nav search
Data Center Software Security Transformation DevOps Business Personal Tech Science Emergent Tech Bootnotes BOFH

back to article
Bill Gates joins $170bn climate change investment club

Facepalm

Trumpity Trump

Out of all the damage this man could do in the next 4 years (please, god, not 8) his attitude to climate change is the thing that scares me most.

3 cheers for the billionaires.

24
14
Anonymous Coward

Re: Trumpity Trump

Why? Congress would not have ratified Paris, and Obama's executive order means nothing.

Do you have a genuine concern or are you just virtue-signalling that you Deeply Care About The Climate?

11
12
Silver badge
Megaphone

Re: Trumpity Trump

"his attitude to climate change is the thing that scares me most."

are you KIDDING? You actually *BELIEVE* that "man made climate change" BULLCRAP? I'm *RELIEVED* that Trump is giving it the "digitus impudicus" with his EPA appointment, for starters.

I _certainly_ do _NOT_ need a bunch of "bought off" "scientists" telling ME how to THINK. Instead, I downloaded their data [from U.C. Berkeley] and ran the numbers MYSELF. 2005-ish was the peak of a ~70 year cycle, just like 1970-ish was a trough (cold), 1935-ish was a peak (about as hot as the 2000's, maybe hotter), 1900 was a trough (cold again)... and temperatures have followed that nice *NATURAL* *CYCLE*, and not that hideously ridiculous "hockey stick" AlGore model.

So, temperatures are going DOWN now. So predictable if you study the numbers.

And the data is still there, last I checked. Do your OWN study and don't let people tell you how to think by manipulating you into being AFRAID.

Or, we can allow a bunch of activists to "chicken little" us into a "henny penny" 'sky is falling' panic, which precludes THINKING, since you cannot FEAR-EMOTE and THINK at the same time [something about the amygdala controls that, as I recall].

In other words, while you're allowing yourself to be "scared the most", your thinking has been turned off.

(howler monkey downvotes expected)

6
41
Silver badge

Re: Trumpity Trump

You seem to have some problems with your capslock, it seems to be intermittently working and makes you look a bit mad.

43
4

Re: Trumpity Trump

Regardless of the accords various being signed or not signed, his attitude will be picked up by many at a time when the planet needs all the help it can get. I'm not an environaught by any means, but I genuinely believe that it'll be much harder to roll back 4 + years of a lax environmental policy that it will be (for example) to repair the US:China relationship.

14
3
Silver badge

Re: Trumpity Trump

a bit mad?

Fucking insane is a bit nearer the mark.

28
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: Trumpity Trump

Hey boobtastic bonehead. You don't get to "believe" in science or not. It's not a fucking belief system, like politics or religion. Science rules all and explains life's mysteries to those who can understand how it works and self-checks itself, and improves our lives. If you can't handle science, then don't cherry pick some science; like your cell phone and computer, while rejecting other parts of science you can't get your tiny head around. Just do us all a favor and get rid of your computing devices, because those are a direct result of science. Same thing with the medication you need to take; stop taking it. It's science again.

So, either you are a great hypocrite, or a dumbfuck, or a fair bit of both.

Me? I can see the science and I read the reports on man made global climate change, and I do NOTHING. I'm not getting a hybrid. I drive a German convertible that takes premium petrol, and the next one will be too. And yet, I'm all for green energy, since this will help aid the ills of global climate change some. I don't have to do a thing yet. See the difference? Probably not.

The news media outlets need to make stories more interesting. This is why they start crowing about this and that. Your job as a person pretending not to be stupid is to take each news item and reduce the hype around it in your mind, then understand the info itself, not the way it was presented. That's the difference. There is no belief system for science. You get it, or you don't. You don't.

Why don't you do something more along the lines of your lack of knowledge, like prove to the world that Leprechauns are real or something like that. It's more your style.

11
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Trumpity Trump

"3 cheers for the billionaires." Cheering money for monies sake gets you a down vote in my book.

0
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: Trumpity Trump

@bombastic knob "are you KIDDING? You actually *BELIEVE* that "man made climate change" BULLCRAP?"

It doesn't matter if you don't believe it's man made, peoples lives are being affected. The world is getting hotter and it is, or will, affect many of us. Carrying on regardless isn't going to fix the lack of water in regions that used to manage, the dying coral or sinking houses in Greenland.

BtW YOur TExt looKs LIKe You HAVE A meNTal ProBLEm or ArE YOu STiLL Using THAt mANKy mICRosoFT keYBoArD?

12
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Trumpity Trump

You get what you vote for.

1
0
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: Trumpity Trump

Cheering money for monies money's sake gets you a down vote in my book.

Likewise ungrammatical comments in mine, no matter what I am guilty of in turn.

4
0
JLV
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Trumpity Trump

So great having you argue against climate change. Does much for the credibility of human-induced climate change skeptics.

Inconvenient, the fact that you are not, I would guess, actually specialized in climatology... (or in keyboard caps management).

Let's say Joe Random PhD in Climatology took a look at a non-trivial program that one of us wrote. Or, maybe examined a network that one of the sysadmin readers configured and maintained. Joe Random, being a clever dude who knows some programming/sysadmin, then says "this is shite, I know how to do this much better". Just because, well, he's smart (or claims to be) and has an opinion.

Would any one of us accept Joe's opinion at face value? We might, if Joe was criticizing an individual, known to be weak, programmer/admin and brought in some hard facts.

But let's say his opinion went against the general accepted practices of the programming/admin community as a whole. And based on fairly basic arguments that any practitioner in the field would have thought of (70 year cycles, face palm, why did no one think of that???). Let's say in fact, that 95% of practitioners thought his approach flawed.

Then, oh.... we might also think that Joe didn't know what the f**k he was talking about.

Just sayin'

p.s. this ain't total BS either - apparently the scientific community codes a lot, but often in not particularly efficient ways - it's hard for most people to master complex subjects outside their field, witness the dev vs ops divide.

7
1
Silver badge

Re: Trumpity Trump

Bob: "Do your OWN study"

What if I've done my own study and come to these conclusions

1) we are entering a natural warming period, but we seem to be entering it very fast

2) that seems to be as a result of human activity

3) there are other good reasons for investing in carbon free energy (pollution, air quality, finite fossil fuiel)

4) it seems unlikely that there is a global conspiracy of green scientists, even IF they are mistaken

Does that make me a howler monkey? Does it make me your intellectual inferior? Would you take my views more seriously if I said I had a significant scientific background? Or does that mean I'm just a co-conspirator? Maybe if i just used CAPS LOCK as much as SOME PEOPLE you could take my views SERIOUSLY.

17
3
Silver badge
Headmaster

Re: Trumpity Trump

Let's see...

1) we are entering a natural warming period, but we seem to be entering it very fast

My perusal of the evidence to date doesn't seem to indicate any warming, period or not. Rejected due to lack of any warming going on. Try harder next time.

2) that seems to be as a result of human activity

Yes, that is the main tenet of the religion, such as it is.

3) there are other good reasons for investing in carbon free energy (pollution, air quality, finite fossil fuel)

And plenty of very compelling reasons not to (high utility bills, unreliable energy supply, building many units makes lots of pollution). With the exception of Nuclear of course.

BTW, the fact that a resource is finite does not constitute an argument against using that resource. ;-/

4) it seems unlikely that there is a global conspiracy of green scientists, even IF they are mistaken

Since when? The monies available to those green scientists is huge by their usually stingy standards. How many billions is it again? While the other college science departments are scraping for every penny, too. And you reject out of hand the idea that this tsunami of grant money has NO effect on that population? I beg to differ, it's had a huge effect, corrupting an entire branch of science in service to promoting an unproven (but highly desirable) theory.

And that tax money was diverted to those green science depts. by Government, which is all too happy to further regulate the hell out of us, especially when it means yet more taxes to collect. So the green zealots win, and the governments win. Wait, who loses? Just most of humanity.

4
9
Bronze badge

Re: Trumpity Trump

@ A/C 1

You don't get to "believe" in science or not. It's not a fucking belief system, like politics or religion.

Science is an unbiased search for truth based on evidence, always open to new ideas. But most modern scientific research is funded by governments and corporations so the areas of research are directed by the motives of people with political agendas or the self-interest of a wealthy few. Working scientists depend on this funding for their living so are disinclined to oppose those funding their research. Surveys of scientific opinion can be easily biased using techniques like loaded questions, limited choice answers, ignoring responses that don't answer certain questions etc. to present a false impression of scientific consensus. If climate change was established Science they wouldn't need to conduct any surveys. Science-ism is when an agenda is presented as scientific, when it isn't established Science.

The few who speak out are usually those who are no longer dependent on this centralised funding. Here Johnny Ball presents a viewpoint which is opposed to the climate change fear being pushed through the education system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d23B-R2-qw

4
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Trumpity Trump

I'm a bleeding heart liberal, and am inclined to be scared like you, BUT, there is still the possibility that his Orangeness may turn out alright on the environment. Just like the "Only Nixon could go to China" theory, maybe only Trump could pass meaningful climate change legislation.

The GOP actually has some previous traction in this area (see: creation of the EPA and the banning* of incandescent light bulbs).

Or, maybe whatever turns out best for his pocketbook is all that gets pushed (see also: Ventura, Jessie).

* Ok, not a full ban, but severe restrictions in the market that resulted in a push to higher-efficiency alternatives in an example of government meddling in private industries on a level not normally associated with conservatives.

0
0

Re: Trumpity Trump

You don't get to "believe" in science or not.

Don't confuse science with climate change "science".

One is based on empirical research conducted to test a hypothesis.

The other raises billions in taxes and has become a belief system.

4
5

The Green Meanie Conspiracy....

There is NO Carbon Climate forcing, NO 'sustainable' green energy and NO 'peak' oil.

"Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Truth Origami" the FAKE Alarmist/Luke debate

"Green Prince of Darkness" the photovoltaic molecular erosion parlor Trick

"Fracturing the Fossil Fuel Fable" on Earth's natural Hydrocarbon production

All at FauxScienceSlayer....find and share Truth....it is your duty as an Earthling

0
10
Silver badge

Re: Trumpity Trump

Well Bob I have a great real estate opportunity for you, I've got first refusal on some beach side properties in a couple of hurricane zones. You guys take such ridiculously short time scales to base your arguments on. Presumably if your forecasts say no major change in your remaining lifetime there is no problem.

If my grandson lives to be the age of my father it will be 2093, I wonder what his grandchildren will think of us.

On a practical note there is a very simple way to get Donald Trump et al to react to climate change. tell then they can make money out of it, or perhaps that other people will make money out of him.which he will really hate.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: The Green Meanie Conspiracy....

Y'know every now and again you post on here and everytime I see your site, it reminds me of Deepak Chopras, quantum woo, you grab a load of scientific words and put them together in a way that sounds like it might have meaning, few minutes of thought, (or at least a few minutes of reading it), reveal its actually all bollocks though.

6
0
Silver badge

Re: Trumpity Trump

Have you just got out of a Delorian?! That a) the planet has been warming since the industrial revolution and that b) humans are at least a significant cause of this warming has not been in any credible scientific doubt whatsoever for at least a decade now. There are ZERO non political scientific organisations that disagree with this.

And now it's really starting to hit the fan. See for instance https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/grf/nsidc_global_area_byyear_b.png

1
1
Silver badge

Re: Trumpity Trump

"My perusal of the evidence to date doesn't seem to indicate any warming"

Should have gone to Specsavers?

See http://woodfortrees.org/plot/

5
2

Re: Trumpity Trump

"The world is getting hotter and it is, or will, affect many of us"

But not most of us. 0.8 Deg C since the 1840s? And the Sahel greening (and crop yields increasing) and no increase in extreme weather events?

"Carrying on regardless isn't going to fix the lack of water in regions that used to manage"

So massive population increases using limited water resource isn't the source of the problem? It must be "climate change"?

Aye, right.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: Trumpity Trump

Git! Now I've got Nellie the Elephant as an earworm!!!

0
0
MJI
Silver badge

Re: Trumpity Trump

To be honest pollution, wasting fossil fuels, and wasteful energy usage bother me more than CO2 levels. (Smog in particular is scary).

But clean energy is an essential, and we need it sooner than later.

Invest in research, thorium bed, fusion, wave power, energy storage.

Now why am I not so bothered by CO2?

1, Methane is worse. 2, saving energy means less CO2. 3, non fossil fuel means less CO2

So win win.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Trumpity Trump

Obviously the fearful many who down-voted bombastic bob's quote, did not bother to download the data and check themselves.

The Pavlovian response to anything that suggests that proper due diligence is required in the global warming 'debate' is disheartening.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Trumpity Trump

(a) who told you the world is still getting hotter

(b) how much difference do good intentions make

(c) if you care that much, why not support nuclear power which exists and works?

The disjunct between what the powers that be say, and what they do, is out there in the open.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: The Green Meanie Conspiracy....

faux science is actually a green troll, running a false flag against climate sceptics

0
0

Nice one.

Makes me feel a little better about that one time I actually paid for a copy of Windows. ('98 OEM from a computer fair, if memory serves)

4
1
Silver badge

Re: Nice one.

I dunno I once paid for Vista.

2
0
Bronze badge

I just got this pop up when running Microsoft Climate Modeller 3.6

"I can see you're trying change the planet for the better.

Access denied by process Trump

Abort/Retry/Fail ?"

8
9

Victorian values

Gates is not the kind of sparkling personality that naturally prompts party invites and Microsoft is not always the most delightful company either but he does seem to be making a genuine and intelligently focussed attempt to make the world better.

(Some of) the IT rich guys seem to be the inheritors of the socially minded Victorian entrepreneurs.

I wish more of the preposterously wealthy felt obliged to act similarly.

29
1
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: Victorian values

One of the (many) problems with the US is that in getting rid of the nobles, we got rid of noblesse oblige. And now that we have Oligarchs and Plutarchs rising up to form a new class of (ig?)nobles, they are very much resistant to bringing it back.

Kudos to Gates for at least making a nod to noblesse oblige.

12
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Victorian values

I'd rather make a nod to Droit du seigneur...

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Victorian values

Are you looking at the same information as me?

This seems an attempt to make a lot of money, what else would you expect.

0
3

Re: Victorian values

"This seems an attempt to make a lot of money, what else would you expect."

I'm sure that the sort of people involved would want to make their sustainable energy financially sustainable as well - they'd see that as prudent and responsible.

In Gates' case I don't think there's any profiteering in his attempts to eradicate malaria, polio etc so even if this energy and research investment scheme is just another way for him to make money he plans to give away with those aims in mind I'm not too worried.

2
0

Re: Victorian values

Well, given that green energy - less polluting, more efficient - is likely to be the Next Big Thing, and the nations and businesses that research and develop such tech are likely to come out on top, it would hardly surprise me that Bill Gates expects to get some ROI.

0
0
MJI
Silver badge

Re: Victorian values

Reminds me of when a charity had a go at the worlds richest people, people who have given more money to good causes than them by at least 10x.

Bill Gates is doing a lot of good with his fortune.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Victorian values

except that 'green energy' is less efficient, more polluting

0
0
Silver badge

Matter of convenience

"US president-elect Donald Trump reportedly told US network Fox on Sunday “nobody really knows” if climate change is real."

Funny that. He seems to believe in Global warming enough to want "To build a Yuge wall, a great wall"... in Scotland.

6
1
Silver badge

Re: Matter of convenience

Nobody does know 100% that it's real.

Hedging against it isn't incompatible with making that statement.

12
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Matter of convenience

"Nobody does know 100% that it's real."

If it wasn't, we'd still be stuck in the last ice-age - climate change happens. The question is, how much of an effect has man's activities had on climate change?

Only an idiot would refuse to accept that pumping copious quantites of CO2 and massive deforestation has absolutely no effect, what has to be determined is exactly how much of an effect it has.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Matter of convenience

Urgh. The pedantry was not necessary.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Matter of convenience

but a hedge that cost 10-100 times the loss incurred should it be real and doesn't stop it happening anyway is not good business. Its just vapid virtue signalling

or if its someone else's money into your pocket, criminal fraud.

I'll happily insure you for a 100k payout for a premium of a million a year against any climate change you care to mention.

0
0
Silver badge
Paris Hilton

Zero carbon food.

I can't see that being very tasty.

7
0
Silver badge

How does this report stack up against this statement?

Billionaire environmental investor Bill Gates has made himself non grata among many staunch green energy believers by stating that “renewable” energy sources “aren’t a viable solution for reducing CO2 levels,” and that costs for continuing the current fad in subsidizing wind and sun energy sources “would be beyond astronomical.”

http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/al-gore-ipcc/2016/12/12/id/763417/

3
1
Silver badge

Reading that statement in isolation, I still think that it stacks up very well.

Renewable - taken to mean wind/solar/tidal, maybe *greener* from the point of view they generate the energy from non-combustible and free means , even when taking into account the 'carbon cost' of producing them, are more a statement than a viable solution for the future. They don't really address the current energy requirements unless you are looking at mesh style solutions - which has a massive upfront cost and infrastructure issue.

Looking into other sources of energy, hydroelectric, fusion, more efficient/safer fission and other stuff I am really not qualified to comment on, offer potentially bigger energy returns and are possibly more realistic.

12
0
Silver badge

@Ivan 4

Well you could think the current methods of renewable energy are not viable as means of producing enough energy, but still invest in other greener sources such as nuclear, wonder what would happen if fusion research got a few billion from backers.

4
1
Silver badge

Re: @Ivan 4

@Triggerfish

There you have stated the problem. The greens don't count nuclear as a green renewable (it's the radiation you know and it can be made to go bang).

Fusion, from what I have heard talking with greens is much worse for some unknowable reason.

I, like you, wonder what could result if all forms of fusion research were given that type of backing.

5
2
Silver badge

Re: @Ivan 4

Depends on what sort of green you are. I am reasonably so, I try and recycle, and got work to do so as well. I think we are having an impact on wildlife and that's something we need to pay attention to and try and do bits there as well, and I suspect we are having an impact on our weather and climate, that we should certainly do something about.

But I am also realistic.

I think this is the problem with some greens they are too fundamentalist and in doing so can actually negatively effect progression, Nuclear is a good example, and it's not helped by the fact that lets be honest a lot of people are not that techy and don't do science or engineering bad press can run away from the truth.

But you can also see it with wildlife I know people who have said things like we should ban the hunting of bush meat, or ban locals fishing off of reefs, stop people killing endangered cats (I've seen Golden cat skins nailed to fences in Laos and it sucks, but if your family's protein source is the three chickens you have, I am not sure I wouldn't also be thinking fuck those cats being near here), whilst sitting quite comfortably in a house with a tescos round the corner. Go to some of those places and you realise it's not necessarily a choice thing unless that choice is feeding your family or not.

We need to move away from the fundamentalism and work on solutions that work with us having a bit more harmony with nature, about 15 years ago or so in the Maldives several tons of coral was broken up for the limestone for concrete, and reefs were being overfished, it was the convincing people that every shark pulled out of the reefs around there meant less tourists and so less money going into the local economy that helped make a difference. Some islands I have been on, used to serve up baby sharks for BBQ, you'd see them on ice being sold as part of the catch of the day, strong presence from some dive schools have convinced some of these places to not do that, because the tourists will not come and those islands main source of income is tourism, (and its a lot of income difference from say earning a couple of quid a day farming coconuts, to being able to afford to send your kids to school). You'll never have environmental protection if you can't also improve the lives of the people in these places that it clashes with.

Did you see the last Planet Earth 2? The artificial trees in Singapore they were incredible, they provide an ecosystem for wildlife, a green space for people, and manage to make the city look like something that came out of the mind of the artist Roger Dean, they cleaned their bay and now otters are back, whats preferable at the waterside plastic bottles and trash, or a bunch of otters playing about? We can be really intelligent and use our engineering knowledge to do things like that, or the vertical forest buildings by people like Stefano Boeri in Milan. We have the capability to make these changes, we don't have to wear the hairshirts of the fundamentalist greenie or be so close minded from that fundamentalism, we can work like intelligent capable human beings to improve the environment around us.

TLDR: Not all greenies are against nuclear. ;)

8
0

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing