Bill Gates' book on climate change
I've followed Bill Gates' career since his very first Microsoft Basic. Probably the last time he actually wrote code. It was mediocre.
His entire success rests on the fact that his mom was best friends with the CEO of IBM.
He bought what would be MS-DOS from a poor schmuck for $50K, knowing perfectly that it would be worth at least hundreds of millions to him. A business practice he would perpetuate.
Bill Gates was an abysmal manager and made terrible choices. His incompetence delayed real technological progress for at least 10 years. Security was a complete after-thought, in Windows, which he only started tackling in Windows 2000. We still suffer the consequences of his bad decisions to this day.
He made some extremely questionable choices and had unhealthy business practices.
To compensate his bad image, he created his foundation ... and bragged about how vaccines had a "20:1 return on investment", beating everything else. His shady practices continued in the vaccine world. You can easily look up the story of what he did in India, where children were used as lab rats with up to 3000 FAKE parental signatures (all signed by the same man!) and hundreds of them suffered severe health issues, even some deaths.
How anyone could accept that the same person SELLING pharmaceuticals could make massive "donations" (bribes) to the CDC, the WHO and even the Swiss government health agency (!) is beyond me. That's such a massive conflict of interest, where do you even begin?
He wants to force us to take a pseudo-"vaccine" based on mRNA that has never been tested and that has unknown long-term health consequences, which might all be infinitely much worse than COVID, which has a mortality rate for under-70-year-olds of 0.04%:
"Covid mortality much lower than expected, according to Stanford study" published by WHO:
https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf
He now promotes his ridiculous agenda against the allegedly "man-made climate change" supposedly "caused by CO2.
That's always such a pleasure, coming from someone who owns 5 private jets and a fleet of helicopters, lives in a 400'000 sqf mansion and travels to the Paris "climate" meeting in one of his private jets.
Just like Al Gore, who earned almost $1 billion based on his "green" propaganda, a much better racket than his previous one, tobacco! Until 2000, Gore was a tobacco lobbyist. Even after his sister died of lung cancer. In 2007, he accused people challenging the idiotic climate propaganda he was spreading by comparing them to ... tobacco lobbyists who deny the effect of tobacco on lung cancer. These people have no shame!
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com.au/2010/01/al-gores-tobacco-hypocrisy.html
So what is Bill Gate's climate pet project, apart from having us eat artificial meet made by companies he owns?
He wants to pump particles into the stratosphere to BLOCK SUNLIGHT.
Suppose that turns out to be a bad idea, could he take it back? No, of course not!
This is not all that different from a project that was promoted by climate scientists during the 1970s to combat GLOBAL COOLING (the 100% dominant ideology promoted by the UN, NOAA, Science, Nature, National Geographic etc.)
UN "Climate Change" publication 1973; read pages 18ff:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000748/074891eo.pdf
NOAA Volume 4 Number 4 October 1974
"Man-made climate disasters due to global cooling":
https://web.archive.org/web/20160630234737/http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/journals/noaa/QC851U461974oct.pdf
Also the Aspen Institute (the race baiters who now push BLM, critical race theory and global warming) who already used the term "new normal" in 1973 to designate the coming "cooler planet":
"Climate change and its effect on World Food" - Walter Orr Roberts, Aspen Institute
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/16505796265.pdf
By now, the Aspen Institute are mostly funded by George Soros:
https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/aspen-institute-ai
Soros, who lobbied heavily against "climate change", funding 6 institutes for climate propaganda around the world, each for about $15 million per year since 2009, here in Berlin:
https://taz.de/Bald-in-Berlin/!5152735/
When Obama's anti-coal legislation brought down the price of coal companies, Soros ... bought coal shares:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/19/climate-philanthropist-george-soros-invests-millions-in-coal
So back to the Global Cooling project: in the 1970s, there was a very serious proposal, heavily promoted at the UN, to cover the poles with carbon dust to absorb more sunlight and end the global cooling.
This project didn't see the light of day because after 1978, the climate trend REVERSED from cooling to warming - no discernable reason. They made up a completely ridiculous excuse, claiming that it was the "anti-particle legislation" in the US that caused fewer particles in the atmosphere and supposedly, those particles caused cooling.
So basically, humanity could emit CO2 to cause warming and particles to cause cooling 🤣🤣🤣
The fact that China just got started on manufacturing and was going to emit 20x more particles than the entire US ever did apparently had no effect on the climate 🤔
People who believe that those factors could significantly alter the climate are so clueless, it hurts! In fact, there are at least 50 - 100 major factors influencing the climate, most of which we do not understand.
We actually know from the ClimateGate emails that those were just excuses. The cabal of AGW promoters themselves admitted that they had no clue about the actual global temperatures of the 1940s and did not understand why there was massive cooling from 1943 to 1978 or why there was no more warming after 1998. The temperature curve was almost flat.
Full text of all Climategate messages
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf
By 2013, this lack of warming was the main concern of the IPCC:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24173504
Climate expert von Storch who created models for the IPCC admitted that all models were wrong and that they might soon have to revise their basic assumptions about CO2:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
NASA was so desperate to find the "missing heat" that they looked in the abyss and didn't find it:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/
But Nature reassured its readers that despite the missing heat, global warming was happening - virtually, I guess 🤣
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
NOAA "found" the missing heat in 2015, just before Obama's Paris presentation. How stunning and brave of NOAA ... to alter the historical climate data to make it look like there was actual warming...
But who would complain about lies when it is for the "good cause"?
The "science" of "man-made climate change" never was real science - in 2001, a study already confirmed that climate "science" was really just post-normal "science", aka a Marxist concept that uses scientific fraud in support of a political agenda:
"Post-Normal Science and the Global Climate Change Issue"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1010636822581
Promoters of the climate hoax actually ADMIT that they lie:
"Information manipulation and climate agreement"
https://dr.ntu.edu.sg/bitstream/10220/25015/1/Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements.pdf
They also ask you NOT to question the narrative, as that would destroy it completely:
"Don't Fact-Check Scientific Judgment Calls" - Scientific American
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dont-fact-check-scientific-judgment-calls/
Note that NOT ONE SINGLE CLIMATE MODEL ever even came close to predicting the evolution of the climate. They diverge from each other by more than the total supposed warming over 100 years:
"The scientific challenge of understanding and estimating climate change"
... and that's based on AGW supporters who use a wonderful wording to describe why people don't know about the failure of those climate models: climate scientists DEEMPHASIZE the information that the models are totally wrong! (aka they lie). At least they admit that there is no such thing as a "scientific consensus".
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/49/24390
Do you know what I provided in my post here that you NEVER saw from Greta, Gore, Gates or any other promoter of the AGW hoax?
ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES!
I don't say "trust the science", I say READ the science and consult the data!
Should we trust Bill Gates about anything?
Like the Ebola virus!