Thank you, Bill Gates…

I am thankful to Bill Gates for commercializing an operating system that enabled IBM-clone computers to behave as the iconic IBM-PC. The fact that Bill Gates’ family was wealthy, his father a noted and accomplished attorney, and the fact that he purchased the DOS operating system from an unsuspecting member of his computer club and laughed with Apple’s Steve Jobs about stealing technology from Hewlett-Packard’s Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) notwithstanding. If anything, Bill Gates could be compared with Tesla’s Elon Musk, a superb financial engineer and master salesman, albeit without Musk’s ability to innovate. The truth is that Microsoft plundered and terrorized smaller, indefensible companies, which found their features incorporated into Microsoft’s product line and then forced to settle at the point of an expensive lawsuit.

But you are not a climate guru…

While Bill Gates is smart, a quick learner, and mindful of his legacy and place in history, I have little or no confidence that he is personally knowledgeable enough in climate science to believe that his pronouncements are anything more than a politically-correct rehash of the fashionable science of the day. The science that has been grossly distorted by politicians to pursue an agenda of political power on a global scale. Given Microsoft’s many business interests, I tend to view Bill Gates as an establishment globalist rather than a climate guru.

And your book is fatally-flawed drivel…

Bill Gates may be the fourth or fifth richest man in the world; he may have actually written his new book, “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need,” but it is all populist drivel tainted by an unproven hypothesis. A hypothesis that claims man is a significant factor in a global climate that spans geological time frames. And, that man can alter the global climate through political action which, not so coincidently, requires a more authoritarian government, fewer individual freedoms, confiscatory taxes, and a reliance on global elites, many of whom pose as experts but are often revealed as self-serving corrupt charlatans.

“Two decades ago, I would never have predicted that one day I would be talking in public about climate change, much less writing a book about it. My background is in software, not climate science, and these days my full-time job is working with my wife, Melinda, at the Gates Foundation, where we are super-focused on global health, development, and U.S. education. I came to focus on climate change in an indirect way—through the problem of energy poverty.”

[OCS: Speaking of energy, I wonder if Gates realizes some fundamental truths. One, who controls energy also controls economies and populations. Two, the last thing the environmentalists want is increased energy which will lead to increased industrialization and a gross improvement in an individual’s standard of living. Remember, the elite environmentalists are mostly Malthusians – that is they believe man is a planetary threat and we need enforced population control and a scale-back of our standards of living to conserve and preserve planetary resources. And three, the last thing the elite gatekeepers want is cheaper, clean or otherwise, energy which would severely curtail their political power and personal wealth-generating mechanisms. Again, remember, political control is achieved through the control and distribution of goods through real or imagined scarcity.]

“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. I read the reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN panel that establishes the scientific consensus on this subject. I watched Earth’s Changing Climate, a series of fantastic video lectures by Professor Richard Wolfson available through the Great Courses series. I read Weather for Dummies, still one of the best books on weather that I’ve found.”

[OCS: Which experts? The fashionable experts of the day? Were there any contrarians? The IPCC is biased toward a political authoritarian political agenda and not so much “the science.” Consensus is a political process of conciliation and not part of the scientific method. And, any scientific hypothesis, principle, or fact can be falsified by a single individual or contrary finding. A minor point: the weather is not climate. To blindly accept the word of the elite experts, is to ignore the scientific method.]

How many people realize that the United Nations’ IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is a political body, cherry-picks scientific reports to promote its agenda, and whose real goal was to convey supra-sovereignty and taxing ability on nation-states to provide perpetual global power to the United Nations and be self-funding and independent of the “contributions” from its member-nations?

How many people realize that the charter framework that forms the basis of studies was biased toward anthropogenic (man-made) sources of warming

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change New York, 9 May 1992

The Human Impact on Climate Change

Global warming, which is the increase in global average temperature in the course of the twentieth century, is mostly due to the increase of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations caused by human activity; these anthropogenic emissions have increased by 70 per cent between 1970 and 2004 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment Report).

[OCS: The framework confuses and conflates cause and effect, assumes facts not in evidence as proven scientific fact and alters the nature of subsequent research with a pre-defined starting point. The questions should be: what is causing the observed alteration of global climate over impossibly short time-spans and to what extent might this continue and pose an environmental threat?]

The greenhouse gas effect in the atmosphere regulates overall temperature on the Earth’s surface. It is, in principle, a naturally occurring phenomenon by which certain gases present in the atmosphere (e.g., carbon dioxide, water vapour, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons) re-radiate heat back to the Earth’s surface; without it our planet would be considerably colder and most likely uninhabitable.

[OCS: The prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapor – which is an unpredictable result of a chaotic system of fluid dynamics with numerous feedback loops. The extent to which carbon dioxide impacts the overall system to exclude other major phenomena is also worthy of study.]

By the mid-1980s, scientists warned that global warming beyond natural variability was occurring and that this was in large part due to human activity and the increase of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs).

[OCS: These are the same scientists that bungled temperature recordation and produced contradictory and erroneous predictions.]

Advancements in computing technology had permitted the development of complex and more realistic models on cause-and-effect relationships and on the risks of climate change to humans and the ecosystem.

[OCS: Dodgy and incomplete assumptions, dodgy data, parametric plug-ins, and you have models that cannot be validated, producing results that can be replicated, and proving the old data processing adage: garbage in equals garbage out.]

In a 1985 conference, the International Conference on Assessment of the Role of Carbon Dioxide and of Other Greenhouse Gases in Climate Variations and Associated Impacts, held in Villach, Austria, scientists called on politicians to collaborate in the exploration of policies to mitigate human-induced climate change. The discovery of the ozone hole and a heat wave in 1988 created an additional sense of increased urgency for action.

[OCS: In politics, everything is always urgent, lest there be time for further discovery, rational analysis, and falsification -- or the public to catch on to the scheme.]

Negotiating a Universal Legal Framework

International consensus soon developed that States should also consider the elaboration of a legally-binding convention on climate change, which would address emissions of greenhouse gases not covered under the Ozone Layer protection regime, i.e., the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

[OCS: The goal, “legally-binding” perpetual political power.]

A first step was the establishment of the IPCC by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in 1988 as a scientific intergovernmental body to provide decision makers with an assessment of the latest scientific research and its policy implications for mitigation and adaptation.

[OCS: There is no scientific basis for the assumption that man can mitigate the naturally-occurring phenomena of climate change. In fact, if the United States eliminated all carbon emissions, nothing would happen. It is also doubtful that if the rest of the world followed, there would be any measurable difference over the next thousand years. The perfect scam to escape accountability for enslaving populations.]

Some of my favorite points…

What is the optimum temperature of the Earth and the composition of its atmosphere?

How can you identify, isolate, and measure man’s contribution to the climate without using computer models whose output is often portrayed by the mainstream media and climate charlatans as scientific facts?

To what degree (pun intended) do these gross-drivers of climate overshadow man’s influence on the climate? [Sun’s energy output in all spectral bands, the Earth’s position relative to the Sun, the Earth’s precessional and rotational dynamics, the Earth’s vulcanology and plate tectonics, the Earth’s deep ocean currents, and the greatest greenhouse gas, water vapor.]

Is climate an unpredictable, chaotic system, or is it cyclic in nature with the ability to regress around a mean value?

Why are the computer models widely divergent and incapable of being validated, results replicated, and predictions forward-correlated with scientific measurements?

How flawed are our major terrestrial climate datasets, and how has statistical homogenization corrupted them further?

Why are contrarian climate hypotheses, findings, and opinions excluded from publications, conferences, and discussions?

Bottom line…

This is not the first time I have been disappointed with Bill Gates, a man totally and completely insulated from the consequences of his dictates for the rest of us lowly peasants. In 2015, I wrote a post, “Bill Gates is either a Useful Idiot or He Is Ignorant of the Political Science Behind Global Warming.” Nothing much has changed over the years.

So before I listen to his drivel on regulations restricting our food choices and lifestyles, especially in forcing people to eat synthetic meat to reduce cow farts, I want to see some scientific proof that can be replicated and validated.

We are so screwed when we accept the word of the “elites,” no matter how accomplished they may in their own fields of expertise. Tomorrow, a custom-cut aged rib-eye for dinner.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell