Posted on 10/01/2010 5:25:16 AM PDT by Scythian
(NaturalNews) In a recent TED conference presentation, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to new vaccine efforts, speaks on the issue of CO2 emissions and its effects on climate change.
He presents a formula for tracking CO2 emissions as follows: CO2 = P x S x E x C.
P = People
S = Services per person
E = Energy per service
C = CO2 per energy unit
Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero, "probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero."
Following that, Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number -- P (for People) -- might be reduced. He says:
"The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."
Watch Bill Gates Here
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalnews.com ...
Looks like he retired from Microsoft to become “god” ... ?
Bill,
You and your family first. Want to rethink that position?
Pan_Yan
I give the liberals permission to stop reproducing at any time, you know....
Gates is prime evidence that intelligence in one area doesn’t necessarily translate into intelligence in other areas.
“Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero”
Let me see...zero CO2 means zero life on earth.
Bit extreme, don’tcha think, Bill?
As “smart” as these folks think they are, they just plain REFUSE to consider the unintended consequence of reducing atmospheric CO2.
REAL scientists have long demonstrated the direct, CAUSAL link between CO2 PPM and agricultural output and yields.
In other words if we DO manage to REDUCE atmospheric CO2, and reduce CO2 in the global biome, then worldwide, food supplies WILL suffer.
These “smart” people are still stuck on a false premise — that rising CO2 (anthropogenic or otherwise) is a BAD THING.
It just disgusts me that they are either willing participants in this fraud or are just really not that smart after all. I presume the former — they know this is a lie, and it’s really about elites lording over the masses. IOW it’s about money and power.
Isaiah 14:12 “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”
All progressives are for population control.
But even a man like Gates should be smart enough to know that without CO2 EVERYTHING dies on earth.
Crap, I barely got out of high school and know this!
Precisely.
Can he not grasp the concept and reality of the carbon cycle?
http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/earth_system/carbon_cycle_NASA.jpg
Zero CO2 —> BSOD.
from the Georgia Guidestones;
Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
Why go to all that trouble? Disease can do the same thing on its own. Medical care can be cheap, too: No care. Or, people can just not eat. That will reduce world population.
I think there's an a priori assumption here that reducing people is the point. As you say, start with the Gateses. The head of the household is a dangerous loon.
Do we get to pick who stays and goes in that 5 X 10e8?
For example:
Kathy Ireland
Catherine Zeta-Jones
Brooklyn Decker
Sarah Palin ;-p
Elizabeth Hurley (dumb as a sack of rocks, but OMG)
My wife (not shared, sorry)
Erin Andrews
Natalie Coughlin
Your write-in candidates ____________________
Gates was always first and foremost a weasel.
Paul Allen was the brains of the outfit.
Why do environmentalists want to live in the iceage? Think of all the increased sales in fur coats!
True capitalism and economic freedom will do the best job and ethically. The more prosperous a country becomes, the lower the birth rate. Look it up.
>>> Bill Gates says vaccines can help reduce world population (Video)
I don’t have the spare bandwidth to watch this but if I was Bill and making the argument, I would be saying that improved healthcare would reduce the third world need for “spare” children. This then leading to a net decrease in total population.
If they were confident that two or three would survive to adulthood, they could follow the trend of the first world and have smaller families.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
