647
Ketan Joshi
Ketan Joshi

notes on gatesnotes, in a thread "A new way to look at the problem" - er, no, he's been running this line for DECADES On the headline: you can absolutely guarantee anyone presenting themselves as telling tough, hard truths is about to deliver some self-aggrandising nonsense

As always, the key question for these guys is: WHO THE HELL ARE YOU ARGUING AGAINST. It is wild how they just Make Up A Guy constantly, and it doesn't occur to anyone to ask them who the hell they're talking about. Spend 0.0001 seconds looking at eNGO climate pages, folks

This is the last mention of climate change from the US Sunrise Movement. It's.........pretty reasonable? Nothing about the looming extinction of human civilisation?

"Unfortunately, the doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals" This is just......not true. the 'climate community' is diverse, but there has *absolutely* been a noticeable de-prioritisation of worrying about emissions targets.

I think that's actually a bad thing!!! Greenhouse gas emissions still cause the same type of damage they did when human priorities and discourse were different! And setting frameworks to stop them is important! This is where the Effective Altruist Brain spins up to full frequency: because climate change isn't the only or most significant problem, that means we need to start firing emissions goals into the sun. This is why EA ends up so frequently directly helping corporate wrongdoing and fossil fuels....

I have always used Gates' carbon removal purchases as an incredible and eye-watering example of how carbon removal can serve as an excuse to continue emitting, for those who can afford it I guess he won't bother now though? Why would you, if emissions aren't worth bothering with?

Notably: there is no real effort here to be specific about what Gates Foundation investments have brought about material reductions in Earth's warming. This will be important later................

Okay. So this is where it all starts to go from Bad Opinions to Actually Wrong. You can read the full @climateactiontracker.org report Gates' team is referencing here: climateactiontracker.org (this will ALSO be important later) I have no qualms with this graphic:

Then there's this meme we've seen repeated constantly among ecomodernist posters: 'there's no low-energy-high-income-societies'. It is debunked here industrydecarbonization.com - the reality is way more complex Gates' view: wind and solar are failing to decouple energy vs carbon

*This* is where Gates really gets going with the talking point he's been pushing for a LONG time: we can't get anywhere without saying 'screw you' to immediate action and investing in """"InnovAtion""""" instead. This from 1.5 decades is just the same flat talking point, "energy miracles"

Okay - so - a lot to unpack here. #1: Gates is comparing the 2014 IEA "current policies" scenario to the 2024 "stated policies" scenario. Bit odd but whatevs: the point does hold. My collation of 2014 (green) and 2024 (yellow) IEA scenarios for co2 below: 'actuals' between worst and best case.

Pretty much the same story for IPCC scenarios too, btw. Things could be worse! Or better!!! robbieandrew.github.io

Here's the lie: it wasn't "innovation" that shifted trajectories It was - Massive deployments of wind (and solar) (contrary to Gates' wishes) - Huge gov't subsidies to help that - The climate movement aggressively defending those policies against people like Gates' friend Bjorn Lomborg

To be clear: I'm not exaggerating when I say Gates was VERY SPECIFICALLY against the thing he's now claiming to be the result of "innovation" We'd be on that ultra-shit trajectory, if Gates had been king of the world. theregister.com

To be clear: yes, of course some things needs to be researched and invented to *fully* replace all fossil fuels and high-emitting agriculture. But Gates is saying that should *replace* and *corrode* efforts to mitigate and deploy things today. Which is why Fox News and Lomborg love him

Here's the other problem: as @climateactiontracker.org point out in the report Gates' staffers either didn't read or chose to ignore - the shifting projections from 'bad' to 'less bad' STOPPED SHIFTING after covid and MIGHT BE SHIFTING BACK TOWARDS MORE BAD climateactiontracker.org

really can't see anything in here about needing to drop short-term emissions goals!! climateactiontracker.org

I am really not a disaster risk, hazards or health expert so less from me on the 2nd and 3rd Truths™ but wow you can really tell whoever wrote this has been mainlining Roger Pielke Jr / Bjorn Lomborg X posts for a long time.

oops here's the link lse.ac.uk

More misinformation and nonsense on climate from Lomborg and Tol - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment

www.lse.ac.uk

The whole thing is full of fun and weird contradictions like this Like if emissions rise because everyone has completely ditched any near-term emissions goals, that'll cause more heat-related deaths. That is just a straightforward fact So are emissions important or not?? Make up your mind William!

That's right climate activists: stop fighting for enviro justice, against corporate profits, new fossil fuel projects etc WHAT DO WE WANT SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTIONS IN THE 'GREEN PREMIUM' FOR A RANGE OF EARLY TRL-STAGE TECHNOLOGIES WHEN DO WE WANT IT NOT SURE WHEN OR ALSO WHY WE'RE SAYING THIS

Finally: can we all just agree that this was definitely a terrible idea

This is, as I've said before, the era of the climate vulture. The superstructure of multilateral climate cooperation and government, corporate and regional emissions reductions goals are weaker than they were in 2019, but stronger than they were in 2015. So the climate vultures are swooping. For Gates, this means being more openly hostile towards climate regulations and restrictions, and being more brazen about "ranking" priorities in such a way as to allow him and related companies to operate unrestricted Not new at all for him: but the changed context means he can be more direct

Ketan Joshi
Ketan Joshi10/29/25

There is probably plenty going on inside Bill Gates' head, but I reckon one of the most parsimonious explanations of why he's sagely pronouncing that climate groups need to stop worrying about short-term emissions targets can be found in the sustainability reports of the company he founded.

In 2014, Bill Gates featured Bjorn Lomborg on his website: in a video where Lomborg walks up stairs labelled FIGHTING POVERTY WITH FOSSIL FUELS Now that clean *is* cheap, Lomborg spends all his energy attacking exactly what he was dishonestly "asking" for bsky.app

Ketan Joshi
Ketan Joshi10/29/25

A quick blog for y'all, because it feels important to nip this one early: NO, this chart DOESN'T show a European solar voltage apocalypse Spoiler: it is almost entirely down to Sweden's grid operator upgrading detection software All the dirty details here: ketanjoshi.co

So: Lomborg spent the 2010s pretending that he just wanted to see cheap clean energy, and is spending the 2020s attacking the hell out of it because it's cheap and accessible Gates is just claiming all the victories of the policies he fought against as his own. Climate vultures. THE END APPENDIX A: It is pretty damn noticeable how none of the big names in the effective altruist movement (Andy Masley, Rutger Bergman, Ritchie et al) seem to want to quantify exactly how much climate benefit the Gates Foundation climate investments have had Pretty damn hypocritical! APPENDIX B: conservative media outlets correctly recognised that Gates is their homeboy, but wrongly assumed this is something new. Homeboy's just coming home ❤️💖🍦🍭☕

APPENDIX C: I knew there was a more recent Lomborg thing on gates' blog but I couldn't find it I found out why: it has been quietly deleted!! No explanation why. But it's still on wayback web.archive.org

APPENDIX D: Just my boy @timinclimate.bsky.social highlighting yet another instance of how Gates is flat out fabricating something to argue against. This is the basis of his ENTIRE intervention!! bsky.app

Tim Baxter
Tim Baxter10/30/25

I quite enjoyed a lot of the takedowns of Bill Gates' EA brain snap on climate. It is really deadassed in a number of ways. But no-one mentioned the most important thing. He isn't *just* full of shit. He knows he is full of shit. I can prove it: timinclimate.medium.com

Even Bill Gates knows he is full of shit

timinclimate.medium.com

^^^^^ DEFINITELY read it, I don't want to spoil it for you but it's WAY more damning than you expect APPENDIX E: (sorry I'm remembering all the stuff I forgot but this is important) It is wild how "the projections are getting better" has become a lukewarmist talking point. Putting aside the fact that mode of progress has stalled, "WHAT ARE YOU WORRYING ABOUT" is a key position for obstructionists

Ketan Joshi
Ketan Joshi04/16/24

A while ago I talked about how if we had success on climate, the predominant response from right wingers / conservatives would be "WOW WHAT YOU WERE ALL PANICKING ABOUT" like there was after a huge global effort prevented y2k failure in the year 2000. Didn't predict how soon we'd see this, though

APPENDIX F: Daniel's GOOD thread: bsky.app

Daniel Swain
Daniel Swain10/30/25

I wanted to offer some thoughts on the Gates climate memo that has been circulating this week. While I can't directly speak for others, I can say that my own response is one of dismay & deep frustration (and that this view is shared by many climate/Earth scientists). [1/n]

APPENDIX G: White supremacist / eugenicist (and self-identified nazi) Jordan Lasker among the far-right figures (including donald Trump) who are pickup what Gates is putting down motherjones.com

1 / 40
A new way to look at the problem Three tough truths about climate What I want everyone at COP30 to know. Bill profile picture By Bill Gates published 1 day ago
here’s a doomsday view of climate change that goes like this: In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization. The evidence is all around us—just look at all the heat waves and storms caused by rising global temperatures. Nothing matters more than limiting the rise in temperature. Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong. 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.
Threats Effects of climate change Climate change poses a fundamental threat to the places, species and people’s livelihoods WWF works to protect.
Humans and wild animals face new challenges for survival because of climate change. More frequent and intense drought, storms, heat waves, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and warming oceans can directly harm animals, destroy the places they live, and wreak havoc on people’s livelihoods and communities. U.S. Cities at Risk As climate change worsens, dangerous weather events are becoming more frequent or severe. People in cities and towns around the United States are facing the consequences, from heat waves and wildfires to coastal storms and flooding.
Sunrise Movement 🌅 @sunrisemvmt Hurricane Melissa could be the worst storm in Jamaica’s history. Supercharged by climate change, its wind speeds doubled in less than 24 hours, and it’s still getting stronger. This is what the climate crisis looks like. Quote AccuWeather @accuweather · Oct 27 Hurricane Melissa intensified into a dangerous Category 5 storm early Monday morning with winds of 160 mph as it moves toward Jamaica.
Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong. 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. Unfortunately, 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. It’s not too late to adopt a different view and adjust our strategies for dealing with climate change. Next month’s global climate summit in Brazil, known as COP30, is an excellent place to begin, especially because the summit’s Brazilian leadership is putting climate adaptation and human development high on the agenda. This is a chance to refocus on the metric that should count even more than emissions and temperature change: improving lives. Our chief goal should be to prevent suffering, particularly for those in the toughest conditions who live in the world’s poorest countries.
Although climate change will hurt poor people more than anyone else, for the vast majority of them it will not be the only or even the biggest threat to their lives and welfare. The biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been. Understanding this will let us focus our limited resources on interventions that will have the greatest impact for the most vulnerable people. I know that some climate advocates will disagree with me, call me a hypocrite because of my own carbon footprint (which I fully offset with legitimate carbon credits), or see this as a sneaky way of arguing that we shouldn’t take climate change seriously.
I know that some climate advocates will disagree with me, call me a hypocrite because of my own carbon footprint (which I fully offset with legitimate carbon credits), or see this as a sneaky way of arguing that we shouldn’t take climate change seriously.
bill gates has a carbon footprint of 6 million tonnes co2-e
A spokesperson for Gates told the Guardian that he had taken many steps to reduce his personal emissions impact by buying sustainable aviation fuel to reduce his air travel pollution, switching to electric cars, using solar panels and buying offsets delivered through carbon removal technologies. “Bill will continue to invest billions of his own resources into clean energy and climate change innovations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help make these technologies more affordable. Additionally, any returns on these investments will go back into fighting climate change and supporting the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to help as many people as possible around the world,” the spokesperson said.
I know that some climate advocates will disagree with me, call me a hypocrite because of my own carbon footprint (which I fully offset with legitimate carbon credits), or see this as a sneaky way of arguing that we shouldn’t take climate change seriously. To be clear: Climate change is a very important problem. It needs to be solved, along with other problems like malaria and malnutrition. 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. I’ve been learning about warming—and investing billions in innovations to reduce it—for over 20 years. I work with scientists and innovators who are committed to preventing a climate disaster and making cheap, reliable clean energy available to everyone. Ten years ago, some of them joined me in creating Breakthrough Energy, an investment platform whose sole purpose is to accelerate clean energy innovation and deployment. We’ve supported more than 150 companies so far, many of which have blossomed into major businesses. We’re helping build a growing ecosystem of thousands of innovators working on every aspect of the problem.
a chart showing warming levels
From the standpoint of improving lives, using more energy is a good thing, because it’s so closely correlated with economic growth. This chart shows countries’ energy use and their income. More energy use is a key part of prosperity. Gates notes image Unfortunately, in this case, what’s good for prosperity is bad for the environment. Although wind and solar have gotten cheaper and better, we don’t yet have all the tools we need to meet the growing demand for energy without increasing carbon emissions.
Unfortunately, in this case, what’s good for prosperity is bad for the environment. Although wind and solar have gotten cheaper and better, we don’t yet have all the tools we need to meet the growing demand for energy without increasing carbon emissions. But we will have the tools we need if we focus on innovation. With the right investments and policies in place, over the next ten years we will have new affordable zero-carbon technologies ready to roll out at scale. Add in the impact of the tools we already have, and by the middle of this century emissions will be lower and the gap between poor countries and rich countries will be greatly reduced. I wasn’t sure this would be possible when Breakthrough Energy was started in 2015 after the Paris agreement. Since then, the progress of Breakthrough companies and others and the acceleration now being provided by the use of artificial intelligence have made me confident that these advances will be ready to scale. 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 fertilizer created without generating any emissions. Power grids will deliver clean electricity reliably, and energy costs will go down.
Going Public on Energy Talking about energy miracles at TED Addressing climate change will require zero-carbon energy sources. Bill profile picture By Bill Gates published on Monday, Mar 8, 2010 Work Accelerate energy innovation TED 2010 was a great experience. Like last year, I was able to hear from and talk with many people who have introduced me to new things and have me excited to learn more about new areas I find interesting. I also return more passionate than ever for the work our foundation does. Here are some of my favorites—which I’ll post links to as they get put onto the TED site. Nathan Myhrvold did a great job showing two projects his company, Intellectual Ventures, has been working on with the foundation. Michael Specter spoke on the importance of science and data to drive decision making, using GMOs as an example where science should inform the debate. Esther Duflo also presented a very thoughtful data-driven overview of how to judge the best way to encourage things like vaccines and malaria bed-nets. I was really impressed with Jake Shimabukuro, a young ukulele player who is pretty famous on YouTube, but whom I’d never seen. He was pretty amazing. Elizabeth Pisani’s talk was also very good, about AIDS prevention. And Seth Berkley did a very strong presentation on vaccines.
bill gates on a stage taht says 'energy miracles'
So why am I optimistic that innovation will curb climate change? For one thing, because it already has. You probably know about improvements like better electric vehicles, dramatically cheaper solar and wind power, and batteries to store electricity from renewables. What you may not be aware of is the large impact these advances are having on emissions. Ten years ago, the International Energy Agency predicted that by 2040, the world would be emitting 50 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. Now, just a decade later, the IEA’s forecast has dropped to 30 billion, and it’s projecting that 2050 emissions will be even lower. Read that again: In the past 10 years, we’ve cut projected emissions by more than 40 percent.
emissions scenarios by report
a chart showing emissions scenarios
a circled around the word 'innovation' o nthe emissions fchart
This article is more than 1 year old Gates: Renewable energy can't do the job. Gov should switch green subsidies into R&D 111 comment bubble on white 'Only way to a positive scenario is innovation' iconLewis Page Fri 26 Jun 2015 // 15:03 UTC Opinion Retired software kingpin and richest man in the world Bill Gates has given his opinion that today's renewable-energy technologies aren't a viable solution for reducing CO2 levels, and governments should divert their green subsidies into R&D aimed at better answers. Gates expressed his views in an interview given to the Financial Times yesterday, saying that the cost of using current renewables such as solar panels and windfarms to produce all or most power would be "beyond astronomical". At present very little power comes from renewables: in the UK just 5.2 per cent, the majority of which is dubiously-green biofuel burning1 rather than renewable 'leccy - and even so, energy bills have surged and will surge further as a result. In Bill Gates' view, the answer is for governments to divert the massive sums of money which are currently funnelled to renewables owners to R&D instead. This would offer a chance of developing low-carbon technologies which actually can keep the lights on in the real world. “The only way you can get to the very positive scenario is by great innovation,” he told the pink 'un. “Innovation really does bend the curve.” Gates says he'll personally put his money where his mouth is. He's apparently invested $1bn of his own cash in low-carbon energy R&D already, and “over the next five years, there’s a good chance that will double,” he said. The ex-software overlord stated that the Guardian's scheme of everyone refusing to invest in oil and gas companies would have "little impact". He also poured scorn on another notion oft-touted as a way of making renewable energy more feasible, that of using batteries to store intermittent supplies from solar or wind. “There’s no battery technology that’s even c…
This progress is not part of the prevailing view of climate change, but it should be. What made it possible is that the Green Premium—the cost difference between clean and dirty ways of doing something—reached zero or became negative for solar, wind, power storage, and electric vehicles. By and large, they are just as cheap as, or even cheaper than, their fossil fuel counterparts. Of course, to get to net zero, we need more breakthroughs. This will become even more important if new evidence shows that climate change will be much worse than what the current generation of climate models predicts, because we will need to lower the Green Premium faster and accelerate the transition to a zero-emission economy. Luckily, humans’ ability to invent is better than it has ever been. Breakthrough Energy focuses its new investment on the areas of innovation that still have large positive Green Premiums. Below I write about the state of play in the five sectors of the economy that are responsible for all carbon emissions. I’ll cover highlights and challenges—one common theme will be the difficulty of scaling rapidly—and I’ll include some of the companies Breakthrough Energy works with so you can see how much activity there is in each sector.
a chart showing the shifting projections of temp each year
3 Catastrophic outlook: temperature keep rising after 2100 Global temperature projections remain on an upward trajectory, with warming expected to continue beyond 2100 under all but the most optimistic scenario. Pledges and policies currently in place are not only not enough to meet the Paris Agreement goal of keeping global warming below 1.5°C, but they also show a persistent upward trend. We are clearly failing to bend the curve. Without an increase in policy ambition and implementation, global temperatures will likely continue climbing, pushing the planet into increasingly dangerous climate thresholds with severe, long-term impacts. As the world edges closer to these dangerous climate thresholds, the need for immediate, stronger action to reverse this trend becomes ever more urgent. Countries must shift into emergency mode, increasing the ambition of their 2030 climate targets and implementing policies that can deliver on these commitments. To stay on track with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal, governments must not only reinforce their 2030 NDCs but also set an ambitious target for 2035, one that aligns with a global trajectory toward net zero CO₂ emissions by 2050. We have come to a critical point and COP29 is our last chance to keep 1.5°C alive. If countries fail to substantially increase the ambition of current 2030 targets and action, limiting peak global warming to 1.5°C will not be possible and would likely lead to a multidecadal, high overshoot of this limit, even if followed by strong post 2030 action and large-scale permanent removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Improvements like these need to go hand in hand with improvements in health. I think if you ask most people how they think climate will affect health, they’ll talk about heat waves and natural disasters. So let’s start there and look at the facts. Excessively hot weather now causes around 500,000 deaths every year. Despite the impression you’d get from the news, though, the number has been decreasing for some time, chiefly because more people can afford air conditioners. And, surprisingly, excessive cold is far deadlier, killing nearly ten times more people every year than heat does. As for what will happen in the future, heat deaths will go up and cold deaths will go down. The best current estimates suggest that the net effect will be a global rise in temperature-related mortality, and that most of the increase will be in developing countries. The story so far with natural disasters is similar. In the past century, direct deaths from natural disasters, such as drowning during a flood, have fallen 90 percent to between 40,000 and 50,000 people a year, thanks mostly to better warning systems and more-resilient buildings.
Dr Lomborg next makes the following claim: “The data show that climate-related deaths from droughts, storms, floods and fires have declined by more than 97% over the last century, from nearly 500,000 annually to fewer than 15,000 in the 2020s. That’s a real human cost but far from cataclysmic.” This claim links through on the online version to a graph titled ‘Climate-related Deaths: 1920-2023’, which Dr Lomborg circulated on X on 1 January 2024, purportedly showing data from the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). However, he ignores the publication by CRED on 20 March 2023 of its 2022 Disasters in numbers, which explicitly warned against misleading representations of its data. There, CRED presented a graph of the disaster death toll per decade for more than 12,000 weather-related disasters for the period 1900 to 2020. The accompanying text states that the graph “indicates a 96% decrease in mortality between the 1920s, with 4.84 million deaths, and the decade 2010-2020 when mortality was limited to 0.17 million deaths”. But it adds: “However, this trend does not extend back before the 1920s and, if one were to take the 1910s as the comparison baseline (0.25 M deaths), the decrease would only be 30%. Such variability is explained by the occurrence or non-occurrence of mega-disasters, in which the death toll can rise from tens of thousands to several million per event. In particular, in the period from the 1920s through the 1960s, there were five drought-induced famines, killing more than one million each.” CRED concluded that these five famines alone were responsible for the main trend in death toll per decade observed over the course of the last century. So it is clear that Dr Lomborg ignored the experts and cherrypicked the data to convey a misleading impression of the magnitude of the reduction in weather-related deaths over the past century. While there has been a significant drop, thanks to better disaster response, new early warnin…
I’m not saying we should ignore temperature-related deaths because diseases are a bigger problem. In fact, temperature-related deaths are one of the reasons why cheap clean energy is so important—it will make heating and air conditioning more affordable everywhere. What I am saying is that we should deal with disease and extreme weather in proportion to the suffering they cause, and that we should go after the underlying conditions that leave people vulnerable to them. While we need to limit the number of extremely hot and cold days, we also need to make sure that fewer people live in poverty and poor health so that extreme weather isn’t such a threat to them.
If you’re an activist, you can call for steps that make clean alternatives in every sector as cheap and practical as their fossil fuel counterparts. The public is more likely to switch to clean technology when it’s cheaper and better than fossil fuels.
This moment reminds me of another time when I called for a new direction. Thirty years ago, when I was running Microsoft, I wrote a long memo to employees about a major strategic pivot we had to make: embracing the internet in every product we made. It seems like an obvious move now, given that online activity is such an integral part of everyone’s life, but at the time, the internet was just entering the mainstream. If we hadn’t adjusted our strategy, our success would have been at risk. For a company, it's relatively easy to make a shift like that because there’s only one person in charge. By contrast, there is no CEO who sets the world’s climate priorities or strategies, which is exactly as it should be. These are rightly determined by the global climate community. So I urge that community, at COP30 and beyond, to make a strategic pivot: prioritize the things that have the greatest impact on human welfare. It’s the best way to ensure that everyone gets a chance to live a healthy and productive life no matter where they’re born, and no matter what kind of climate they’re born into.
a chart showing microsoft missing its targets
In this video, Bjorn demonstrates how big the energy gap is between rich and poor countries, argues that simply telling poor countries to “get wind turbines and solar panels” is hollow and hypocritical, and calls for making clean energy “so cheap that everyone … will want to buy it.”
Bjorn Lomborg @BjornLomborg Europe's solar boom is breaking the grid Subscribe Unreliable renewables caused a record 8,645 voltage exceedances last year (up 2,000% since 2015) This means power stations may disconnect, leading to system-wide blackouts like Spain Experts warn "controlled blackouts will soon be needed" The price of unreliability bloomberg.com/graphics/2025-... archive.ph/04Tv7 nope Alerts for voltage exceeding European limits averaged 1 per hour in 2024 8K 0 1 in 11 days in 2015 2 per day in 2020 2018 2023 Source: Entso-e 1:44 PM Oct 28, 2025 52.3K Views
a update with Megyn Kelly 10 小時前-17 分鐘,目 Bill Gates' Shocking Climate Change Shift, Autopen Report Drops, Trump Files Appeal: AM Update 10/29 The Megyn Kelly Show ▶ 播放 Bill Gates publishes a new memo renouncing "doomsday" climate rhetoric and urging a focus on human welfare and innovation over temperature targets in a shocking and dramatic shift from his past rhetoric. A House Oversight report accuses Biden staff of abusing the presidential autopen to authorize executive actions without direct consent from the President. A New Hampshire poll shows Pete Buttigieg leading early among Democrats for 2028, ahead of Gavin Newsom, AOC, and Kamala Harris. President Trump files a sweeping appeal to overturn his New York felony conviction, citing judicial bias and presidential immunity. Herald Group: Learn more at https://Guard YourCard.com Walmart: Learn how Walmart is fueling the future of U.S. manufacturing at https://Walmart.com/America-at-work Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising. #
Metro Long Island Politics World News NEW YORK POST US NEWS Bill Gates makes major climate change reversal after years of doomerism: 'People will be able to live and thrive' By Chris Nesi Published Oct. 28, 2025, 11:26 a.m. ET Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, who has spent more than a decade warning that the world was on the brink of unimaginable peril due to rising global temperatures, now says climate change "will not lead to humanity's demise" in a stunning reversal. Gates, 70, who has sunk billions of his vast fortune into initiatives ostensibly meant to combat global warming, penned a lengthy blog post this week urging a shift away from the "doomsday outlook" many climate activists have adopted to terrify nonbelievers into seeing things their way. "Although climate change will have serious consequences - particularly for people in the poorest countries - it will not lead to humanity's demise," he wrote. "People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future."
FOX NEWS U.S. ▾ Politics ▼ World ▾ Opinion Media ▼ Entertainment ▼ Sports ▼ Lifestyle ▼ Health ▼ Video ΑΙ More Q Log In Watch TV utes rol used ration claims tear g... LIVE Rep. Arrington tells Democrats to stop the... FOX NEWS ALERT LIVE HERE LIVE US Olympic Committee considers gene testing to... Neighbor reacts to thieves getting away with items... Judge orders Border Patrol commander to wear... Democratic lawmaker calls out Mamdani's 'job-killin... PFOX NEWS ALERY NEWS MANDANI BASHES THE NYPD & OF IN RESURFACED VIDEO WORLDWIDE CLIMATE CHANGE Chaffetz slams FBI's 'Arct Frost' operation: This is a Bill Gates pivots climate strategy to focus on poverty over carbon emissions reduction The Microsoft co-founder argued that resources should improve lives in warming regions ahead of COP30 summit Like 18 LIVE By Louis Casiano. Fox News Published October 28, 2025 4:23pm EDT
https://www.gatesnotes.com/Global-G 34 captures 1 Jun 2023-24 Mar 2025 OVIN NA OKLAT IDLA Go MAY JUN JUL SIGN UP 01 2022 2023 2024 We're not reaching the Global Goals. What now? By Bill Gates and Bjorn Lomborg | June 01, 2023 SSS goo M f in Bjorn Lomborg is an economist whose work I've been following for many years. Lately we've had some fascinating conversations about global health and development, which led us to write this post together. The Global Goals are a phenomenal idea. They're what happened when the U.N. came together and said: "Here are the world's biggest problems, and here is how we're going to measure progress on them." The 17 goals include promises to end extreme poverty and hunger, fix climate change and education, and reduce inequality and
← Post The Honest Broker THB @RogerPielkeJr Follow The reason that climate projections have become markedly less extreme is not because of the incredible successes of climate policy but because the extreme projections were just wrong Amy Harder @AmyAHarder 15h The amount of warming Earth is projected to face in coming decades has DROPPED since 2015. "If we don't talk about what has been accomplished, we are disempowering and discouraging people from taking action,” ... Projections of global temperature increase by 2100, Celsius 4 3.7 3.9 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.2 3 3.1 3.1 2.8 2.7 3 3 2.9 Current actions 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2 1 2013 2015 2.1 2 Government pledges and 2.1 targets 2017 2019 2021 2023 Year of temperature estimate 21:45 15 Apr 24. 19.4K Views 32 Reposts 1 Quote 91 Likes 6 Bookmarks Post your reply 27 cipher %
This is a good behavior and should be congratulated. People SHOULD update when there's strong new evidence, and we should not hold it against them for genuinely changing their views. Quote Polymarket @Polymarket · Oct 28 BREAKING: Bill Gates admits climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise.” 7:31 PM · Oct 29, 2025 · 960.2K Views
Crémieux @cremieuxrecueil Bill Gates' perspective on this is imminently reasonable. Had the world kept going without all the major technological leaps of the past decade, we could be on a path to devastation. But as his article notes: technology is winning!
Jordan Lasker, an X user who goes by the username Crémieux, recently made news by providing the New York Times with hacked data that showed New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani identified as both Asian and African American on his undergraduate application to Columbia University. While Lasker quickly celebrated his time in the spotlight, critics were appalled that the Times was relying on a source they described as a “eugenicist.” But Lasker, according to interviews with people who know him, appears to have a more worrisome history than the current backlash might suggest. A Reddit account named Faliceer, which posted highly specific biographical details that overlapped with Lasker’s offline life and which a childhood friend of Lasker’s believes he was behind, wrote in 2016, “I actually am a Jewish White Supremacist Nazi.” The Reddit comment, which has not been previously reported, is one of thousands of now-deleted posts from the Faliceer account obtained by Mother Jones in February. In other posts written between 2014 and 2016, Faliceer endorses Nazism, eugenics, and racism. He wishes happy birthday to Adolf Hitler, says that “I support eugenics,” and uses a racial slur when saying those who are attracted to Black people should kill themselves. “He’s a pathological liar,” said a person who knew Lasker in college. “Low IQ savages have NOTHING to contribute to the West,” Faliceer wrote in a representative 2016 post. “If you want them to degenerate anyone’s heritage don’t make it someone else – fuck yourself up. Go have kids with a n—-r but do not push your race traitor propagandism on the masses.”

Share this Page