You know Émile, I was born and live in Michigan, a state that I and many people across America joke is a “Frozen Hellhole filled with ice, snow, and cold air”…and yet for the last 2-3 years most of my winters have gone without snow until usually well past the New Year.
And when/if it does snow it’s usually very little or just gone too quick. That’s why even though I hate the snow and ice, I love it at the same time because at least it’s still there. For now.
But apparently climate change “isn’t that big of a deal and everything will be fine even if it does have consequences”. Honestly. And the worst part is, Climate Change isn’t a problem but apparently an AI Superintelligence is. Quite seriously fuck these people and their insane ability to say “Threats invented in movies and books are more important than real threats we created ourselves”.
Also great article as always Émile! Looking forward to the next Subscriber meeting even if it’s gonna be a bit from now.
It’s disappointing to encounter a PhD-holding author and philosopher who seems to blur the line between established facts and speculative projections. While your article cites studies to argue against Gates’ pivot—such as the 2023 Western University estimate of at least 1 billion premature deaths over a century, or the University of Exeter report projecting 2-4 billion people exposed to mortality risks from unprecedented heat at 2-3°C warming by 2050—these are fundamentally estimations based on models, not observed realities. Most of them are not facts… It does not help the counter-argument against Gates. On the countrary, it proves him right.
To strengthen your case, it would be helpful to address key questions about these projections: What are the margins of error in these models? What methodologies and assumptions did the authors employ? What datasets were used, and are they reliable, publicly available, and replicable? Have these estimates been challenged and if so, what were the main criticisms? Do the underlying climate models have a proven track record of accuracy in past predictions?
This absence of deeper scrutiny undermines your points, reinforcing Gates’ critique of the “doomsday machine” as an overreliance on catastrophic narratives to drive urgency. You’re right to highlight biodiversity losses (like the WWF’s 69% average decline in vertebrate populations since 1970), but you fail to establish the link with climate change and treating projections as near-certainties without probing their limitations feels like a missed opportunity for rigorous science / philosophy. Tipping points are risks, not certainties.
Émile, your heart is in the right place—I believe you genuinely care about the planet and humanity. That’s why I urge more critical engagement with the studies you reference; it would make your arguments more persuasive, not less as it stands. Without it, you lend credence to Gates’ position.
With all due respect, if you want an observed reality of what Climate Change is doing to the planet you should visit Tuvalu. It’s a country in Oceania that is sinking every year because of rising sea-levels caused by Climate Change. Those people within a few decades, at most, will have to leave that country and probably move to Australia, a country with its own climate issues. That’s your reality. And please don’t say that Émile’s examples actually help prove Gates right. I don’t know how you came to that conclusion.
Thanks for the reply—it’s clear you care deeply, and that’s admirable. But on your call for an “observed reality” via visiting Tuvalu: I don’t mind real-life examples; they’re vital for grounding the debate. The issue is presenting them without the rigorous, critical breakdown they deserve—why this example applies, what data backs it, and what limitations exist. You didn’t do that, just like Émile glosses over his studies’ uncertainties.
Here’s the irony: You’re replicating Émile’s oversight, tossing Tuvalu as a slam-dunk without scrutiny. For instance, describing it as “sinking every year” is a common shorthand, but precision matters—if the core driver is climate-induced sea level rise, “drowning” under rising waters might better capture the mechanism, whereas “sinking” often evokes land subsidence from other causes like tectonics or compaction. This subtle distinction highlights why rigor is key: It avoids mixed signals that could confuse readers or invite skepticism. Projections of mass exodus in decades? Those are estimations too—models with assumptions on subsidence, sediment dynamics, and habitability thresholds that beg for probing on errors, replicability, and counter-data, akin to Émile’s billion-death scenarios. And like Émile, you’re pinning it all on climate change, ignoring other longstanding factors: natural coastal erosion from waves and storms, El Niño-driven sea level fluctuations that spike flooding risks, and population concentration. And let’s not forget about the unknowns… Anyone with a scientific mind should always acknowledge what he doesn’t know…
To be clear, I’m not claiming Émile’s cited studies or your Tuvalu example are right or wrong in whole or part—I’m saying your failure to think critically about these sources in your texts undermines public confidence. You should never hide inconvenient facts; instead, address them head-on with counterarguments to build a stronger case. This uncritical approach fuels Gates’ “doomsday machine” critique: It ramps up alarm without rigor, handing ammo to skeptics and proving him right. Both you and Émile could strengthen your points by dissecting these examples critically.
Can you acknowledge one gap in climate change evidences or on your Tuvalu example? Let’s push for better dialogue.
Look I’m not gonna be a jerk here, but if you have such a problem with how Émile or I present evidence without scrutiny, then why don’t you do that? Émile is a philosopher who studies Human Extinction at a basic level, he is not a scientist who can always do that, that’s why he and others rely on those kinds of articles. And even if I or Émile did scrutinize those articles yet still come up with good evidence as to why Climate Change is a real problem and that Gates is wrong, people would still listen to Gates or not listen at all. Because either people don’t care or they trust a Software Billionaire more than a Climate Scientist.
Climate change projects are accelerating the rate of extinction, adding to pollution and cost the taxpayer trillions. Dirty solar panel arrays, caked in bird shit makes sure the sun never reaches the ground below them. No more plants in fields. Eye sore windmills destroying seabed , cables ripping up coral reefs and WW2 bombs. Injecting the air with particulates and using wood pellets from Canada to power renewable energy for all the EVs. Batteries made from rocks scraped from.the seabed and lithium and cobalt mines.
I hope Gates sits on one of his own clot shots ... he's a knob, but he couldn't have made more sense on this one
When I first heard about Gate's so-called reversal, I was skeptic. Even more so now. Thanks for the insights and will be linking tomorrow @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
You know Émile, I was born and live in Michigan, a state that I and many people across America joke is a “Frozen Hellhole filled with ice, snow, and cold air”…and yet for the last 2-3 years most of my winters have gone without snow until usually well past the New Year.
And when/if it does snow it’s usually very little or just gone too quick. That’s why even though I hate the snow and ice, I love it at the same time because at least it’s still there. For now.
But apparently climate change “isn’t that big of a deal and everything will be fine even if it does have consequences”. Honestly. And the worst part is, Climate Change isn’t a problem but apparently an AI Superintelligence is. Quite seriously fuck these people and their insane ability to say “Threats invented in movies and books are more important than real threats we created ourselves”.
Also great article as always Émile! Looking forward to the next Subscriber meeting even if it’s gonna be a bit from now.
It’s disappointing to encounter a PhD-holding author and philosopher who seems to blur the line between established facts and speculative projections. While your article cites studies to argue against Gates’ pivot—such as the 2023 Western University estimate of at least 1 billion premature deaths over a century, or the University of Exeter report projecting 2-4 billion people exposed to mortality risks from unprecedented heat at 2-3°C warming by 2050—these are fundamentally estimations based on models, not observed realities. Most of them are not facts… It does not help the counter-argument against Gates. On the countrary, it proves him right.
To strengthen your case, it would be helpful to address key questions about these projections: What are the margins of error in these models? What methodologies and assumptions did the authors employ? What datasets were used, and are they reliable, publicly available, and replicable? Have these estimates been challenged and if so, what were the main criticisms? Do the underlying climate models have a proven track record of accuracy in past predictions?
This absence of deeper scrutiny undermines your points, reinforcing Gates’ critique of the “doomsday machine” as an overreliance on catastrophic narratives to drive urgency. You’re right to highlight biodiversity losses (like the WWF’s 69% average decline in vertebrate populations since 1970), but you fail to establish the link with climate change and treating projections as near-certainties without probing their limitations feels like a missed opportunity for rigorous science / philosophy. Tipping points are risks, not certainties.
Émile, your heart is in the right place—I believe you genuinely care about the planet and humanity. That’s why I urge more critical engagement with the studies you reference; it would make your arguments more persuasive, not less as it stands. Without it, you lend credence to Gates’ position.
With all due respect, if you want an observed reality of what Climate Change is doing to the planet you should visit Tuvalu. It’s a country in Oceania that is sinking every year because of rising sea-levels caused by Climate Change. Those people within a few decades, at most, will have to leave that country and probably move to Australia, a country with its own climate issues. That’s your reality. And please don’t say that Émile’s examples actually help prove Gates right. I don’t know how you came to that conclusion.
Thanks for the reply—it’s clear you care deeply, and that’s admirable. But on your call for an “observed reality” via visiting Tuvalu: I don’t mind real-life examples; they’re vital for grounding the debate. The issue is presenting them without the rigorous, critical breakdown they deserve—why this example applies, what data backs it, and what limitations exist. You didn’t do that, just like Émile glosses over his studies’ uncertainties.
Here’s the irony: You’re replicating Émile’s oversight, tossing Tuvalu as a slam-dunk without scrutiny. For instance, describing it as “sinking every year” is a common shorthand, but precision matters—if the core driver is climate-induced sea level rise, “drowning” under rising waters might better capture the mechanism, whereas “sinking” often evokes land subsidence from other causes like tectonics or compaction. This subtle distinction highlights why rigor is key: It avoids mixed signals that could confuse readers or invite skepticism. Projections of mass exodus in decades? Those are estimations too—models with assumptions on subsidence, sediment dynamics, and habitability thresholds that beg for probing on errors, replicability, and counter-data, akin to Émile’s billion-death scenarios. And like Émile, you’re pinning it all on climate change, ignoring other longstanding factors: natural coastal erosion from waves and storms, El Niño-driven sea level fluctuations that spike flooding risks, and population concentration. And let’s not forget about the unknowns… Anyone with a scientific mind should always acknowledge what he doesn’t know…
To be clear, I’m not claiming Émile’s cited studies or your Tuvalu example are right or wrong in whole or part—I’m saying your failure to think critically about these sources in your texts undermines public confidence. You should never hide inconvenient facts; instead, address them head-on with counterarguments to build a stronger case. This uncritical approach fuels Gates’ “doomsday machine” critique: It ramps up alarm without rigor, handing ammo to skeptics and proving him right. Both you and Émile could strengthen your points by dissecting these examples critically.
Can you acknowledge one gap in climate change evidences or on your Tuvalu example? Let’s push for better dialogue.
Look I’m not gonna be a jerk here, but if you have such a problem with how Émile or I present evidence without scrutiny, then why don’t you do that? Émile is a philosopher who studies Human Extinction at a basic level, he is not a scientist who can always do that, that’s why he and others rely on those kinds of articles. And even if I or Émile did scrutinize those articles yet still come up with good evidence as to why Climate Change is a real problem and that Gates is wrong, people would still listen to Gates or not listen at all. Because either people don’t care or they trust a Software Billionaire more than a Climate Scientist.
Should it be "but MITIGATING climate change _is_ a form of foreign aid"
Climate change projects are accelerating the rate of extinction, adding to pollution and cost the taxpayer trillions. Dirty solar panel arrays, caked in bird shit makes sure the sun never reaches the ground below them. No more plants in fields. Eye sore windmills destroying seabed , cables ripping up coral reefs and WW2 bombs. Injecting the air with particulates and using wood pellets from Canada to power renewable energy for all the EVs. Batteries made from rocks scraped from.the seabed and lithium and cobalt mines.
I hope Gates sits on one of his own clot shots ... he's a knob, but he couldn't have made more sense on this one
When I first heard about Gate's so-called reversal, I was skeptic. Even more so now. Thanks for the insights and will be linking tomorrow @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/