Bill Gates Wants to Risk Ruining the Weather

Gates' Gunk May Have Far Reaching -- Negative -- Effects

Bill Gates and one of his "collection" of private jets
Photo from Wijet

I hardly know where to begin with this one. 

Bill Gates, a man with far more money than sense, wants to "modify solar radiation" to "cool" the world. We would be far better off from a climate perspective if Gates merely gave up his private jet travel but he -- likely most other global warming alarmists -- suffers from extreme hypocrisy. He believes you and I should eat bugs (literally) while he lives the highest of the high lives and has palled around with Jeffery Epstein. 

As Newsweek reports:  

It's worth noting that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has provided funding to companies developing insect-based foods and associated technologies.

Gates' Gunk scheme is particularly ironic when one considers climate science won't provide an answer to the most basic climate question: an estimate of earth's ideal mean temperature. When I've asked (and I have personally asked some of the most prominent climate scientists), they deflect not only to me but to others as seen in this search I did just a few minutes ago.

The Weather and Climate Picture 

So, for all climate science knows, cooling may be a huge mistake. The evidence says that humans do better in warmer weather. 

In fact, weather-related deaths, worldwide, have decreased markedly since the end of the Little Ice Age in the late 1800's (graph from Bjorn Borg):

Of course, while a lot of the decrease is due to modern storm warnings, better quality safety measures, better sheltering, etc., there's little evidence that global warming is making disasters worse. 

Far more die of cold than heat. From the medical journal Lancet, March 2025, 

In most epidemiological studies, excess cold deaths far outnumber heat deaths. In that same global analysis, of the 9·4% attributable temperature-related deaths, 8·5% (range 6·2–10·5%) were cold-related and only 0·9% (range 0·6–1·4%) were heat-related, which corresponds to approximately 4·6 million deaths from cold and about 489 000 from heat, a ratio of roughly 9:1 of cold versus heat. This pattern is also consistent in regional studies.

Nine times more deaths due to cold than to heat! Why would we want more cold, especially in less well-off areas of the world?!

Plus, as MIT reports, more energy is used in heating than for cooling. 

Disasters? The oft-cited hurricane risk doesn't bear scrutiny. 

The peer-reviewed ACE Index, which is a single metric that combines both hurricane duration and intensity, shows no increase since we first had worldwide satellite coverage in the 1970's. In particular, one would surmise that recent increases in global temperatures would have increased the ACE but values have generally fallen since the 1990's. 

Finally, we are experiencing -- by far -- the longest interval in known climate history without an F-5 intensity tornado. The previous record was 9 years; we are now at 12+ years and counting. 

There is little evidence of a need to cool the atmosphere, especially since the level of storminess seems to increase, at least in the United States, with colder temperatures. Consider our record weather events as measured by the intensity of those events:

• Worst flood? 1927, Lower Mississippi River Valley
• Worst tornado? 1925, Tri-State
• Worst combined drought and heatwave? 1930's, nationwide 
• Worst hurricane? 1935, Florida Keys

Why would we want to risk going back to these weather extremes??

The Politics

King Charles, who is - unfortunately - another man of far more money than sense, is an extreme environmentalist. So his government is reported to be about to approve this dangerous scheme. From a couple of Great Britain's (hardly conservative) newspapers:

Great Britain's The Telegraph

Great Britain's Daily Mail

While Gate's Gunk may be injected into the atmosphere near Great Britain, it could well have worldwide effects. 

Past Climate Effects of Inserting Gunk Into the Atmosphere

Putting aberrant material in the atmosphere is incredibly dangerous. Think I am exaggerating? In April, 1815, a single volcano, Mt. Tambora (in what is now Indonesia) erupted explosively. The following year, 1816, is known as the "Year Without Summer." Crop failures occurred throughout the world and it was a period of famine and extreme hardship. On June 6, snow fell in Albany and in parts of New England! Note: while a major eruption, this was a single volcano in a single location. 

If we look at global mean temperatures since 1850, note the extreme temperature rise during the most recent two years. 

This cannot be tied to El Nino. While one was present, it was not the strongest in modern times. Nor have CO2 levels shot up (below):

The most likely explanation for the large increase in earth's temperatures was the 2022 Tonga volcano and its injection of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. Without going into the atmospheric chemistry and meteorology, this likely allowed temperatures to rise rapidly since. 

Tonga volcano's eruption as viewed from a weather satellite. 

My point is that it does not take a worldwide effort to modify the world's temperatures. Put enough of "the wrong stuff" into the atmosphere in the wrong way and temperatures worldwide can and probably will be affected. 

Gates' Gunk scheme is hugely dangerous and completely unnecessary. It must be stopped. Even if this Frankenstein-type experiment doesn't cause disaster, it will set the precedent for even bigger and more dangerous schemes.