta-analysis shows the childhood vaccine schedule appears to be a cause of the incredible rise in autism – now about 1 per 30 births in the U.S.
I digitized the data from the Figure 2 in that analysis and plotted autism rate vs. Number of vaccine doses by age 2. The attached graphic shows the result and fit.
Correlation isn’t causation, but it sure can indicate a place to look.
The problem is that when you compare the rates of autism before the age of inoculations and the rates after, there isn’t any difference.
From ~1/10,000 to ~1/30 is no difference?
The problem is likely to derive from multiple vaccinations given in a single injection.
Check into the increases in testing as well as the radical different definitions of what was autism and what wasn’t.
The claims was that autism was being caused by the agent that was used as a preservative. Putting the vaccinations in a single injection would have reduced how much preservative was being injected.
Also, all these shots were being given on the same day. Putting them in one shot instead of 3 or 4 wouldn’t have made a difference.
Finally everyone of those alleged meta studies has been refuted.
Expedient pivot, but welcomed.
If Gates had completed an engineering degree, he might have been exposed to hard science that would have tempered his catastrophic views. I remember the computer science majors whining about the physics courses they were required to take. But they still had to take/pass them.
Of course college isn’t the only option for enlightenment, especially today. It does force the engineer to have a foundation of exposure to scientific fundamentals.
Are engineering students still required “to have a foundation of exposure to scientific fundamentals”? Or is that too “last century”?
Story tip: https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/germanys-hydrogen-dream-becomes-9-billion-yearly-black-hole
“He is free to make the wrong choice, but not free to succeed with it. He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see.” – Ayn Rand
We all know the punishment for apostasy !
The punishment from the climate Mullahs will be pitiless.
.
?
Story tip
NHS Spends £1.4 Billion on Net Zero With Zero Results
“initiatives, such as rolling out electric ambulances, adopting ‘climate-friendly pain relief’ that does not contain greenhouse gases, and putting environmental credentials at the heart of decisions around medicines and supplies.
But despite these efforts, the total carbon emissions from the health service are the same as they were five years ago when the ‘Greener NHS’ project was launched.”
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/11/08/nhs-spends-1-4-billion-on-net-zero-with-zero-results/
I always rely on the “canary in the coal mine” of global warming: The summer minimum in Arctic sea ice coverage.
Last two years were statistically indistinguishable from 2007 when Gore and IPCC shared a Noble Peace Prize for regime change in Venezuela (but I digress).
This year however, it was statistically different : roughly half million sqr km MORE. A change of more than 10%.
So 18 years after Gore, Wadhams and other “activist-scientist” scaremongers were claiming tipping points, “run away melting” and imminent ICE FREE SUMMERS, we find a substantially healthy polar ice cap with any significant change being more ice (for those who think more ice to be a positive.).
“Bill Gates has said that Net Zero is nonsense and he is cleverer than you, and richer than you, and doesn’t need to tell climate doom fibs just to get another piddling grant or subsidy.”
I have already found that quite an effective riposte to the “97% of scientists” nonsense.
Give it a go.
So, Bjorn Lomborg wins; GangGreen loses. The Copenhagen Consensus was right all along.
That is all.
There are probably multiple reasons for this shift. First is the power required to support Data Centers, and AI. I live near a new Microsoft Data Center being built. It is within line of sight with a Natural Gas power plant, has one nuclear plant in the next county to the north, and an older one being brought back online 20 miles further north from it. Coal plants are being held open and not closing due to the demand. Wind and solar are useless here, and without the subsidies would never had been built. You can’t run the future on unreliable energy, it doesn’t work and he knows it. This is probably the primary reason.
Second, political winds are forming against rising costs of unreliable sources of power, especially at the local level. People are balking at the higher costs of power from these expensive sources of power. The politicians are realizing that it will cost them elections to continue down this green path. No amount of money will overcome a mad voter when they see their energy bill go through the roof.
Third, national political figures and many others are exposing the lies and talking truth about Net Zero. This combines with higher energy costs make that headwind nearly impossible to fight. Trump and many other prominent voices exposing the lack of clothes, and fearlessly describing what is not happening, has boosted the realization of the contradictory evidence surrounding catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Missed predictions, and claiming everything bad is caused by climate change has now caught up with many people.
I could go on but most get the point. Reality has now caught up with the stupidity of CO2 being the driver of temperature, and the inability of the solution to provide and real power to support society. Notice, all the tech companies are not talking about Net Zero, for while they like to posture and preen, they know that unreliable power will put them out of business in the future.
“great example of why we shouldn’t be listening to people like him”.
Funny, that’s what the rest of us have been saying about Gates for years.
Gates change on climate comes down to money. The changes that are coming for the data world require massive increases in power production and delivery across the world, especially in the USA. The Climate Change push of Wind and Solar Power is useless to what is needed for what the data world wants.
This need has been in place for years, but the growth by massive input of migrants in the USA with less build out of conventional power plants are leading to power problems. Further in places like California the Governor has eliminated some dams that provided power. California and other states also had power transfer lines burn due forest fires, which take time to be replaced.
Number one never hitch your wagon to an individual. If you are going to hitch your wagon to anything hitch it to an idea. Ideas rarely disappoint humans almost always disappoint. I can support a man who shares my idea even though he may not support all my ideas. He doesn’t have to march lock step with me. Second does it really matter all that much why Gates has moved closer to our way of thinking? I don’t think so, there are probably many reasons for him to move in a different direction. Some may fear he did it for monetary reasons, so what? Our side has been shouting from the rooftop for decades that CAGW/Net zero doesn’t make make a lick of sense monetarily. Gates has probably wasted billions on this nonsense, the question isn’t did he change his mind for monetary reasons rather what took him so long? Some fear he may have been influenced by people likeTrump again so what? I am influenced by people like Trump even though he says says questionable things sometimes. Trump supports most of my ideas therefore I support Trump. Some question how Gates spends his money, so do I but it is his money. One would think that he would want to spend it where it would do the most good. Throwing money at governments and government organizations is rarely the best use of your money. I would throw most NGOs in with governments. Governments are capable of doing good but there are any number of organizations that could do it better. Scrupulous accounting of what your money is being used for is critical, that goes for individuals, organizations and governments. If an individual chooses to throw his money away giving it to unscrupulous players that is his business but why would you be so stupid? Money is rarely the answer to any problem, think Haiti. So let’s invite Gates to help us, we can give him a proper education.
I think the answer to this is easy: he’s following the money.
How much of a pivot is this, really? Obviously humanity will survive. If the planet becomes warmer, Northern Canada and Russia have thousands of square miles of land that will become fertile.
Although, for some reason, climate apocalyptoids don’t seem to be buying up land in the frozen tundra for their children. Come to think of it, buying up 100,000 acres and selling it in small parcels to scared alarmists might be a pretty good business proposition. I wonder how much land up there in Northern Saskatchewan costs?
Follow the money. So many of the “climate saving” wind farms, green hydrogen and even solar farms are going broke (sometimes before they are even built) despite all the subsidies that there is no longer any money to be made.
Nope – They rely on large doses of BS and hope that no one looking at them has a clue why Earth’s atmosphere is so stable.