Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates To Headline Paris Climate Talks
theodp writes: The NY Times and others report that Bill Gates will announce the creation of a multibillion-dollar clean energy fund on Monday at the opening of the two-week long Paris Climate Change Conference. The climate summit, which will be attended by President Obama and 100+ world leaders, is intended to forge a global accord to cut planet-warming emissions. The pending announcement was first reported by ClimateWire. A spokesman for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation did not respond to a request for comment. Let's hope it goes better than BillG school reform!
I would have got a frosty, but my Win 98 machine threw a goddam BSOD again!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Obama has no chance of getting anything ratified by Congress, so anything he agrees to is DOA.
This story will generate rational discussion on Slashdot.
I heard that $640 was enough for anyone.
Diesel is solar power done right. It is solar power in its most efficient and usable form. All those biomass that generated oil deposits didn't die for nothing. They transformed solar energy into oil so we don't have to pollute our rivers by making the solar panels, or to beg for China's mercy in order to make wind turbines, or to bury the homes of countless wildlife under water.
Diesel is clean, efficient, and it creates jobs. It's patriotic to use diesel-powered electricity. It's the American way.
If God doesn't want us to burn diesel, why did He made it so nice to burn?
If anyone knows how to spark climate cooling it is him.
We can hope, but it's not looking too good just now.
Climate change would be completely mitigated by this point if the world ran on windows 10. Obviously by some mysterious updates that would load while the unsuspecting sleep.
No shit. Obama really said that:
Obama claims the climate conference will be a "powerful rebuke" to ISIS.
You can;t make this up.
pro-tip: Bill arrived at high monetary holdings for reasons other than his "climate management" skills.
None of the concerns addressed by "100+ people" will be actual things they have control over. They may want to look like they have god-like abilities, but they do not.
People generally have it in them to take care of the planet by nature. Instead of MSM media pumping ISIS fear stories and other lies, maybe just be a little more honest about what air pollution in eg. China looks like. 100+ people acting like they are "actually elite" because they have money and using this "projected status" to control more people and things does nothing useful for the world.
Bill can take the spyware right out of Windows any day too. The problem, I realize, is the trust is already broken with the public. Try to fix that while you sit on 80 Billion Bills and pretend the world thinks you're generous.
peace.
http://www.the-american-intere...
I heard they tried to get Fetty Wap to headline, but they didn't want to meet his price.
https://youtu.be/wxMZkhWum64
You are welcome on my lawn.
Conservatives who control oil, natural gas and coal seem to wield power and money; are they not elite?
Just because you are rich, does not make you an expert on all things. Yes Bill Gates is/was a very savvy business man, but the fundamentals of climate change are not the same as marketing software. I do not understand why the media worships everything he says. I guess they are like most of the public, who believe rich people are better than the rest of us. The reality is that they are better at generating and keeping money (just look at their tax rates/deductions relative to the middle class) FYI climate change is a natural process for the Earth and has been going on forever.
Sure, but you can choose to a certain extent not do business with them. Good luck trying to do that with the EPA.
$0.
Why?
Vegas!
Bill is no slouch! He knows that Bon Ki Moon and his 3rd world dictators want money and will pay Air, Hotel, Per Diem, Drinks, Prostitutes, Golf and be at the center of the storm Media Frenzy with all the photogropers fingering his Johnson just to get some of that sweat off his balls.
Ha ha
They should have bombed Syrian oil facilities. That would have been a 2 for 1 - rid ISIS of their revenue stream, and prevent more global warming by destroying the facilities that would bring more oil into the market.
Who would have guessed that being good at selling software, makes you an expert on climate change? The media must think that rich people are better than the rest of us. In my experience rich people are better at making money and holding on to it (just look at the tax loopholes they get the government to give them). FYI one constant with planet Earth is that the climate is always changing.
Whatever gave you that ridiculous idea?
Oil, natural gas, and coal are controlled by government: they are usually mined from government lands under government license.
The companies doing the mining are usually publicly traded, which means that they are predominantly institutionally owned, mainly to pay for things like retirement.
The ISIS leader is not about to bomb any Syrian oil facilities. He refused for a long time to bomb any oil transport trucks on the lame excuse that some of the drivers might be civilians! Really?
Haven't y'all figured it out by now?
Right, just don't burn it all at once.
There is somebody on slashdot that marks any honest post that does not fir a leftist agenda with a -1, without making ANY rational counter-argument or posting any facts to make his case. Somebody "clinging to his [secular leftist] religion" it seems.
People who rate other people's posts, for good or ill, should actively post some reason why. It's called a dialog. Anything else is a drive-by-shooting.
Most "big oil" companies are happily onboard with the global warming idiocy. Their executives are among the rich elites of the world and they like to be welcome at the cocktail parties. They don't care what a gallon of gas costs, as long as they are making money on it. They'll happily pump half as much oil as long as they can do so profitably. Most of the "big oil" companies like BP and Shell and Exxon spend more money per year on "green" activities than on anti-AGW activities. The elites are very happy to play both sides in any issue, and run ads and sponsor groups that make the public feel good about them on whatever issue is hot/popular, as long as THEY remain the elites.
As for "big oil and this conference:
“We would very much like to see the 2C target being adopted. But more importantly, we would like to see adopted a sensible set of policies that will get us there, because just agreeing a target is not going to do the trick. An important element is to put a price on carbon [emissions] because that will enable – if the right price is set – the development of the technologies we are going to need if we do want to limit carbon emissions to be in line with the 2C scenario.” - Ben van Beurden: Chief executive of Shell
Wake up. You are being manipulated by the elites into making your life more expensive and difficult so they can take credit for it and be popular anywhere on Earth where they choose to vacation, have an eighth mansion, tie up their fourth super-yacht, or build their newest cheap-labor filled factory. If things are ever too tough in your country, or the taxes ever get too high for their tastes, the rich elites want to be free to move to some place else and be equally rich and comfortable; they have no intention of paying taxes at the same rate YOU pay. What percent of your gross income did YOU pay last year? What percent do you think the super-rich left wing elites like Bill Gates, George Soros, and Warren Buffet and all the others who attend these conferences paid???????
Cool, hopefully an assassin or something can find out what time he'll be speaking and put a bullet in fascist fucking head.
Except, there is little oil and little petrol processing facility in Syria. The valuable stuff is in Iraq. Which for political reasons we can't bomb. We have to maintain the face that the current Iraqi government is something besides Iran's puppet and that the Iranians are any less radical and dangerous than ISIS. Because Obama has a legacy to protect.
Then there is the problem of our "allies" like Turkey who buy that oil and fund ISIS. The Turks are not our friends. They have no real interest if eliminating ISIS, they like this conflict because its an excuse for them to kill a lot of Kurds and for a lot of Kurds to otherwise be killed by ISIS. The refugee issue does not concern them, its irritating but they know the US will lose interest eventual and which point they will just have those people killed or drive them back over the boarder. There is a reason they keep them in camps rather than be absorbed into a culturally similar enough place where they could probably successfully integrate.
Meanwhile again primarily because Obama has his nose out of joint not having gotten his way in Ukraine, we have to have some on going feud with Russia. Who actually does have a vested interest in seeing Islamic terror and ISIS dealt within, AND the good sense to realize that there are no good actors. These 'moderates' no longer exist in any kind of useful numbers there if they ever did. There isn't a good reason to pick one radical expansionist ideology over another. Its just a different kind of bad news. Assad actually IS the best of bad choices he is secular and by all accounts was pretty well content to be a big fish in his small pound. Much like Qaddafi was in Libya before we kicked that bees nest over. These people are nasty but containable. The Islamists are not! They seem moderate because the down and out groups are pragmatic they set achievable goals, those in turn sound reasonable to us but the truth is once their power grows so will their ambition. They won't be any less dangerous than ISIS.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
or does he favor wealth re-distribution (theft by taking)?
"The polar bears will be fine" -- Freeman Dyson.
I don't agree that he's an ISIS leader. I think that after his term is over, he will be competing w/ Abu Baqr al Baghdadi for the mantle of Caliph. Which is why he wants ISIS itself routed, but the reputation of Islam to stay intact. Whether or not he is Muslim, I don't know, but I do think that he seriously wants the Caliph's title
Syria does have an oil industry, albeit nowhere near the magnitude of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al. The thing that ISIS has control over and that Obama had refused to bomb was the facilities in Syria. While Iraq does have oil facilities, much, if not most, of that falls within Kurdistan, which is still not in ISIS hands.
That said, I completely agree w/ you that the Turks are not our friends, and that there are no good allies in the region. Assad is the best for now - Hamas and Islamic Jihad have abandoned him since the sectarian fissures came to the fore since the start of the Arab Spring in Syria, and Hizbullah is up to its nose in helping prop up his regime. One thing that I find bizarre listening to Marco Rubio is the pretension that the Arab Sunnis would be our boots on the ground. The reason ISIS owns that place now is that the Arab Sunnis are solidly behind them - the numbers supporting FSA, al Nusra, Khorasan Group, et al are trivial in comparison. So the idea that Arab Sunnis would help police that area is like expecting Iraq's Shia to protect their Christians, and we all saw where that went.
While I disagree w/ Russia in the Donbass, they are a mixed bag when it comes to this region. They are right that Assad is the best of a bad lot, and have good reasons to support him, other than their own self interests in the region. Their support to Iran however is troublesome, and plays into the hands of those who bunch them w/ Iran and Syria.
Also, the civil war in Syria serves a good end - it ties up ISIS, Hizbullah, al Nusra et al in fighting each other, and when they do that, they are less effective elsewhere. Yeah, there are Jihadi groups worldwide who swear allegiance to ISIS, and ISIS does have a great online recruiting apparatus. However, ending the civil war in Syria just frees up everybody to commit Jihad against the West - whether it's ISIS, Hizbullah (who was very active in Latin America), and other Jihadi operations.
That then leaves the question of the refugees - how does one deal w/ them? Simple - let Turkey know that Europe won't take in their refugees, and arrange to move them to other Arab countries. If they are Shia or Alawite refugees, move them to Iraq, and if they are Sunni Arab refugees, move them to Saudi Arabia. Arm twist Saudi Arabia to take them, maybe in their northern areas bordering Jordan and Iraq, and keep them there until the situation stabilizes. After all, nowhere in Europe or America would refugees find a compatible cultural environment: they'd have to learn new languages, new cultures, and there would be friction w/ local populations already increasingly concerned about more Muslims in the West, which also brings w/ it more Jihadis. Instead, send them to Saudi Arabia, where just about everything is common, and they'd just have to adjust to the cultural variations of the Saudis. It serves the Saudis as well: right now, they have a lot of low skilled labor from East Asian countries, whose people ain't Arab, and often ain't Muslims either. If Syrians go in to replace them, then the Saudis don't have to worry about their population being diluted by non-Arabs, and also get their labor shortages addressed.
Sorry, he's a programmar and a businessman. What exactly are his qualifications for regurgitating sky-is-falling global warming bullshit?
Clean fuels would indeed be awesome. Unfortunately when we apply commercial interference and box ticking, we end up with something worse. i.e. replacing CO2 with No2 in the UK, just to meet carbon emissions targets specifically, has been a terrible health blight on Britain's air quality. The road to hell, good intentions and all that.
Let's hope it goes better than BillG school reform!
It won't. Bill suffers from the same ego problem that many successful people suffer from - thinking that because you were good at one thing means you are qualified to solving every other problem. But very few people are great in vastly different domains. Even most geniuses stick to at least one area.
Giving money to people who are real experts in a domain and giving them room to find solutions is a hundred times better than coming in as a celebrity and taking over with your own random idea. This can, in fact, have a negative effect on the actual progress in the field.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Or 'climate'? What is a 'climate talk'? Is it a 'catastrophic man-made global warming' talk?
Gee...
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
See subject & -> http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...
* :)
(AZURE CLOUDS in fact...)
REPOSTED: vs. the dickless wallies (lol) that downmoderated me the 1st time -> http://politics.slashdot.org/c... who don't realize that I can post w/out typical ac limits and will just post it again, exhausting their puny effete vain 'weapon' in the abused downmod, lol... you fail, trolls - You'll ALWAYS FAIL vs. me!
APK
P.S.=> As usual? No disrespect intended in my "King Billy" subject (anything BUT disrespect in my use of that - I greatly admire the man) either... apk
Because your science is weak. The so-called greenhouse effects of CO2 are loga-FUCKING-rythmic. The half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is less then 100 yrs, not 1000 yrs like you idiots propose.
And there will be no justice. The idiots and scaremongers will move onto the next pseudo-scientific disaster in the making to line their pockets.
Carbon emissions get reuses by planets and animals.
The emissions that they should be looking at are the ones that aren't reused.
Mainly the electronics, hard metals, and plastics from our electronic junk.