by E. Calvin Beisner
Many people on both sides of the climate-change controversy—climate alarmists and climate skeptics alike—think Bill Gates dropped a bomb on climate catastrophism with a memo he published October 28 on “Gates Notes,” his blog. Here’s the money quote:
“There’s a doomsday view of climate change that goes like this: In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization. …. Nothing matters more than limiting the rise in temperature. Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong.”
And so, all the climate activists went home, the UN canceled “COP30,” Bill McKibben disbanded 350.org, all the wind turbines and solar fields disappeared, coal and gas power plants sprang up everywhere, energy prices plummeted, and everyone lived happily ever after. The end.
Uh, sorry, not so fast. Despite widespread celebrations among climate realists and laments among climate activists, two things suggest Gates’s pronouncement may not be such a bombshell after all: the past, and the present.
For years, Gates has been one of the chief proponents of climate panic. Consider just a few quotes:
“Climate change is possibly the greatest threat to humanity,” he wrote in promoting his book How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. “It threatens food supplies, our health, and even our survival, should we not take decisive action.”
“Preventing a climate crisis will be one of the greatest challenges humanity has ever faced—surpassing landing on the moon [and] eradicating small pox,” he said in pressing the case for a massive investment in “Green” tech.
“If we don’t reduce emissions, … the unrest would be global in nature. You’ve got to start work now to avoid those terrible consequences much later,” in a CBS interview in 2021.
Over and over from 2018–2021, Gates insisted we needed to reach “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions to solve the “existential threat” of climate change. It’s not likely that he’s really reversed course. Slightly changed it, perhaps, for political reasons, but not reversed it.
That’s the past. What about the present? What else did he say in his memo to those gathering for COP30, the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference, November 10–21 in Belém, Brazil?
Okay, I’ll admit, some of it was pretty good, like this: “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. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further.”
Climate alarmists are up in arms and climate skeptics are dancing a jig and it seems like everybody agrees that Gates’s memo marks a sea-change in climate-change thinking. I don’t.
Why? Because his memo is loaded with qualifiers (like “for the foreseeable future”) and hints that his basic goal remains unchanged (like “drive emissions down much further”), even if postponed a bit. Here are a few examples, with some explanations.
“… the doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.” Sounds good, but “emissions goals,” even if they shouldn’t be “near-term,” remain, as we just saw, long-term.
“It’s not too late to adopt a different view and adjust our strategies for dealing with climate change.” So, climate change remains the ultimate concern, even if it can take a back seat briefly while we deal with more immediate problems.
“I know that some climate advocates will disagree with me,” Gates wrote, “… or see this as a sneaky way of arguing that we shouldn’t take climate change seriously.”
But they shouldn’t, because: “To be clear: Climate change is a very important problem. It needs to be solved …. Every tenth of a degree of heating that we prevent is hugely beneficial because a stable climate makes it easier to improve people’s lives” (boldface original).
There’s the giveaway: “Every tenth of a degree of heating that we prevent is hugely beneficial because a stable climate makes it easier to improve people’s lives.” Not just a little beneficial, “hugely.” Every tenth of a degree.
Yeah, really, he said that. Cogitate on that a bit.
Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which most climate activists worship as their god, said, in its 2018 Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°, that 2.46°C of global warming (which is 24.6 times a tenth of a degree) by 2100 would only reduce gross world product in that year by 2.6%. Coupled with credible forecasts of population and gross world product, that implies that the average Earthling would be making nearly nine times as much per year then as now—and would have been making more and more every year till then, adding up to his being many times wealthier.
How, then, if 2.46° obviously won’t be hugely harmful, could every tenth of a degree of warming prevented possibly be “hugely beneficial”?
It couldn’t. And I suspect Gates knows that. But he’s playing the long game—as are all the climate alarmists and the “renewable energy” companies that still see which side their bread is buttered on.
For them, as for all climate activists, climate change is a “threat multiplier.” It makes every problem worse. Which entails that it remains, if not the most immediate, still the biggest, most important threat—and will require the biggest changes in our energy, agricultural, and industrial practices to solve.
Gates’s memo doesn’t dispense with this weapon. It just gives it stealth.
So, what’s Gates’s real message? The message that doesn’t get qualified to death?
News flash! What you spend on A you can’t spend on B!
That’s “opportunity cost,” one of the most elementary lessons in economics. The world hardly needed Bill Gates to get that message across.
Gates ended his memo by urging the “global climate community … at COP30 and beyond, to make a strategic pivot: prioritize the things that have the greatest impact on human welfare.”
There’ll be a pivot, all right. But it will be from seeing climate change as the world’s greatest problem, which must be solved now at all costs, to seeing it as the world’s greatest problem, which can take a temporary back seat to other problems, so long as we recognize that it makes all those other problems worse and must eventually be solved at all costs.
At the UN and among climate activists and progressives in America and around the world, climate change remains the biggest rationale for shrinking your freedoms and your wallet, because it makes everything else worse, even if it’s not so bad by itself.
That’s how the game is going to be played in coming decades. You see, Gates’s memo isn’t the end of the war. It might be, as Churchill described Dunkirk, the end of the beginning, but it’s not the beginning of the end. From here on out, the war’s going to be fought on many fronts.
Here’s what I foresee the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, which I lead, along with other climate-skeptic organizations, must address: a war in which thousands of drones replace a few big missiles and tanks, demanding a multifaceted defense system—because the environmentalists, who’ve been doing it for a while already, will now more insistently hook every problem to climate.
I asked Perplexity AI to scan the Internet to identify what environmentalists consider the ten main global environmental problems. It listed climate change as first and worst, but then it added these nine:
- extreme weather and natural disasters (driven, purportedly, by global warming),
- world fossil fuel dependence (mainly because it contributes to warming),
- biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse (both tied tightly to climate change),
- air and water pollution by hazardous chemicals,
- scarcity of pure water (exacerbated by climate change-driven droughts) and lack of sewage sanitation
- soil degradation (often is code speak for opposition to modern farming, which is crucial to feeding the world’s 8 billion people) and desertification (the latter supposedly driven by global warming, though more atmospheric CO2 is shrinking deserts),
- deforestation (undermining—you guessed it—climate stability),
- plastic and solid waste (Will they admit this includes vast numbers of wind turbine blades and spent solar panels?),
- overconsumption of water, minerals, and fish stocks.
Environmentalists routinely tie at least six of those nine to climate change.
Perplexity then added three “emerging and amplifying threats”: melting ice caps and sea-level rise (from climate change), new threats such as melting microbes (from climate change), and armed conflict and migration (partly from climate change), adding that solutions involve, among other things, “clean energy” (code speak for wind and solar, the darlings of climate alarmists).
Clearly, the global environmental movement is not backing off from climate catastrophism, no matter what Bill Gates says. With or without him, it’s going to step up the pressure.
E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is President of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and co-editor with David R. Legates of Climate and Energy: The Case for Realism.
Step away from the fire. Problem solved.
No, not joking.
First way to shut this load of zealots up is to criminalise talking about ‘climate change’ if you fly on an executive jet. Nothing like putting oligarchs in prison for 20 years for not practicing what they preach, eh?
Nothing like banning conferences that cause XXX tonnes of carbon dioxide to be emitted by visiting jolly seekers, eh?
Of course, you only ban those things that are completely hypocritical, all of which are carried out by the climate zealots, since those of different opinions are never heard to say that flying from the US to Africa will cause the world to end.
I propose to create a ‘homeland’ for climate zealots where they will all live, without cars, without planes. That place will be in the largely deforested Highlands of Scotland. They will all regenerate the Caledonian Forests and meadow lands by reducing biodiversity (shooting loads of deer and sheep), they will all live in tents until sufficient number of trees have regrown that they can build houses sustainably from the forests. Of course, for them to survive, they may have to eat meat.
or each other . . .
(plenty of sugar required though to diffuse the taste of all those sour grapes)
-1 for ” criminalise talking about”. Doesn’t matter what’s being talked about, by whom, when, do not criminalize it ever.
In context his comment would would be to criminalize hypocrisy.
That aside, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,”
— Evelyn Beatrice Hall
(often attributed to Voltaire)
It’s a doomsday cult with the anti capitalist anti west add ons.
It is odd how many people are wanting their own self impoverishment.
Anyway, at least Bill Gates did make the doomsters squeal at the heresy for a while.
Someone had to be the first to break ranks.
Story tip:
COP30 summit invaded by ‘armed protestors’ as security guards overwelmedIn a dramatic turn of events, protesters stormed the COP30 climate talks in Brazil, leaving chaos in their wake.https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/2132790/watch-cop30-summit-invaded-armed
The Natives are restless.
This site does its level best to propose sanity. But then to have iffy adverts in the margins? Are they fitting for serious discourse or based on an assumption that you need to be a crank to rest here??
Subscription is ad free… sanity comes at a price!
RE: UK Temperature Check. I went to this new website:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/countries/united-kingdom/average-temperature-by-year. There is displayed in
a long table of Tmax and Tmin data from 1901 to 2024. Shown in the table are some selected data:
Year—–Tmax—–Tmin—–Tavg Temperatures are °C
2024—-12.9——-6.9——–9.9
1901—-11.8——-4.7——–8.2
Incr.—–1.1——–2.2——–1.7
After 123 years the temperatures of the UK have undergone only a slight increase in temperature and exceeds the IPCC’s recommended limit of 1.5° C by only 0.2 °C which is probably within measurement error.
At the above website note the “Select Countries” Box. Click on it and a list of countries is displayed. Click on the a country to get the temperature data.
A likely reason for little change in temperatures in the UK is that it is surrounded by Atlantic ocean and North Sea with stabilizes the air temperature.
NB: Be sure to go http://www.extremweatherwatch.com. On the homepage, the are links in light blue to many sites located around the world.
How do we inform Mad Ed that Net Zero by 2025 is not necessary?
I don’t think Mad Ed is listening. He has his mind made up.
Correction: 2025 should be 2050
His fingers are in his ears
For an ad blocker, search for: “uBlock Origin” from your browser extension apps store.
Do this Bing search: Where can I obtain an ad blocker?
The search locates a site with free ad blockers all the popular web browsers.
When I got my new Lenovo computer, my tech savvy son installed an ad blocker but he didn’t tell me. I thought MS 11 came with an ad blocker option that you could turn on.
A while back I went to a website and there first appeared on the screen: Turn Off Ad Blocker. No thank you! I came right back to WUWT.
I haven’t used ANY Microsoft product for years, if not decades, as there are many alternatives readily available. Whenever I get a new computer, I immediately change the operating system to something that is more security concerned. Same with the Internet browser as I use the Vivaldi browser which blocks ads, trackers and other without any add on gimmicks. Also use a paid email system that blocks out the same.
That means that while I can easily access the Web, I see none of the distractions that others have to put up with.
Don’t use an ad-blocker for WUWT, the revenue is needed
The iffy adverts are thanks to the efforts of those attempting to “demonetize” this site for its heresies
Those AI generated ads are definitely a hoot though. Ya just gotta shake your head and laugh.
hmmm I DO want to know what food not to eat right before bed at least twice a week so I can look like peak Franko Columbu when I wake up. But it says doctors DON’T want me to know. Hey! No fair doctors.
Subscribing and/or ads help pay the bills. Sadly despite the climate warmongers mistaken beliefs, Anthony doesn’t get a monthly check from Big Oil.
Take out a subscription or put up with the ads – ideally do both
You may be right on details but the impact of doubt remains.
And they need all of the alarm bells ringing, all the time. If one gets even slighly out of tune people who are doubtful about every aspect of climate doom will feel empowered.
I will take that win. Because Climate Doom and Net Zero can only fade away in time because of the institutions.
Id say Agenda 2030= the end of Climate Alarm. Bigger fish to fry. Going lower and lower in importance.
AI and data centres will force the issue.
Bill dropped a crumb – and just as with the other Bill (Maher).
Whenever they admit the obvious after decades the conservatives lose their shit and pretend they were served a feast.
And no.It’s no win . Not even a phyrric one.
Only wins are real pushbacks to the agenda – the rest is just blabla that makes people feel good.
Not everything is about the US. Americans forget that sometimes..
And furthermore: you are just triggered and reacted accordingly.
I don’t disagree w yr ‘pushback’ argument. I just see it as part of a trajectory, in the right direction
I’m not American.
The scientific community and their like have already dropped the bomb, no pun intended. They’ve moved the doomsday clock to within one minute to midnight, on a clock originally designed to indicate how close the world is to a nuclear war. War in Ukraine aside, what, do tell, gives them any indication that we are on the brink of Armageddon in the world today? AI would make a better case than climate. But then, AI requires power. Duh duh duuhhh…
“what, do tell, gives them any indication that we are on the brink of Armageddon in the world today?”
Iran and North Korea are candidate answers to that question.
+10
Churchill’s quote was not about Dunkirk, it was about the victory at the battle of El Alemain in N. Africa.
Yes. His Dunkirk quote was more along the lines of “The Battle of France is over. The Battle of Britain is about to begin.”
How long will it take simpletons masquerading as pop scientists to realize that these new-fangled AI essays are becoming a major part of the subtle mind-bending methodology used to convert the masses into belief in climate change?
I have read, I suppose, about 40 AI essays on the topic of AI being a real threat. Not only do many disagree with the others in the story line, but not one of them starts with the benefits of more CO2 where I would expect a neutral observer to start.
Folks, they have been programmed to spin the climate change “con job” as President Trump named it. Geoff S
What other programming did you expect, Geoff?
Honest, objective, hard science, best effort, measurement-based, opinion-free ……
I said “expect”, Geoff, not “want”.
I don’t expect anything but clotted tosh and curdled balderdash from the current human installed stuff spewed out by the AI bots.
And anyway, as the son of a farmer AI is Artificial Insemination to me.
The AI bots missed the late John L. Day’s website: “Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at http://www.john-daly.com. Shown below is the homepage.
If the AI bots analyzed this website, what would they say about greenhouse gases, the greenhouse effect , global warming, and climate change?
After EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin rescinds the Endangerment Finding of 2009, whatever will Premier Anthony A. and the Canberra Climate Commissars do? Will they eat humble pie and cancel their draconian climate agenda and regulation? What do think they will do?
NB: If you click on the image, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in circle to return to the comment text.
Yes, “A.I.” in my opinion should currently mean –
“Aggregated Imputations”
Churchill’s “end of the beginning” quote was about El Alemein, not Dunkirk.
And you missed some other salient points of Bill’s alleged-but-not-really “walkback,” where he’s still calling “climate change” a “problem” and insisted we “still need to invest in the ‘breakthroughs’ (LMAO) to “get us to zero emissions.”
So yeah, he’s not really changing his tune, just moving the goal posts back.
Why doesn’t he just take his billions and go enjoy life? He certainly isn’t doing anybody but himself any favors with his stupid crusades.
El Alamein, sorry.
“With or without him, it’s going to step up the pressure.”
It took a while for consumers to convert from burning wood to burning gas to heat their homes and bake their bread. And it took Henry Ford and his Model T quite some time and money to put all the horses out to pasture.
You forgot coal, which was between wood and gas in many places.
Bills message was not for the zealots. It was for the investors. They are listening.
Indeed. And the money people will eventually steer the ship into the needed direction and that is NOT towards solar and wind.
The zealots and diehard ideologues are always a small minority. The media who support them will get swayed by the pushback and so will the majority.
AI progression is rapid. Noone seems to want to be left behind.
“Why? Because his memo is loaded with qualifiers (like “for the foreseeable future”) and hints that his basic goal remains unchanged (like “drive emissions down much further”), even if postponed a bit.”
Well, maybe he does see the light but doesn’t want to shock the world too much by going full denier. 🙂 He can always go further.
“3. biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse (both tied tightly to climate change)”
What the heck is “ecosystem collapse”. Never happens. Ecosystems change all the time. They may change drastically over long time periods but they don’t collapse. No such thing. Unless we get hit by another giant comet like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs- or a nuclear war.
Comets and nuclear war do drastically change ecosystems, but the very definition of ecosystem means it cannot collapse.
“7. deforestation (undermining—you guessed it—climate stability),”
There’s been a lot of deforestation here in Wokeachusetts- to install large solar “farms”.
and the latest from COP30 to save the climate goals – old fashioned censorship – Guiterrez wants all tech companies, like Buyden was able to do in the COVID era, to censor any unfavorable comments – what all authoritarians resort to to save their crusade – sorry been there & done that & don’t want it again
“Clearly, the global environmental movement is not backing off from climate catastrophism, no matter what Bill Gates says. With or without him, it’s going to step up the pressure.”
But I think other rich and powerful people will follow Gates example. The tide will turn.
Just follow the grasshoppers.
As I stated before, I believe Gates is just hedging his bet on the climate grift, he’s still a true believer, he just anticipates it will be less easy for the cult to take over the world, what with electricity prices spiking and economies tanking in the socialist world, so he’s advocating a change in message, but he still is demonizing CO2 since its emission is a measure of the function of modern society, and regulating its emission by the world government ideologues means controlling modern society.
Gates was big into climate alarmism to promote Impossible Foods, Beyond Meat, and Upside Foods.
Those companies have or soon will founder on the rocks of dispair.
Gates then adjusts the rigging of his boat and now drives towards, presumedly, AI investments.
His rhetoric aligns with his shift of focus.
Seems the Occam’s Razor explanation.
The biggest threat to the world are the crazy “solutions” these people want enforced.
Agreed. Politicians dictating technical solutions that they do not comprehend to address “crises” they do not understand, but are well aware that shaping public opinion gets them reelected and on the inside of whatever 10%s are available.
I said right off the bat that Bill wasn’t making any sort of ‘mea culpa’ over his horrendous overblown rhetoric. He’s simply trying to pivot the conversation to make himself always appear correct while continuing to press for solutions only his money & ‘future unicorn tech’ can solve.
Like it or not what Gates did took a lot of guts. He stepped on a lot of very powerful toes and will survive because he is powerful. We don’t have to demand Gates go all in for us the fact that he is looking our way is a good thing. It is our job to usher him out of the darkness and into the light. He is very influential, every move he makes our way is a good thing. As for the CAGW fakers they don’t give a shit about making life better for the rest of us. Their mission is to acquire more power and control that is why Gates suggesting to prioritize more of our efforts to things that help people is so threatening to them.
True. All Gates said was, not today, but maybe tomorrow.
Be careful with the Gates thing. Some people who benefit from making big public reversals of policy swing back the other way once they collect the profits.