I didn’t see this coming. I could hardly believe the news article that came across my desk the other day: none other than Bill Gates was urging climate advocates to rethink their priorities and rhetoric so that their work truly serves the good of the world. Remarkably, he even says something that could have come straight from a papal encyclical: our concern for people ought to outweigh our fixation on the planet’s temperature. In this latest missive, Gates contends that one metric that should take precedence over emissions: the difference our actions make in improving human lives.
This is what I’ve been teaching for years, expounded in recent magisterial teaching under the banner of integral ecology. But to hear it from the Microsoft founder, a man who has spent decades funding efforts to reduce human impact on the climate, was something else entirely. After you finish this column, I encourage you to take five minutes to read at least part of Gates’s article. Yes, you read that right: Bill Gates has written a remarkably nuanced piece on climate change—“Three tough truths about climate” (Oct. 27, 2025)—and you really should read it. To be sure, there are things in there that you might disagree with. But Gates, for all his flaws, has brought a welcome dose of sanity to the climate conversation—offering, along the way, a clear snapshot of where things really stand today.
But the purpose of this piece is not simply to praise Bill Gates or restate what he’s recently said. After summarizing a few key highlights, I want to connect his insights with what our popes have taught on the subject and draw out a few implications from that dialogue. Indeed, I believe the popes could learn something from the nuance Gates brings to this discussion.
Gate’s uncomfortable truths about climate
“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.”
We’ve all heard this familiar argument, or rather harangue, more times than we can count. Every time there is a tornado, hurricane, or heat wave, the national news automatically pins the blame on climate change. From the impression you’d get watching the headlines, deaths from heat and natural disasters are skyrocketing—and things are only getting worse.
“Fortunately for all of us,” says Gates, “this view is wrong.” Consistent with the broad consensus of climate scientists and the teaching of recent popes, he maintains that rising global temperatures stem from human-generated greenhouse gases and will most severely affect those in the poorest countries. However, in this latest piece, he breaks ranks by emphasizing that climate change will not bring about humanity’s demise.
What’s more, while he is by no means the first person to point this out, Gates stresses that the doomsday narrative so often pushed by environmentalists turns the whole affair into a zero-sum contest over degrees on a thermometer that ends up “diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.”
Gates backs up his thesis with many lines of evidence. For example, he counters the prevailing heat-death narrative by pointing out that cold-related deaths actually outnumber heat-related deaths globally by a ratio of ten to one. Moreover, he notes that heat deaths worldwide are, in fact, on the decline—not because global temperatures are going down, as one might assume, but thanks to advancements in technology.
To illustrate, he offers the tragic real-life scenario of “the government of one low-income country” (read: Sri Lanka) that rashly banned synthetic fertilizers a few years ago in the effort to curb climate change. As could have easily been predicted, this resulted in farmers seeing their yields plummet, inflation skyrocket, and countless people suffering needlessly—all because it was decided that near-term human welfare needed to take a backseat to lowering emissions. Rather than blaming one particular entity, Gates notes that these sorts of unforced errors result from wealthy lenders and shareholders pressuring developing nations to leave oil, gas, and coal in the ground instead of taking easy steps to bring reliable electricity to their homes, schools, and health clinics.
Some parts of Gates’ essay read almost as if they could have been written by a right-leaning American pundit—something we know Gates decidedly is not. Citing research from the University of Chicago’s Climate Impact Lab, the essay builds on what I mentioned above by inviting readers to consider what happens to climate-related deaths when economic growth occurs in low-income nations.
The answer? The projected number of such deaths drops by fifty percent compared to what is otherwise predicted. And here is Gates’s takeaway:
Since the economic growth that’s projected for poor countries will reduce climate deaths by half, it follows that faster and more expansive growth will reduce deaths by even more. And economic growth is closely tied to public health. So the faster people become prosperous and healthy, the more lives we can save.
And how do we accomplish this? Defying the usual script, Gates urges policymakers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and investors to put energy, health, and agriculture at the center of their strategies. Unapologetically, he argues that in deciding how to spend our limited resources, we should address issues such as disease and extreme weather in proportion to the suffering they actually cause. And, as he stresses multiple times in the article, even as climate changes affect the poor above all, weather-related deaths do not hold a candle to deaths from poverty and disease—from diarrhea due to polluted water, from malaria spread by mosquitoes, and more. But, as he avows, vaccines are the undisputed champion when it comes to lives saved per dollar spent.
The implication may sound obvious to you and me, but it is striking in this context because Gates refreshingly chooses to make explicit: this development requires the use of fossil fuels. Not only that, but in a move often deemed anathema in environmental circles, he also champions the development of nuclear energy. And he does not just advocate for it in words—he is putting his money behind it, funding a next-generation nuclear power plant currently under construction in Wyoming.
Unlike some progressives seem to be, Gates is aware that solar and wind are not available around the clock. Against many on the left, he can distinguish the good of nuclear energy from the morally fraught issue of nuclear weapons. In contrast to the popular image of green, radioactive goo bubbling inside nuclear plants, Gates—and others who understand the technology—know that nuclear energy is not only clean in terms of greenhouse emissions but increasingly safe and low-impact in its environmental impact on humans and other creatures.
Meanwhile, unlike some conservatives who think developing alternative energy is not a priority, Gates knows that fossil fuels are in finite supply on this planet and will run out before many complacently assume (as one of my conservative environmental engineer friends points out, this will not occur in our generation, but in the life of our great-grandkids). The exact timeline predicted for this is probably not something we should put much stock in, but the reality remains: it is going to happen at some point, and God is not likely to start supplying us with oil and coal from Mars just because we have run out here on Earth.
If Gates’s common-sense warnings against prioritizing hypothetical future improvements over the welfare of real people in the present echo arguments conservatives have been making for years, the realism with which he envisions their implementation is equally refreshing. He even dares to use the “T” word that’s too rarely heard on either side of the political aisle—namely, “we have to make tradeoffs so we can deliver the most benefit with limited resources.”
I am sure many readers will be familiar with Thomas Sowell’s quip: “There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.” Regardless of how literally that saying ought to be taken, the fact is that tradeoffs are something many environmentalists would rather not talk about. Some activists have such high idealism about energy conservation—a zeal that can only be described as religious fervor—that they refuse to make the practical concessions necessary to keep the proverbial lights on. Gates is not the first to realize that this is a problem, but it is noteworthy that someone in his position did.
What can Gates teach the Church about climate?
If I have been so pleasantly surprised by much of what Gates said in his recent essay, it is partly because we have, on the whole, seen far less nuance from the Catholic Church when it comes to the matter of climate change.
To be sure, I am among those who deeply appreciate the work of recent popes in the matter of the environment—especially the introduction of “integral ecology” into the papal lexicon. The Church has wonderful, life-changing things to say about inhabiting creation well, rooted in the biblical notion of covenant and the Patristic conviction that the created world is God’s “first book.”
Moreover, her emphasis on human ecology—the recognition that the human person is part of the environment and is endowed with a nature that must be respected from conception to natural death—is an essential contribution, something almost always missing from secular environmentalism. Papal concern for a looming “ecological catastrophe” goes at least as far back as Paul VI in 1970, with John XXIII expressing incipient concerns already in his 1961 encyclical Mater et Magistra.
And yet, reading Gates’s letter, I cannot help but notice the greater nuance in his treatment of the specific issue of climate change with respect to that of our recent popes. In 2010, Benedict XVI addressed the issue with his characteristic balance and prudence, treating it as one among a host of interconnected concerns—desertification, declining agricultural productivity, pollution of rivers and aquifers, loss of biodiversity, and deforestation in equatorial and tropical zones. As I observed here at Catholic World Report, Francis’s handling of the issue, both in his encyclical Laudato Si’ and in his 2023 exhortation Laudate Deum, was much less balanced, appearing more to contribute little beyond echoing the talking points of international diplomats and NGOs.
Indeed, Francis’s handling of the issue lacked the very nuance and realism that Gates brings to the discussion: a frank acknowledgment of the grave human cost—and futility—of many current climate initiatives. Nowhere in the document do we find any recommendation to pursue nuclear energy. It merely bemoans nuclear waste, seemingly oblivious to how clean the technology really is—especially in light of recent advances.
What’s more, Francis spent a lot of energy criticizing the West’s role in climate change while ignoring the fact that China produces more greenhouse gas emissions than all developed nations combined.
While we are obviously not very far into Leo’s pontificate, we have seen that the pontiff’s approach has so far mirrored that of his predecessor, focusing on the anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere as reflected in natural disasters. One hopes that Pope Leo, whose teaching I hold in high regard, will take note of the recent work of Gates and others and, in time, introduce a measure of nuance to the climate discussion that has heretofore been lacking.
Such a development would appear natural, given the American pontiff’s continuity with his predecessors in his concern for the poor—not only those of the future, but those in need right now. In particular, this author would be grateful if Pope Leo were to revisit the promise of nuclear energy—not only because of recent technological advances but also given that its peaceful and safe use was endorsed by Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.
Conclusion: What the Church can teach Gates about life
On the whole, I have been more positive here about Bill Gates than about the Catholic popes. This is not out of any intrinsic desire or proclivity, but because we Catholics ought not merely to match our secular counterparts in these matters, but to be better. And I do not think we are there yet when it comes to nuance in the matter of nuance in relation to climate change.
This is not because I do not agree with recent popes that our species’ use of fossil fuels is meaningfully contributing to climate change. Belief one way or another regarding the scientific causes of climate change is not a de fide matter, so we Catholics can disagree with each other here. And, being a theologian rather than a climate scientist, all I am doing is provisionally trusting the data that the experts in the relevant area largely agree upon.
Regardless, in keeping with our both/and tradition, Catholics are entitled to hold a handful of convictions simultaneously that few others appear willing to hold in balance: 1) to agree with the pope and the majority of experts that anthropogenic climate change is real; 2) to agree with Gates that some things are more important than lowering our emissions; 3) to insist that the Church’s response be more nuanced than it heretofore has been.
Having said this, there is at least one crucial thing that our most recent popes have gotten right related to climate—something it would truly astonish me to see matched by Bill Gates.
It stems from the fact that he is coming at this from a secular point of view. While not necessarily problematic per se, Gates’s frequent recourse to proportionality and his claim that “our chief goal should be to prevent suffering” recall John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism. From this point of view, right and wrong are determined by the consequences of one’s actions. In such a system, no act is considered intrinsically evil—contrary to John Paul II’s authoritative teaching that some acts are evil by their very nature.
With that little bit of background, here’s the problem. By way of making a strong case for prioritizing improvements in health and agriculture over reducing emissions, Gates approvingly notes that industrialization not only leads to higher child survival rates but also correlates to something “unexpected,” which he praises: people in developed nations tend to choose smaller families. I have no reason to doubt the correlation, or to deny that it carries with it some positive consequences—such as reduced poverty and hunger. But seeing fewer children as a net positive is a tough sell for Catholics—especially for those of us who need a Ford Transit just to get our families around town. Not only that, but one human cost often associated with climate-related policies—and notably absent from Gates’s calculus—is the staggering number of deaths brought about by abortion.
Here again, we find in Catholicism’s vision of human ecology something that our secular counterparts almost invariably miss. Roman pontiffs have always been clear that more children are not the problem. Of course, Paul VI is famous (or infamous, from a certain perspective) for reiterating the Church’s perennial teaching on the immorality of artificial contraception. Even before him, John XXIII’s Mater et Magistra solemnly reminded Catholics that we are “not permitted to use certain ways and means which are allowable in the propagation of plant and animal life.” The contraceptive pill would clearly fall within the scope of this proscription.
Every pope since then has reaffirmed this teaching. But what might surprise some is that none other than Pope Francis has been the most vocal in challenging the mainstream overpopulation narrative. In a 2024 address, for instance, Francis recalls earlier doomsday claims about overpopulation—think Thomas Malthus’ 1798 Essay on the Principle of Population and Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 The Population Bomb. Francis, in response to the alarmist claims triggered by these books—and whose predictions failed to materialize on schedule—offers a different perspective:
Human life is not a problem—it is a gift. And at the root of pollution and starvation in the world are not children being born, but the choices of those who think only of themselves, the delirium of an unbridled, blind and rampant materialism, of a consumerism that, like an evil virus, undermines the existence of people and society at the root. The problem is not how many of us there are in the world, but the world that we are building. This is the problem: not children, but selfishness, which creates injustice and structures of sin.
And then, stunningly, Francis makes an even bolder claim: not only is the earth not on a trajectory toward overpopulation, but we are, in fact, suffering from underpopulation. Illustrating the point by calling out the growing tendency in the Western world to replace children with pets, the Argentine pontiff comments: “There is no shortage of dogs and cats. These are not lacking. There is a shortage of children. The problem of our world is not the children who are born: it is selfishness, consumerism, and individualism.”
In another place, Francis described the current situation as a “demographic winter,” again lamenting people pretending that owning dogs and cats in place of children is parenthood, adding that this denial of genuine fatherhood and motherhood “diminishes us, it takes away our humanity.” To be sure, the pope acknowledged that having children—whether naturally or by adoption—is “always a risk.” Parenting is demanding even as it is deeply joyful—and it does young people no favor to pretend otherwise. And yet, Francis has this to say:
It is a risk, yes: having a child is always a risk, either naturally or by adoption. But it is riskier not to have them. It is riskier to deny fatherhood or to deny motherhood, be it real or spiritual. A man or a woman who does not voluntarily develop a sense of fatherhood or motherhood is lacking something fundamental, something important.
With this language of “risk,” I cannot help but think of Luigi Giussani’s exhortation to take “the risk of education” and Benedict XVI’s invitation to embark on “the experiment of faith.” I hope that Pope Leo XIV will carry on the legacy of these great thinkers by continually calling us to make our faith concrete and lived, even when it requires heroic sacrifice. And I hope that he not only brings greater nuance to Francis’s words on climate but also advances his strong witness to the truth about population and the intrinsic blessing of children.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Keep in mind that it is Bill Gates who has funded the Quantum Dot technology with MIT that is the basis for the technological foundation behind a transdermal implant that is able to uniquely identify and provide real-time location and biological functions for every human being on earth.
In other words, the apocalyptic “mark of the beast” has already been designed and tested.
This climate issue is merely a sleight of hand intended to distract from the real activities in which he involved.
Please Paul, we don’t know his motives.
Can we assume his motives are pure?
Perfect
Our smartphones & other devices do something similar when we carry them. You don’t really need an implant.
you do if you ditch your phone
The Epoch times just had an article that people are going back to flip type phones to destress and simplify their lives
Savannah Guthrie, one of the long-time hosts of NBC’s “The Today Show,” has gone even further back–she bought DIAL UP PHONES for her kids to use–and they love those phones! Apparently Ms. Guthrie has also persuaded many of her friends to replace their children’s I-phones with dial-up phones, and those kids love it, too!
I know several highly-intelligent adults who have avoided purchasing an I-phone, and have stuck with flip phones and dial-up phones.
I enjoy my I-phone, but I do avoid all social media except for a few religious forums like this one. Not saying that this is right for everyone, but I think it might be worth a try for more people.
Bill Gates is a self-important blowhard and college drop out who has an opinion on just about everything. His essential contributions to the world are “the blue screen of death” and “Excel hell”. As a regular denizen of the latter, trust me, it is well-named.
Five years ago, he was lecturing us on viruses, masks and vaccines and the government pharma hydra imposed him on the public like he was a Microbiology PhD or MD. Of course, he’s never stopped opining on vaccines, and has no shortage of fawning acolytes. Not once does any media robot ask “why exactly should we take medical advice from a retired software monger, given that many of your COVID statements have aged so poorly?”
What we know about Gates-his business practices, his association with Epstein and his use of charity as a weapon of population control makes his character and motives suspect. Even if he had expertise, he simply can’t be trusted.
Anybody who has any questions about the Malthusian Gates and how far that nut fell from the tree that was his Unplanned Barrenhood serving father should read the following.
“The Ambitions of Bill and Melinda Gates: Controlling Population and Public Education” by Anne Hendershot.
This was written over a dozen years ago, before the Epstein disclosures caused Melinda to decide he was enough of a liability and public embarrassment that she needed to divorce him-but stay involved in their “foundation”.
A couple of days ago, there was a column on CWR about provocateur and fellow drop out Nick Fuentes. The author and the commenters denounced him as an “extremist”. Nobody sought out one of his pronouncements for “surprising sanity”. Instead we were enjoined to reject him and Tucker Carlson for interviewing him.
So, I guess I have a question.
Why should we listen to Gates in the hopes find a pearl of wisdom in his megalomaniac moral sewer and anathematize Fuentes? Why the difference?
Yeah, sure.
Data centers cannot run on wind and solar energy; I’m guessing that has something to do with his new pivot.
We read: “…there is at least one crucial thing that our most recent popes have gotten right related to climate—something it would truly astonish me to see matched by Bill Gates. It stems from the fact that he is coming at this from a secular point of view.”
Three points:
FIRST, without his now more complex equation for the future, how else would the elitist Bill Gates justify his 66,000 square-foot home on the shores of Lake Washington east of Seattle? In the name of equity and marriage parity (parody?), it was also his lavender corporate office of Microsoft that in 2015 joined the chorus of some 400 other corporations to flood the U.S. Supreme Court with amicus briefs demanding a fatwa redefining the nature of marriage. Another part of THE equation?
SECOND, but not to worry! On the agenda of global social accountability, we already have the example of Communist China—which tracks all things large and small whereby to award benefits and penalties to its “citizens.” A system not long ago (2018) held up as a model of Catholic solidarity by the luminary Cardinal Sorondo. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/02/06/vatican-official-praises-china-for-witness-to-catholic-social-teaching/ From which, this: “Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, an Argentinian, [then] chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences […] ‘at this moment, those who best realize the social doctrine of the Church are the Chinese’.”
THIRD, a good sign, today, that Pope Leo XIV has questions about both the application of AI to the conflated (!) human ecology and natural ecology, and the 2018 Vatican Provisional Agreement with China—which is said to have been influenced by the lavender cardinal/mister McCarrick.
About unambigous/non-syncretic evangelization and inculturation, it’s almost as if the backwardist Pope Paul VI was onto something back in 1975 when he wrote:
“It would be useful if every Christian and every evangelizer were to pray about the following thought: men can gain salvation also in other ways, by God’s mercy, even though we do not preach the Gospel to them: but as for us, can we gain salvation [!] if through negligence or fear or same—what Saint Paul called ‘blushing for the Gospel [Cf. Rom 1;16], –-or as a result of false ideas we fail to preach it?” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi).
Peter: about a possible lavenderness of Cardinal McCarrick having anything to do with his viewpoints or influence on the Church’s China policy is spurious. This accusation is only a detraction and a seeming attempt to lessen a man’s mental judgment by taking a swipe at his sexuality. Apart from any sexual reference about the Cardinal, I don’t think we can say that a homosexual is incapable of making rational, moral decisions. Saying this, I want to make it clear that I do in no way support the current church China policy , and I feel that the underground Church in China been thrown “under the bus “!!!
It’s interesting that Gates, who shorted Tesla,if I remember correctly, had three kids? Musk has fathered many and believes we need to repopulate the West.
Did someone mention that AI data centers are going to suck up gobs and gobs of electricity and H2O? Hmmm
There is a Data Center going up about 20 minutes from my home. They recirculate the water used for cooling. Once a year the water needs replacing. Your average sized ethanol plant uses far more water a year then a Data Center. I’m not defending Data Centers, but I just wanted accurate information out there for the sake of charity.
Isn’t there a lot of them use evaporative? (cheaper)
that’s why they build near regions with lots of fresh water?
Wasn’t it Al Gore (of the ‘hanging chads’ fame) predicting an end to the world just about now?
And, I wouldn’t trust a thing Bill Gates told me – even about computers. Bill Gates is like too many of our pontiffs; they get far too much ink spilled about them.
Growing up in the 1970’s, I remember hearing predictions about worldwide famine, dead seas, a poisoned atmosphere, acid rain, the ozone hole, greenhouse gasses, and an ice age. Needless to say, the prophets of doom were as wrong then as they are now.
We had the blizzard of 78 – were you anywhere in that vicinity?
Yes. I remember that. As a kid, I also remember wondering what would happen to us when the glaciers moved south and crushed our house.
M Stewart was on a cruise not too long ago and the big deal was happy hour and cocktails with ice the from local iceberg
Ramage says, I haven’t come to praise Gates, but to lionize him. Gates has reasonably succumbed to the tradeoff approach. Ramage follows with ‘the Patristic conviction that creation is God’s first book.’
His essay is well articulated on the synthesis between Papal wisdom and scientific common sense.
Personally, I would be happy if we were to retreat from the Baltheserian image of the world as our altar for worship of God. Rather than that, let it be held, since God is not his creation that the two are separate.
Your point against the lingering heresy, today, of Monism is well-taken. But in another sense, isn’t the ‘separate’-ness closed by the Incarnation? And, yes, the “altar for worship of God” and the sacrifice, itself, are Christ rather than Balthasar’s “image of the world.”
But BALTHASAR also said this about the Triune Creator God and his very distinct–and yet loved–Creation: “The responses of the Old Testament and a fortiori of Islam (which remains essentially in the enclosure of the religion of Israel) are incapable of giving a satisfactory answer to the question of ‘why’ Yahweh, why Allah, created a world of which he did not have need in order to be God. Only the fact is affirmed in the two religions, not the ‘why’. The Christian response is contained in these two fundamental dogmas: that of the Trinity and that of the Incarnation.”
An educational neologism, but also a slippery slope into Monism, the conflation of the “human ecology” and the “natural ecology” into the catchphrase “integral ecology.”
An eclipse, too, of the original and theocentric “integral humanism” as coined by JACQUES MARITAIN: “…the world needs a new humanism, a ‘theocentric’ or integral humanism [!], which would consider man in all his natural grandeur and weakness, in the entirety of his wounded being inhabited by God, in the full reality of nature, sin and sainthood. Such a humanism would recognize all that is irrational in man, in order to tame it to reason, and all that is supranatural, in order to have reason vivified by it and to open man to the descent of the divine into him. Its main work would be to cause the Gospel leaven and inspiration to penetrate the secular structures of life–a work or sanctification of the temporal order” (The Range of Reason, Scribners, 1952).
SUMMARY: of Cardinal Fernandez’s timely but blurred theoscience in Laudato Si (2018), instead, do Balthasar and Maritain still enable a needed focus on the “natural ecology”—but more as part of our distinctly “human ecology” including solidarity with future generations?
Beautifully put. Although one suggestion. That we retain focus, while recognizing the benefit to nature, especially human nature, of the incarnation as God’s unifying work, a work which primarily draws Man to God.
I’m not so quick to to give Billy Boy a pat on the back. Follow the money. Gates personally and in his foundation has 10,000,000+ shares of Microsoft stock. Microsoft is making a huge push into the AI gold mine. In order for that to lucratively occur you need massive numbers of data centers which run 24 hours a day and need untold amounts of energy to run which will have to primarily powered by fossil fuels. You can figure out the rest of the story.
For whatever it’s worth, someone who knew the Gates told one of my children that Bill Gates was not as far to the Left as Mrs. Gates was. He was more reasonable & less of an activist.
He capitalized on IBM wanting to launch a personal computer. Steven Jobs wanted to do it himself. Apple would have been a better product. So whatever percent of that story is accurate Gates was a very aggressive capitalist.
I think it’s important not to jump on the bandwagon too quickly here. Gates needs to be held accountable for believing and propagating the lies of climate change for many years. Why the sudden change? What was it that was instrumental in changing his thinking? What’s his motive now?
Held accountable by whom and for what? If you honestly believe something and tell others are you culpable? Is it wrong to act on your convictions ? If upon further information and contemplation, you change your mind isn’t that a sign of integrity? The very fact is that the man gave away a huge amount of money when he didn’t have to. We can’t know why he gave it and we may disagree with how and to whom he gave it, but that does not diminish the fact that he did give it and others benefited.
A sign of integrity is never believing lies to begin with, to do your homework and due diligence to make sure what you believe is true. Gates is too smart to fall for the left’s climate lies. He embraced those falsehoods because it was politically convenient to do so. Virtue signaling at its finest.
What is the left’s preoccupation with money?
Hold it and you are a scoundrel.
Lavish it on manipulating others under the guise of charity and you are a saint in the making.
Gates is following Rockefeller’s playbook.
The “Left’s preoccupation with money” who was on the stage at the inauguration?
As noted, data centers need vast amounts of energy
Regarding my earlier comment regarding Mr. Gates, please see this –
https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/new-gates-funded-microneedle-patch-implant-installs-both-mrna-and-quantum-dot-markings-into-the-body/
A man’s heart is where his treasure lies.
I briefly skimmed this article (the first paragraph in each section) and then I read Mr. Ravasage’s (first) comment. Okay. Hold on a second.
I am already reading about the gobs of energy that AI is going to consume (often in countries that can’t afford to say no, if I’m not mistaken).
Cleo, you should live with a short drive to Three Mile Island.
Guess what, it’s being recommissioned by Constellation energy for Microsoft’s megawatt gulping AI. While I’m guessing they won’t mess with Unit 2 (the one that had a partial meltdown) and there won’t be boron tipped control rods (imagine hitting the gas a bit first every time you hit the brakes) or a positive void coefficient (no self-limitation on reactivity), it’s still a design from the 1960’s
You can’t imagine how comforting it is to know that a decommissioned reactor will be fired up for Microsoft’s HAL 9000: “I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that” project.
But, when all is said and done, Bill Gates IS giving while others are on the take big time. When is the last time you heard about the infamous Trump Foundation? ( boys, I’ve got my armor on 🫣)
Forget about Trump. How much of your current income are you giving away?
Athanasius. Forget about a Commander-in-Chief who is showing signs of mental decline? Calling for the death of Gen John Kelly, and the six Dems that followed the UCMJ, which states the military and the president giving an unlawful order should be held accountable.
Article 92 and Obeying Orders
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 92, service members must obey lawful orders. Failure to obey a lawful order can lead to serious punishment, including court-martial.
But there is a key qualifier: the order must be lawful. If an order is manifestly illegal, service members not only may refuse it — they have a duty to do so. Obeying an illegal order can expose a service member to criminal liability.
https://militarydefenselaw.substack.com/p/orders-under-fire-when-following
We are Republicans, and we voted for Trump in his first term. After the Jan 6, 2021 insurrection on the US Capitol, we refused to ignore his many unlawful Executive Orders, his fierce hatred for his purported enemies, and his utter disregard for the law.
As I have noted before. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Get your own moral and spiritual house in order before you stand in judgment of others. Your chronically hateful spirit is storing up quite a bit of wrath for yourself on judgment day. You will be judged by the same standard you use on others, so be mindful.
Correction – Mr. Ramage. Sorry.
He wants to have mini nuclear power stations (supposedly “mini” scaled down) in every county, to run AI robots and internet and to sustain communications with all those satellites circling everywhere -all on AI.
It’s one thing to just talk but he has a record of facilitating the doing -as like the “achievement” of “polio” and sterilization “vaccines” programs in Africa and India.
And so-called “Pandemic Treaty” in UN etc., etc. James Connor above calls it integrity now that it is being repackaged?
Look up the SL-1 disaster.
Maybe Gates will insist on a single control for efficiency.
Thanks. Good to know.
‘ The deal comes as Trump’s loss-making social media business has struggled to generate meaningful revenue from Truth Social, the platform he uses to post commentary, announcements, and attacks.
Trump Media reported revenue of $927,900 for the three months ended September 30, down from just over $1.01 million a year earlier, while its net loss widened to $54.8 million from $19.2 million in the prior-year quarter. ‘
https://www.rt.com/business/629713-trump-fusion-firm-deal/
https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/trump-media-technology-group-merges-with-google-backed-fusion-firm-tae-technologies/
Pretty important, in terms of the question of the voracious need for money in great magnitudes and in terms of a reveal of a tightly connected industry grouping that is an effective monopoly yet to impose itself.
On only the scantiest legal footings.
Seems obvious that at some point many of the services now made available for free will be charging fees for access and you stand to lose what you already entered if you do not become a current subscriber.
The first link, YAHOO!, has a video where they ADMIT it is an “unproven market model”.
They admit so much of facing serious funding deficits as only a major “customer” base or other source of receipt must supply. They are carrying debt for each other on top of it all -who knows what that will entail.
Who or what is going to resolve all that for them. Taxpayers?
In Trump’s case, the US President for the time being is directly involved.
These links are a few choice ones not to overwhelm you with the reading. The YAHOO! article has good overview info for openers ….
YAHOO!
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/openai-partners-carrying-96-billion-120300663.html
GIZMODO
https://gizmodo.com/openai-is-just-200-billion-away-from-still-losing-money-hsbc-says-2000692299
ITDAILY
https://itdaily.com/news/business/openai-needs-200-billion-dollar/
‘ Adding it all up, HSBC expects the consumer market to generate 129 billion dollars for OpenAI. Enterprise clients will bring in approximately 386 billion dollars per year. Every additional five hundred million users could add 36 billion dollars, and twenty percent paying subscribers could increase revenues by 194 billion dollars. ‘
RT
https://www.rt.com/business/628634-openai-chatgpt-funding-gap/
‘ The company needs the funding to continue expansion as computing costs climb amid an accelerating and increasingly frantic global AI race.
HSBC’s updated research model, distributed to clients this week, follows OpenAI’s recent long-term cloud and compute agreements with Microsoft, Amazon, and Oracle. Even under the bank’s upbeat growth assumptions, the model still leaves OpenAI with a funding gap of about $207 billion by the end of the decade, with revenues expected to reach $129 billion.
HSBC reportedly estimated that OpenAI’s cloud rental bill could run to roughly $800 billion in total by 2030. It is still projecting explosive user growth, saying ChatGPT could climb to 3 billion regular users by 2030, versus roughly 800 million last month – about 44% of adults worldwide outside China.
OpenAI has been at the center of the AI boom since ChatGPT launched three years ago, drawing huge investor interest as Big Tech pours tens of billions into data centers and advanced chips. Some analysts have warned the surge could be causing a bubble to form, with spending racing ahead of returns and raising the stakes not only for OpenAI but also for the tech giants backing its expansion. ‘
I’m not in a rush to praise Gates’ apparent epiphany.
Too many babies are a problem, it turns out.
I’m shocked.
Being a retired control systems and instrumentation engineer during which I had to work with his buggy software, I have watched and observed Bill Gates for many decades.
I remember his father mentioning in an interview how, even as a young boy, BG was extremely interested in population control. In Hollywood parlance, he has been seduced by the dark side.
Our best course of action is to pray for the conversion of him and his ex-wife Melinda, radical feminist who graduated from (Catholic) University of Dallas.
Melinda Gate born and raised in Dallas, and was educated at Ursuline Academy of Dallas, Duke University, and Duke’s Fuqua School of Business. She did not attend my alma mater, the University of Dallas. I suspect that it was far too Catholic for her.
Carl. Off topic? Your post says, “Malinda did not attend the University of Dallas. I suspect that it was far too Catholic for her.” There may be another reason. After her divorce from Bill, she said she had a “crisis of faith”. Her world travels as a PHILANTHROPIST included visits to poor African countries, where she observed a crisis of overpopulation leading to deaths of babies and mothers and rampant poverty. That was her crisis. The need for birth spacing and pregnancy control.
PIVATOL was founded by Melinda Gates, a longtime philanthropist. Pivotal is working to advance social progress and expand women’s power and influence in the U.S. and around the world.
Melinda has expanded her attack on poverty, leading to unnecessary loss of innocent lives. Can that urge not be an epiphany?
The Gates, together and otherwise, promote the culture of death with great zeal; couching it as “philanthropy” is a laughable lie. But the death and destruction is no laughing matter. Consider the perspective of an African woman, whose remarks are on the Vatican website:
Read the entire post, titled “An African Woman’s Open Letter to Melinda Gates”.
Carl: “Amidst all our African afflictions and difficulties, amidst all the socioeconomic and political instabilities, our babies are always a firm symbol of hope, a promise of life, a reason to strive for the legacy of a bright future.” Yes! But that voice may only be a minority. We must keep in mind the disaster created in Southern Sudan, where tens of thousands of children die of starvation because their farmland has turned to dust. Trump eliminated USAID. Today, the foods and medicines rot on warehouse decks.
Sex in society, especially among women. Sex is sacred and private.
“Both the frontline healthcare worker dispensing Melinda’s legacy gift and the women fettered and shackled by this gift, would be separated from their religious beliefs. They would be put in a precarious position to defy their faith – all for “safe sex.”
An appeal: “In Africa, be rest assured that both in the biggest cities and smaller rural villages, sewage constitutes a real problem. So as $4.6 billion worth of drugs, IUDs, and condoms get used, they will need safe disposal. Can someone please show us how and where that will be? On our farm lands, where we get all our food? In our streams and rivers from whence comes our drinking water?”
Did we address the emergency of a pregnant African woman and her baby are both about to die from starvation???
Thanks for your comments.
The current Somalian war has a number of causes—including radical Islam—and it started in the early 1990s. But, hey, let’s blame it on Trump.
In 2023, “$1.18 billion was committed to Somalia,” from the U.S., “ranking it second among low-income countries in terms of aid received from the U.S.”
Not enough?
To be clear: you’re gonna go with the work and word of culture-of-death warriors Bill and Melinda Gates over the testimony of a faithful Catholic scholar WHO IS FROM AFRICA. Her bio:
“Obianuju Ekeocha is a Nigerian woman living and working in the United Kingdom as a specialist biomedical scientist. She is the founder of Culture of Life Africa, an organization dedicated to defending the sanctity and the dignity of human life through research, information, and education. She has spoken on life and women’s issues in seventeen countries and at the United Nations.”
Check out her book, titled Target Africa: Ideological Neocolonialism in the Twenty-First Century, published by Ignatius Press in 2018.
Seriously. At least try.
Africa isn’t overpopulated Mr.Morgan but it has suffered greatly from malaria. The Gates Foundation has done good work in that regard and for other less known tropical diseases.
We can give them credit at least for that.
The over-population nonsense, no. That’s done a great deal of harm to Africans.
On May 9, 2003 This was Gates:
“The two areas that are changing in this amazing way are information technology and medical technology. Those are the things that the world will be very different 20 years from now than it is today.
I’m so excited about those advances. And they actually feed off of each other. The medical world uses the information tools to do their work. And so when you have those advances you think will they be available to everyone. [pause]
The one issue that really grabbed me as urgent were issues related to population… reproductive health.
-Then he revealed that, for a time, his father, William H. Gates, Sr. was the head of Planned Parenthood.
Source:
Eugenics in America: The Legacy of Sanger and Gates
By Mary Pesarchick
31 August AD 2017
yup elitist stuff
It’s a bit odd why CWR keeps publishing Ramage’s increasingly propaganda-like material. Usually close to all the comments on each of his pieces are negative, so it seems most cwr readers don’t like them. His pieces are also generally identical, just packaged a little differently: always coming down to climate change, with the same sub-themes, such as the “nuanced approach,” which was also the theme of his piece just last month! If there’s arguably no truly new insights or knowledge, but just a different starting point/context of Bill gates, what’s the point? It’s just another occasion for Ramage to push others to adopt opinions on climate change; a subject which has nothing to do with our salvation and on which the Church has no competence. One imagines that if other regular contributors here like Chapp or Beutner wrote on the same subject every time, people would grow weary and perhaps they would cut down on the publication of their pieces.
Hence, we find the same odd claims made previously, restated in other forms, e.g. he says it’s not de fide to believe in the specific scientific causes of climate change. Why are only the causes mentioned? Is this meant to infer that it is de fide to believe in the narratives of climate change itself? This slyly sets the stage for the notion that the narratives themselves are unquestionable. In this connection he again bizarrely states that a Catholic should believe in scientific claims because the pope believes in them!
He also repeats the usual, debunked claims, e.g. a majority of experts agree there is man-made climate change. Ramage seems to be engaging in a good cop bad cop scheme- getting people to adopt opinions by comparing them to ones more outrageous, less “nuanced.” Believe in the narratives, just don’t sound too alarmist. Here, Ramage also labels as alarmist some of the very things he has promoted, e.g., it’s alarmist to say that most or all natural disasters and severe weather events are due to climate change; yet he has promoted substantially that view and applauded those who do so- that a supposed unprecedented increase in occurrence and intensity of such events is happening, due to climate change.
The outcome of such an effort of being more “nuanced” is still really the same- if you buy into the basic premises, it’s just a matter of degree, but the premise and its corollaries remain, e.g. does it really matter if one says that every or most natural disasters are due to climate change, versus 75% or 60%? Any acceptance of the (false) premise will bring on the alarmist reactions. Enough already.
Paul Rasavage (7:14 p.m.)
Sorry. Population control is a red light for me. Melinda Gates’ supposed Catholic upbringing doesn’t impress me. In fact, her self-proclaimed Catholicism does much to persuade many trusting Catholics that her message is benign.
Mr. Rasavage again –
On reflection, I think my previous comment (Sorry. Population control . . .) sounded as if I was challenging you. My quarrel is not with you. I think we are essentially in agreement.
Pitchfork Rebel above (10:21) –
Thanks for the reference.
Doesn’t do much to increase my trust of Bill Gates.
Gates is a donor and a champion of the human cause.
ROITERS: “Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has pledged $1.5 billion over three years for climate change partnerships with the Department of Energy through his climate investment fund, Breakthrough Energy. Gates has invested over $2 billion in climate technologies, including direct air capture, solar energy, and NUCLEAR FUSSION. He has also invested hundreds of millions of dollars on technologies like a solar oven that creates cement, steel, and glass without releasing emissions.” Note the word FUSSION. Today, we use nuclear fission power. The waste is out of control, with barrels of radioactive materials stored in caves that are running our of space.
Human existence relies on technology to help educate the uninformed. Note: The evidence of global warming has become much more visible, according to scientists. Hurricanes are vastly more dangerous, with many 4s and 5s being spawned by much warmer seas. They hover longer, causing many more deaths and $multi-billion in losses in homes and businesses. The hurricanes spin off lethal tornadoes on land causing further damage.
The Arctic glaciers are disappearing causng a direct effect on wildlife.
NASA is currently focused on the many $trillions on a space trip to Mars with unknown yield. They should refocus on the planet we and they call home.
I recently expressed my concerns to NASA; maybe you can to.
https://www.nasa.gov/forms/submit-a-question-for-nasa/
Gates also leads in the development of nuclear energy. I ask, which one: waste-generating fusion or no-waste fusion? USNRC: And, Fusion has minimal risk of meltdown.
He is putting his money behind it, funding a next-generation nuclear power plant currently under construction in Wyoming.
Gates’s common-sense warnings against prioritizing hypothetical future improvements over the welfare of real people in the present echo arguments conservatives have been making for years. WHAT??
Secondly, is overpopulation adding to the issue?
Pope Francis: “Human life is not a problem—it is a gift. And at the root of pollution and starvation in the world are not children being born, but the choices of those who think only of themselves, the delirium of an unbridled, blind and rampant materialism, of a consumerism that, like an evil virus, undermines the existence of people and society at the root. The problem is not how many of us there are in the world, but the world that we are building. This is the problem: not children, but selfishness, which creates injustice and structures of sin. In fact, suffering from underpopulation.”
The current population is less than 8 billion and declining. I would argue that having children in wartime Gaza is inconsistent with the Gates’ model and cruel. In Gaza there was a picture of a mother traversing the rubble with her three small children clinging to her burka.
My wonderful Irish Granny had 13 children. One died when she nearly lost her life. Somehow, she cared for me, my Mom had to work!
Birth control – DHCCR: “Contraception Is Unreliable
How could abortions and nonmarital births skyrocket if women are contracepting? With typical use, most contraceptives are far from reliable, especially for teens, who are twice as likely as adults to become pregnant while using contraceptive pills, patches, or rings.7 Every year, one million of the 11 million U.S. women on the pill become pregnant, and 40% of them undergo abortions. Is the Rhythm method also unreliable?
Sum: There must be a bipartisan acknowledgment that much more must be done.
Pray to God.
Respectfully Mr. Morgan, the “Rhythm Method” is not what NFP is today.
One major official attitude of the protagonist “dream team” in power over the COVID so-called “pandemic”, was to just keep talking and adding more ideas and subjects shifting them with the passage of time. Such a flood of ….. gibberish ….. contradiction …..whatever ….. nobody could get a footing to substantially countermand anything.
What needs to be seen is not that there was an uncontrollable disease spreading in an epidemic -actually the disease was contained by ordinary medicine; what needs to be seen is that the forces at work required the time and space to achieve MONETIZATION of their concepts and win some useful adherents to their novel financial wonderworks.
And President Trump has 5 children! And they all turned out pretty good so far.
One divorced chap I know said, of his divorce, amidst his adultery, his remarry, his vasectomy, his children’s rather severe unhappiness, his flip-flop among and thru’ Protestant leaderships and churches -: “Doesn’t affect my way of life.”
Not what I’m saying.
Mrs Sharon. I might agree that Trump’s 5 children are OK. However, you qualify it by saying “so far”. Instead, you might have focused on their father. Donald Sr. has an enormously checkered past. Importantly, when was the public introduced to the President and the First Lady? Some might say it was when he and Malenia were seen waving from descending on an escalator in Trump Tower. I would argue that it was earlier, when Trump said on the Access Hollywood bus with Billy Bush, in a misogynistic voice, “You can grab them by the p**sy, they love it, you can do anything you want.” Sadly, the beat goes on.
A day that will live in infamy.
Who wants to make infamy live on, morganD?
Not what I am saying.
President Trumps children have turned out pretty well, it’s true.
The increasing instability of the sun is what is responsible for climate change. It isn’t caused by anything man-made. No matter how hard we, as the human race collectively might try, cannot measurably raise the temperature of the earth or change the course and even stop ocean currents.
The efforts to blame industry, commuters, cow farts or the like are all erroneous and facetious. We do not have the magnitude of power and control over nature that those who want to place blame for strictly political justification of greed, power and control wish to claim.
It is a game of deception played, not by those who are truly patriots, but by those who truly seek to bring destruction to much and many.
Paul, your mention of the Sun causing global warming is false if you consider scientific studies…
NASA: The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen in recent decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit and too large to be caused by solar activity. Gases primarily responsible for global warming include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Humans produce them by burning fossil fuels and engaging in various agricultural and industrial activities.
Read More: https://www.sciencing.com/5-causes-global-warming-8232444/
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/
Elias Galy (1:48 p.m.) – I’m inclined to agree.
David (8:27 p.m) – Inclined to agree (and link to above-mentioned comment from Elias).
Is this article closed to posts? Today I submitted twice but upon posting the webpage returns to its normal address. This third submission is a trial.
Editor, your angle is better.
I think you may need to briefly get out of the comments and back up to the article and come back in to post again, unless you’re replying to a different comment. Not a hard and fast rule but I’ve gone to post and it puts me right back to the comment that’s submitted for moderation. So I push the clutch back in, shift to neutral then put it back in gear, lol.
The Editor has a good sense or as they say “instinct” about these things. Good for me to learn from it.
And if he never got the missing posts well it’s Providence holding it back, may Providence bless you, CWR and the soundness at the helm.