Bill Gates – ‘We Can Lower the Population Through Vaccines’


At the heart of Gates’ address lies the central Global Warming dogma, which dictates that Co2 emitted by human beings are the primary culprit for the unwanted heating of the globe. Since this artificial alleged human-induced heating effect allegedly stands to devastate the planet if left unabated, Global Warming dogma proponents therefore argue that human Co2 emissions must be drastically reduced. As Gates casually addresses the issue, he goes on to state that one way to accomplish this goal is to reduce the global human population.

He postulates the central equation, giving an estimation of the humanly emitted C02 load per year, to be:

Co2 = P times S times E times C

Where P stands for the population number, S the average number of services per person, E the average amount of energy units per service, and C the average Co2 emitted load per unit of service, per year; Co2 stands for the projected total humanly emitted carbon-dioxide load by the entire population per year.

In the first clip you will hear him state in plain language that he considers VACCINES to be desirable to bring down the population number P and so reduce Co2. You will also casually hear him promoting HEALTH CARE and REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES, to accomplish that same C02 reducing goal.

Here are Bill Gates’ verbatim words:

Hence Gates shows to consider vaccines desirable for the purpose of curbing population numbers. What kind of properties can thus reasonably be deduced, vaccines are to have according to Gates? Basically all the properties that impede people to either have children, or rear them. In other words, Gates implicitly advocates a definition of his favorite kind of vaccine to be able to induce infertility, sterility and (early onset) senility (autism) alike. Note that Gates does not mention a word on the much touted purported intention of vaccines: to offer protection against relevant diseases and therefore as such, precisely prolong life. Quite the humanitarian huh?

In the second excerpt you hear Gates explain what he considers to be the single most important thing that he would choose to see become a reality in the future time span of 50 years. He again confirms his “love” for the vaccine.

  • emperorreagan

    That's a complete misunderstanding of Bill Gates's arguments on reducing population increases.

    Bill Gates has argued for a while that if we provide people in developing countries with better living conditions, better health care, improved child mortality rates, access to family planning/birth control, etc. then birth rates will drop and their populations will stabilize or begin a slight decline, like they have in the first world.

    And frankly, suggesting autism as a means of population control is stupid.

    • unsane

      Yeah he seems all good huh? Planned parenthood doesnt tell you the abortions cause a 66% increase in female cancer. the body keeps pumping hormones, even though the fetus is gone. research this subject, im not even really “against” abortion, but planned parenthood and billy gates should tell people risks. right? disinfo, please post an article covering the university studies on abortions and cancer.
      gates and the rockefellers want to “get rid of” (however they do it isnt important) 85-90 percent of the population. i agree to a certain extent that there are alot of worthless idiots, but yeah….. its still not very humanly of them huh?

      • 5by5

        This notion that abortion causes cancer has LONG been disproven.

        And I do not get this information from some Liberal diatribe on the matter, but rather from the SCIENCE discussed over at the American Cancer Society.

        As it points out, “Most early studies of abortion and breast cancer used a case-control study design, one that is very prone to recall bias.”

        More reliable study methodology found NO INCREASE IN BREAST CANCER RISK to women who'd had induced abortions.

        Two recent studies have confirmed this. A Harvard study from 2007 which sampled over 100,000 women which found NO LINK, and a California Teachers Study with ALSO sampled an additional 100,000 women in 2008, that AGAIN, FOUND NO LINK.

        But that doesn't stop the anti-women's liberty movement from repeating the misinformation.

        I say “anti-women's liberty”, not “anti-abortion” or even “anti-choice” because that's really what's at the heart of the movement to make abortions illegal.

        There are many in the so-called “anti-abortion” movement who truly do wish to cherish life. Typically, the NON-hypocritical among them will also be anti-war, and anti-death penalty as well. And their motives I have no issue with. Life should be cherished, and every attempt made to rationally preserve it. This is a noble desire.

        But if that is the goal – saving life? Then you should be pro-choice.

        The kind of laws the anti-abortion movement want are actually already in place. We can see how they work, or more accurately DON'T work in practice. In Chile. There, if you even HELP someone get an abortion, you face a considerable monetary fine, and five years in jail. The anti-abortion laws there are down right draconian.

        Canada, by contrast, has a public health system that allows women access to safe, affordable, legal abortions on demand.

        Yet here's the interesting fact — Chile has DOUBLE the number of abortions, yet half the population of Canada.

        And of course, when you make it illegal, not only does the practice continue (because it quite simply is unavoidable in many cases), but the net result is that more WOMEN die as well, from back alley abortions where the practice ISN'T safe due to it's underground nature.

        So I say again, if your goal is to SAVE LIVES, then be pro-choice.

        HOWEVER, if your goal is to subjugate women? Then anti-choice laws work VERY well for that sort of thing.

        It really is no accident that many of the men, and a few self-hating women involved in the anti-choice movement, are also against things like free condoms, or complete sex education in schools, and also are against equal pay for equal work, and more stringent child support laws.

        These people generally love the fetus, but hate the child, and frankly hate independent women and the thought of women's power even more.

        • alex

          By what criteria was abortion's links to cancer considered disproven?

        • Jo

          Comparing the population of Chile to Canada is ludicrous, considering the size difference. Also comparing one of the most sexually uninhibited societies with one of the most sexually inhibited societies is ludicrous also. I am still laughing.

    • unsane

      ALSO. they KILL the 3rd world people like ants. the imf world bank gives crazy loans with a 30 percent interest rate, thats NOT helping, when these countries are NOT allowed to devolop because of their debt.
      also google “africans get hiv without sex after vaccines”. wake up bro. shit is fvcked up.

      • emperorreagan

        Bill Gates's public comments and actions are consistent with a desire for moderate reduction in population through improved standards of living. Whatever else you think he might believe and be acting upon is speculation on your part.

        As to the cancer risk, a small number of flawed studies indicate elevated risk.

        Unless, of course, your believe doctors and the government are conspiring to hide an elevated risk of breast cancer due to abortions.

        The IMF/World Bank is definitely an institution in sore need of reform, but I'm not sure how that relates to the issue of Bill Gates supporting vaccines to spread infertility & autism, as suggested in this article.

        I'll read and comment on the issue of HIV in Africa later.

        • unsane

          Here ya go. im not a doctor, but yeah, here.


          people should know this, planned parenthood (mr. gates dad ran planned parenthood) refuses to tell people this. im not black, lol, and it doesnt matter either way, but also go to, theres alot of shit you probably dont know (concerning abortion statistics and how p.p. mainly sets up shop in minority neighborhoods.) just look.

          • emperorreagan

            The current consensus science says that a link cannot be established between increased risk of cancer and abortions. The American Cancer Society website link I posted above lists multiple studies. People can cherry pick studies that say one thing or another, but that ignores the subsequent evaluation of the researcher's methodologies, data, etc. Just because a researcher found a journal to publish the article does not mean that the science in said article is good.

            Regardless, I would not expect Planned Parenthood to report a possible connection between cancer & abortion when the current national & international scientific bodies of note report otherwise.

            Planned Parenthood, like a lot of other “undesirable” businesses or industries, sets up where it's easiest to set up. Poor neighborhoods in cities. Where disproportionate numbers of minorities live and therefore have easier access. It's an easy line of logic to follow without even looking at that website.

      • conniedobbs

        Yeah, absolutely. You totally need to be on that list.

  • krbbagel

    I'm just going to take a random stab at this, because I hate that this video was posted with the implication that Gates wants to secretly sterilize part of the world or some kind of unfounded hilarity while making absurd logic jumps and using absolutely no evidence. While I will *fully* admit not understanding all the factors of saying that vaccines could help lower overpopulation here's a scenario: When you have children, they live to an average of age 4 or 5… Knowing this, you have many children in the hopes that some or at least 1 will live past childhood… If all seven live past childhood I guess you were “lucky” in that they all lived, but unlucky that you now have 7 mouths to feed…

    Inter Press Service (a source I am also relatively unfamiliar with) posted an article stating:
    “Immunisation is a major component of the right of the child to health, we should not forget that,” said UNICEF deputy executive director Saad Houry at the release of the report.

    “It is not right for children to be in hospitals due to preventable causes or put stresses on health systems due to preventable diseases,” he emphasised.

    This new report shows the impressive progress in immunisation that has been achieved over the last decade, in great part thanks to the GAVI [Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation] Alliance, which includes among its members WHO, UNICEF, the World Bank, and the Gates Foundation, as well as donor and developing country governments, private industry and civil society,” said GAVI alliance deputy chief executive officer Helen Evans.

    Again, I'm not claiming to be an expert in the science behind this stuff, but I would argue that neither are you. Jumping to an irresponsible conclusion that Gates is trying to sterilize part of the world through immunization seems absurd to me. Re-posting these rants from other sites without any analysis to the facts is not news. If you're going to post this, find out more about how vaccines COULD curb population or at least present some fact based argument to support the “evidence” that he is attempting to “impede people to either have children, or rear them. In other words, Gates implicitly advocates a definition of his favorite kind of vaccine to be able to induce infertility, sterility and (early onset) senility (autism) alike.” You say “Quite the humanitarian huh?” and when did you last provide aid in third world countries and help children live through preventable diseases?

    • Eclipse_Now

      Krbbagel, don't expect informed discussion with these people. They don't want to discuss complex sociological and social justice issues like the “Demographic Transition” which, ultimately, will probably see the world population stabilise at about 9 billion by 2050.

      Seriously, Bill Gates shouldn't have mentioned population because once someone who knows something about the perils of the world mentions the “P” word the loonies start going red in the face and foaming at the mouth.

      Instead, we should all campaign for women's rights, education for girls, freshwater, economic and social justice for the 3rd world, all that good stuff. Leave the “P” word out of it, even though you and I know what we are campaigning for.

      (A world where the bottom 2 billion aren't starving to death in a Malthusian catastrophe because we all grew the population too fast, and used too many of the earth's resources too quickly).

      The 11th Hour is a new documentary from Leonardo DiCaprio about the state of humanity and the world. Join the action at Film site:

  • notorioustgb

    one of the most pathetically transparent and weak attempts to back up an argument– cherry-picking 2 min from a 20 minute speech, decontextualize and manipulate to suite your own agenda. LOGIC FAIL!! disagree with him by all means, but seriously. are you suggesting BG is investing in vaccines and reproductive health to eradicate people? that's what I get from your “whisper whisper wink nudge” tone here. there's ample information out there linking to access to reproductive services and healthcare results in healthier individuals and lower rates of reproduction. developing countries have higher birth rates because of a lack of these options–women with the options to control their fertility have less kids. combined decrease in child mortality achieve through various methods (oooohhhh, vaccines, the devil) means a decrease in birth rates–people no longer need to have 8 children in order to see 2 survive to adulthood.

    I know, making up scary stories is fun, especially when you can lambaste someone like Bill Gates but puh-lease. you'll need to be much more clever than that if you want to provoke the thinking masses into changing their views. Although I supposed there's not really a non-thinking masses shortage so you may do all right. just don't play this for anyone who has passed their Intro to Critical Thinking 101 in college.

    oh yeah, and your great autism/vaccine canary Dr. is currently in big doo-doo (ps a written retraction in a journal like the Lancet is a super duper big deal. but you probably have a conspiracy to conveniently explain that away too)

    “Ten of the study's 13 authors have since renounced its conclusions. The Lancet said it should not have published the study and that Wakefield's links to litigation against the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine were a “fatal conflict of interest.”

    In its ruling, the disciplinary panel concluded that Wakefield acted dishonestly and was misleading in the way he described the study. It said he should have disclosed that he was paid to advise lawyers acting for parents who believed their children had been harmed by the vaccine.”

    Read more:

    • alex

      So do you believe that polulation reduction is a desirable thing?

  • notorioustgb

    And then I find this!! the sheer beauty of random timing:

    • unsane

      YEAH, too bad they only talk about OBVIOUSLY insane theories, not real conspiracy, or false flag attacks. and wired is a corporate production allll the way. its funny how they discredit themselves by REFUSING to talk about real conspiracy (maybe the ones that were ADMITTED??) nope, they dismiss anyone who questions anything as a “crackpot”. its ok, people are beginning comprehend the meaning of disinformation, and wont buy this shit for long.
      thanks for showing me once again, that the establishment will NOT take a crack at real conspiracy, because it cant be debunked by namecalling and ignoring facts. BOOM.

  • JP

    What is wrong with a decrease in population anyway? it is only a matter of time before nature does it for us anyway. why not do it voluntarily instead of waiting for it to get real nasty?

  • unsane

    Gates also wants to setup an internet structure similar to china, but worse. they are calling for “internet licenses” like a drivers license. gates is a dirty bastard, and him and his buddies DO openly talk about a 85-90 percent population reduction. yeah we do harm the earth in alot of ways, its just the way they do this shit is so so dirty if you pay attention and know what they really say and do, NOT what they say they are doing.
    Anyways, just pay attention, educate others, and we can (maybe) keep some freedom. Otherwise, (research this) we WILL be sold to the world bank, like all the 3rd world countries. THERES A FVCKING TAX INCENTIVE TO MOVE YOUR BUSINESS TO CHINA! wake up.

    • Eclipse_Now

      What's the subject dude? Oh yeah, Bill Gates proposition that saving babies lives reduces overall population growth. Boy, I nearly forgot in your wandering and confused rant. (Yawns).

  • 5by5

    When he talks about reproductive health services lowering population, he's not referring to some wackjob conspiracy to eliminate whole populations. Get a grip.

    He's referring to something we've seen in every country that has expanded women's rights, and control over their OWN bodies.

    Namely, with better health education, more access to contraception, and yes even abortion when necessary, population rates naturally go down. Additionally, because women also begin participating more in the economic life of the country, the economy of such nations drastically improves as well, and once again, and educated and wealthier populous tends to have LESS children. This combined with health care — ie proper SANITATION and clean drinking water, and fewer children die from disease, so women do not feel the pressure to have 10 children anticipating that half of them will die. She can simply have less, and give them more.

  • FergalR

    Gates is a eugenicist motherfucker. If he actually wanted to save lives he'd build sanitation for the third world; that's what saves lives not vaccines. The UN wants to depopulate the world because they are asshats. Children in Africa under the care of UNICEF are more likely to die than those who aren't, BBC reports, look:

    • Tuna Ghost

      I think (even though no one asked) your ideas re: the UN and eugenics would be taken more seriously if the stated motivations were more fleshed out. “Because they are asshats” hardly explains anyone's actions reliably. This is a reason why a lot of conspiracy theories are dismissed out of hand; motivations are not always expressed clearly or consistently. Greed, for instance, is a motivation for all kinds of horrors, we can all understand that. What does the UN have to gain with a widespread eugenics program?

  • jkako

    …trying to figure out at what point Gates became an expert on the matter. Did I miss something?

    • unsane

      GATES is rich and his daddy is in bed with the rockefellers, who are straight up EUGENICISTS. if you looked further into this, (research and research) you would have a better understanding on where gates sits on this.
      And yes, there are a few good hearted people and groups that DO help the 3rd world. BUUUUT all of these corporate assholes, have been caught (mainstream news, look in the ny times even) giving people diseases including cancer and hiv through VACCINES. its mainly U.N. groups that are complicit in this. RESEARCH it before you close your minds and call me crazy. its honestly in mainstream publications nowadays. Also, we loan the 3rd worlders money, then come in and shut their industries, power, food down on a big level, when they cant pay the loans. This happens when a few individuals sell out their country, and work as puppets for the imf and world bank even letting their own people starve.

      • Eclipse_Now

        See my comments above to Danya Unsane, the longer version, because I don't think you'll get this shorter version. But for the sake of brevity:

        Bill Gates is working towards a humane version of population control called the “Demographic Transition”. I support it, and I know many very humanitarian, human rights activists that support it. I support it. Sustainable Population Australia supports it. Basically, if you meet 3rd world needs, they have less children as children are seen as an economic asset when you're old.

        As for the IMF, World Bank, etc… I'm not necessarily a fan of them, but I think you're confusing the topics here buddy. While I'm no fan of Microsoft, you don't see me ranting about this at the moment do you? It's about the SUBJECT, which is BILL GATES sound sociological proposition that SAVING BABIES LIVES REDUCES POPULATION GROWTH! If It's too hard, look up the Demographic Transition wiki and do some reading.

  • conniedobbs

    I agree with him. We should reduce population, by a lot. If you think otherwise, then it's likely you should be on that list.

    • unsane

      of course, i respect your opinion, and fully agree that this planet has too many ignorant morons.

      BUT. what in the hell makes you think that your the 10-15 % that gets to live? the elitists have people thinking that that have some special place if they go along with the nwo agenda. ill tell ya, you DONT have a place, especially if you are posting on lol.
      and since when so people on this site love eugenics and the idea of manmade global warming? people used to be so agaist the establishment, now, you guys are getting soft or something. wake up, you are not special to these people. is it that hard to understand?

      • emperorreagan

        What makes you think global warming is an establishment issue?

        World governments are doing their best to say yes, it's a problem, but no, we don't want to do anything about it unless someone else does something first. The United States, in particular, is guilty of downplaying environmental issues until they're either too massive to be ignored, or someone can figure out a way to make money off dealing with them.

        • global hoax

          manmade global warming is such a sack of s#it. the ipcc is fully discredited, for good. al gores rhetoric is all based on the ipcc and their lies. are you an environmental scientist? do you know where the data is recorded and who collects and analyzes the data? theres no PROOF of manmade global warming. NONE. if there is, post it here, and please make sure its not already disproven or discredited.
          you are partially correct though, your damn right someones going to make money off of this. the world bank, energy corporations, and gore and pals. the greenpeace idiots that are against the big energy companies dont understand that the very people they are against, are in fact the people behind the copenhagen treaty. idiots.

          • emperorreagan

            Disproven or discredited by whom?

            Alex Jones doesn't count.

          • global hoax

            maybe some of the 30,000 scientists that are trying to SUE al gore. lol. i can provide some links::::::

  …/Weather-Channel-30000-sci... –



            if you dont know this, chances are you should do some research buddy. no offense, i understand that people dont know this shit…..somehow…..

            if you want more info, ask….. but i think 30000 scientists is preeetty damning on its own….

          • emperorreagan

            Yeah, John Coleman and his supposed coalition of 30,000 scientists have been supposedly suing Al Gore since 2008.

            And that's supposedly 30,000 scientists, less than a third of whom have PhDs, and less than 1% have any expertise in related fields. Oh, and it's all completely unverifiable!

            On the other hand, maybe global warming is a myth invented to cover up autism being caused by vaccines but autism is really just the first stage of a zombie virus that will infect the 99% of the world who don't share a particular DNA sequence with the Rothschilds and we're all going to die. OH FUCK.

          • global hoax

            can you cite any sources? you know half of the u.n. climate assholes arent AT all scientists. its not hard to question manmade global warming when theres NO proof of it. i asked like 6 hours ago for anyone that could provide any information proving MAN MADE global warming is real, to do so. nobody did, because there isnt any hard (or soft) evidence. why do you so easily believe in manmade global warming. tell me that at least, since you wont be able to prove its real.

          • emperorreagan

            How about every single national and international scientific body of note accepts CO2 as at least a contributor to global warming. Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists gave up the ghost on denying CO2 as a contributor to climate change, though they still hedge on the level of influence it plays versus other factors.

            Since you've already dismissed all of the science around global warming, there's not much point in posting any of it, is there? Barrack Obama was born in Ethiopia and autism is caused by vaccines, too.

          • global hoax

            lol, wow… and you provide no source that hasnt been debunked. i know the ipcc isnt what your referring to right? did you not know about climategate? just provide me some sources man, its not that hard. ive read alot into this, so id be interested to see some PROOF. please? lol

          • emperorreagan

            I gave you your marching orders – contact every major scientific organization in the world and ask why they accept man made CO2 as a cause of climate change. I frankly don't care about fringe interpretation or analyses of scientific articles & data, or even of the IPCC.

            You can start with calling the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, since they were denying the role of anthropogenic CO2 in global warming until very recently. Ask them why they changed their official stance. Then just run down the list. Does Exxon Mobile own every scientific organization in the world and demand that they lie to the public in order maximize their profits?

          • global hoax

            I SAID all the major energy companies changed their stance on this issue already, i know that. BUT do you know why they “all the sudden” changed their minds? CARBON CREDIT TRADING. look into it dude, there is caaaash to be made thats for sure. you dont find it strange that all those corporations changed their stance on global warming as soon as theres money in it for them? your blind i suppose. its all right out in the open. ive read both sides of this over and over and over and over. fact is, theres no real proof that humans are going to cause any significant ammount of warming. even mars is experiencing warming and cooling trends. ITS NATURAL. did humans cause the ice age? did humans cause the end of the ice age? lol, your so called experts (in 1974) agreed that we were approaching a new ice age (again with no evidence) now, there is money to be made off of fear, so there playing their hand to the fullest (again with no evidence)

          • global hoax

            And just so you know, “professor” lol, vaccines DO cause neurological disorders, in MANY cases. i have no idea where you get your information. fox news? lol.
            I dont care where obama is born, weord thing is, his first executive order was to hide all of his information and make it unavailable to the public. thats kinda…. weird. it doesnt matter though, hes a LIAR. thats the point.

          • FergalR

            The 30,000 member Institute of Physics says climatology is full of shit.

            So-called Professor Phil “dog ate my homework crybaby” Jones says there were two periods of warming in the past century and a half (which couldn't have been caused by CO2) which equal the warming that occurred in the 80's and 90's. He also agrees that there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995:

            Oh, and in a supposedly warming globe, ocean heat content is bizarrely dropping:

            Not to mention the fact that world has cooled significantly since 1998.

            The anomalous 2007 Arctic melt was a cause for concern. Turns out that that was an entirely natural event cause by unusual air and ocean currents. Global warming had nothing to do with it. The Arctic has since recovered remarkably. There was no positive warming feedback from the melt. There is no cause for concern. Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming was a scam. The “scientists” supported it because they'd have been on unemployment benefit otherwise. They may be shitty scientists but they know which side their fucking bread is buttered. Get yourself up to speed with scientific fact so you can stop embarrassing yourself by husbanding a throughly discredited cause.

            The Globe isn't fucking Warming. I'm not sure what part of that you don't fucking understand.

          • Eclipse_Now

            Tell me you did NOT just say the world has been cooling since 1998. Ha ha ha! oh now you're really embarrassing yourself.

            Please do some reading around and get to know what your fellow climate DENIALISTS are saying, because even they are starting to back down on this one my poor deluded Denialist friend.

            This old myth is one of the top 26 climate sceptic myths debunked by the May 2007 New Scientist article. It's not just totally retarded, but it's getting a bit tired now.

            1. Why does NASA show 2005 as HOTTER than 1998, and 2007 as drawn with it?

            2. Sure the MET dataset shows cooling since 1998 but why do they still accept global warming? Oh, I know, they actually look at the longer term *climate* trends rather than just narrowing in on the short term Southern Oscillation index trends.

            3. El Nino is returning in 2009. When one of the next few years breaks all previous temperature records, will you then admit you were wrong? Or will you wait until after the El Nino for the inevitable La Nina cooling, narrow your data in to the 3 or 4 years of cooling, and shout “WILL YOU JUST LOOK at all the COOLING since 2011!” (The sceptic equivalent of “Look, big shiny thing over there!”). One wonders whether the denialists will be so stupid as to be taken in by this tactic again.

            I could make ANY story I want from the temperature record by choosing short enough trends. When are you going to look at the *15 and 20 year trends* instead of cherry-picking those *few* years that show the conclusions you want?

            4. This argument is so dangerous to the cause of sceptics that even fellow sceptics are starting to warn against using it.

            At the 2009 Heartland Institute conference (of global warming sceptics), well known climate denialist Dr Patrick J Michaels explained that El Nino and La Nina cycles can, in the short term at least, disguise the longer term trends and concluded:

            “Make an argument that you can get killed on and you will kill us all…
            If you loose credibility on this issue you lose this issue!”

            Oopps, I think you just killed Denialism.

          • FergalR

            You fuckwit. Why does NASA show 2005 as warmer? Because James Fucking Hansen – the originator of the scam – is the head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies that does the temperature data tampering. Look at the satellite thermometer readings. They have the only trustworthy data and 30 years worth now. You're right about there being an strong El Nino right now. And it's still fucking colder than 1998. How the fuck can global warming make temperatures fall? It can't. It's a scam.

            I hope the ghosts of those who died in the Holocaust haunt you for denigrating their suffering by using that word.

            ExxonMobil is giving $100 million to Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project. The disgraced Climatic Research Unit in the UK was funded by British Petroleum and Dutch Royal Shell. Big oil funds climate catastrophism.

            The world isn't fucking warming. The science is not on your side. It's a scam. Open your fucking eyes.

          • FergalR

            Shit, why did I even bother replying to you? You're a cut and paste shill. You're probably a fucking bot.

          • Eclipse_Now

            Answer this simple question: is there one reputable scientific academy, WORLDWIDE, that actively contests the basic physics of Co2 and the Radiative Forcing Equation as the foundations for climate change?

            Check out the wiki and all the documentation to verify it: there are a few fossil fuel associations that are NEUTRAL on the issue of global warming, (I wonder why? nudge nudge wink wink) but otherwise there is no scientific academy on the PLANET that actually CONTESTS the basic physics.


            Mmmmm, very entertaining.

            For future reference, when I quote someone I quote them using these things ” …. ” (Called quotation marks), that's not just “cut and paste”, that's called quoting.

            Also, you failed to address the point: why are your SCEPTICAL HEROES even warning against using the “Cooling since 1998” myth?

            But please, do just keep swearing at everyone when you have a tanty. Make sure you wear a bib next time, because you're dribbling, but I don't think it will work with your tinfoil hat.

            In the meantime, I'll anticipate your argument a few years in the future…

            “Remember: There's no global warming because it's been cooling since 2011! It's been COOLING since then, don't you all see? Cooling since 2011 — we've turned a corner folks!! There's nothing to worry about… and the science is ALL on my side…. Mwaha hwa hwa hwaaaaaaaa!!!!”

          • FergalR




            There HAS been NO. ZERO. ZILCH warming since 1998. THE globe HAS effing COOLED since 1998. UNDERSTAND?! COOLED. There has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. THIS MEANS THE 0.12C WARMING WHICH HAS OCCURRED CAN'T BE DISTINGUISHED FROM NOISE. WE WERE PROMISED 0.2C per DECADE. WE GOT 0.08/DECADE (which may, of course, just be FUCKING NOISE). NOT EVEN FUCKING CLOSE. THEY GO IT FUCKING WRONG. I KNOW YOU SPEAK FUCKING CAPS. UNDERSTAND NOW? COCKGOBBLER.

          • Eclipse_Now

            Hmmm, let's see now. It's a charity, not an academy of science. Learn to tell the difference.

            Oh, and the little detail you completely omitted? They no where (that I have seen on the link you refer to) actually contest the *basic physics* of global warming. They are concerned about some of the FOI implications of the CRU research, not the basic science of global warming from the link you provided me with.

            Thanks for wasting my time.

            Now, I'll try again, in really little words you can understand.

            Which scientific *academy* disputes the basic *physics* of global warming?

            Oh, and for your information: 2005 beat 1998, and 2007 equalled it, and this year may well beat 2005, and I can't help the fact that you can't explain the obvious fact that the last decade was the hottest on record. I also can't help the fact that climate change is a gradual shift in trends with some chaotic natural variability, whereas you want it to be artificially linear. I'm sorry you can't deal with climate actually having smaller natural variations in the year by year cycle. It must be confusing trying to deal with science that looks at the 10, 100, thousand, and even million year trends for someone as limited as you are to the last 12 years of the temperature range. But hey, that's your choice.

            (Cooling since 2011, remember? winks)

          • Wrenja Czaczkes

            marry me plz <3

          • global hoax

            and i love how you say alex doesnt count!! lol thats so so pathetic man. im not a jones follower, but i have to admit hes been right about….. almost everything. well go ahead and say he has been more correct, and truthful than any other news source. trust me. i read alot. lol.

  • GoodDoktorBad

    Well whoopdee fricken doo doo……

  • global hoax

    yeah, so….. im assuming you get it now? lol.

  • Danya

    I wish all these people who want to reduce the population would lead by example and kill themselves.

    • Eclipse_Now

      This is ridiculous! All Bill Gates was discussing is the well known phenomenon, which is apparently too counter-intuitive for you to get from his clipped shorthand because he was trying to pack a lot into a very short amount of time, is that GOOD health care and LOWERING infant mortality has the paradoxical effect of reducing population growth. It's to do with parents in 3rd world countries seeing their children partly as a form of superannuation or retirement plan, and because so many DIE from horrible, easy to prevent diseases, the parents tend to have as many children as they can in the hope that a few kids will make it.

      Population growth is a REAL problem. With new energy technologies and farming techniques, we can probably feed everyone on earth. But when will it stop? 10 billion? 15 billion? Do you know that just 2% growth for an average human lifespan of 70% means that by the end of it you'd have 4 times the population! With desertification, peak oil, peak phosphorus, limited freshwater and so many other problems impacting on our ability to grow food, one day we'll run into trouble if we ignore that 2% population growth. There's no such thing as “sustainable growth” because eventually, nature will correct the imbalance if we breach the limits to growth. Stop acting like you believe in the magic porridge pot!

      But one doesn't have to campaign “against babies” or anything stupid like that.

      No, to solve population growth in a humane way, we have to do “terrible” things like … educate women so they can sometimes enter the workforce if they want, immunise kids so they don't die from horrible diseases, feed people, give them freshwater, give them economic security and enough money to live on when they retire, give them health care, and generally meet their physical and spiritual needs. Then, on average, family sizes decrease.

      It's called the “Demographic Transition” and Bill Gates understands this. So while you're busy carrying on about conspiracy theories, he's trying to invent a vaccine against malaria. What have YOU done to make the world better? (winks)

      • FergalR

        Population growth is not a “REAL” problem. Even if you type it in FUCKING caps.

        The human population is set to go into decline in the middle of this century:

        If you think overpopulation is a problem go top yourself. Children in Africa under the care of UNICEF are more likely to die than those who aren't. Because they have no interest in saving lives.

        • Eclipse_Now

          And Fergal darling, why don't you tell us *why* population is set to decline after 2050? What assumptions are built into their projections mate?

          Pointing to one UNICEF project with some questionable outcomes in fighting malaria and disease does not disprove the correlation between good public health and the Demographic Transition. Now if you have evidence linking Bill Gates with eugenics, please do post it, but this isn't it. In other words, put up or shut up.

        • Eclipse_Now

          PS: He's trying to create a vaccine for malaria which costs lives and billions in productivity. I fail to see how that is eugenics.

          But then, I never really did understand conspiracy theories. Tell me, have the Men In Black been raiding your home? Has your medicine been tinkered with? Remember, take the purple pills, and they go in your mouth, not down there… OK?

          • FergalR

            There is no vaccine for malaria. The population is set to go into decline because the rulers of this world are eugenicists. Don't call me darling you effing shirt-lifter shill.

          • Wrenja Czaczkes


          • Aeveleigh21

            Oh my God, I think you are sooo on the button Fergal. I live in Africa. I see the shit going down every day around me. You don’t know anything Eclipse.

  • UncleB

    Asia – China in particular, has considered that due to a growing population of “Elderly” and an aging workforce, they night allow more than one child per couple for a short while, to replace needed workers! They propose a “Population Bomb” to gain a larger part of the finite resources of the world – Americans, Gates included, enjoy 80% of worlds resources just to maintain U.S. “Status Quo”. India does not restrict its burgeoning population. America will be forced to give up some of its “Share” of world's resources in the next decades, and this includes a reduction in oil availability in U.S.A. Americans will have to give up their high meat diets too. Living with the Asian fact is the only option America has. A new technologically savvy Asia will change the shape of the world and rapidly – decades, well within American lifetimes! The changes will be unwelcome! Think nuclear powered electric bullet trains, modern super-factories with dorms, cafeterias. Workers with monthly contracts. A new paradigm in America to compete with Oriental super-capabilities. Strange, Bill Gates not “in the loop” on this, after all the reat of the world sees it clearly.

  • Lee

    As I was about to comment, I scrolled down and saw that notorioustgb said pretty much exactly what I was going to… And to think I thought this website was somewhat valid.

  • alex

    Well, I'm not offended by the video because a) I think anthropogenic global warming is unproven yet Bill goes on about it as if it's a closed case b) I don't want there to be less people on the earth (unless they're kind of people who go on about population reduction). Are stories about vaccines in Africa actually being filled with viruses true or false? I'm not at liberty to say, but I think it's an allegation that warrants serious investigation rather than lazy ignorance. It's difficult to see Gates' historical family ties with eugenics organisations as completely insignificant in this context.

  • alex

    Also I am “pro-choice” but that doesn't stop me questioning supposed closed book that abortions aren't linked with cancer. Supposed scientific “consensus” is not the same as scientific fact. And equating people who are anti-abortion with hating women is really dishonest. Women who are anti-abortion don't hate themselves they hate abortion (howerever a misguided position that may or may not be). It reminds me of people who call pro-Palastinian Jews “self-hating Jews”. Let people speak for themselves without telling them who they do or don't hate.

    • alex

      *do or don't hate based on their political opinions.

  • valerie

    he's not talking about sterlization with vaccines…you're taking it out of context.

  • danya

    FeargalR…your comment is the truest statement on this board.
    Talk about full of shill's and trolls, it's amazing how many come out of their holes to defend
    baby killer Gates, and the Global Warming Sustainability Scam.
    They need to read “The first global revolution” by the club of rome. It discusses how they were looking for a common enemy to make man the enemy and decided that “global warming and the like would fit the bill”. Their words, not mine.
    The gates foundation is a sinister eugenicist tool, and to all you who don't think so, pull your head out of your arse and wake up.–tg7Y

    • Eclipse_Now

      You people are soooo funny! Look, just because you forgot your meds doesn't mean the rest of us have to waste our lives reading mad bloggers on the internet. I've already wasted enough time here, and I'm not going to make a habit of stooping this low.

      Play nice children… turn off your computers, go outside, and meet some *real* people for a change.

      • danya

        Nobody asked you to read or comment on these articles. Talk about projecting your own mental health problems onto other people, I have a life thanks, and three children, and a job, and a happy relationship. I just object to un-elected people and the new priests of the global warming religion dictating highly suspicious data at me. The global warming agenda is a very clever way of wiping out the west forever, no new businesses will be able to afford the upcoming carbon taxes, therefore the business will go to China, India etc as they are “emerging economies” and will be heavily subsidised by the west. Bye bye western economy. Also, who will you be paying your new carbon tax to? Oh let me think…er….the Bankers.

        • Eclipse_Now

          Sorry for projecting stuff onto you but the image you anti-science conspiracy theorists give off doesn't quite “smell right” over the net, if you see what I mean. I don't know you personally, but I know that you think the science behind global warming is really divided, or worse, that EVERY science academy that is FOR global warming is involved in a conspiracy… and that only those science academies that are outright against global warming are being honest.

          Here's the thing.

          There isn't a scientific academy on the PLANET that recognises the “truth” according to your POV.

          As for the various arguments the Denialist hacks have put above… they're tired old arguments that were put to bed years ago. You can see the top 28 climate myths that Denialists push listed here from 2007.

          The last decade was the hottest on record. I fully expect the coming decade to be even hotter. The science is extremely complicated, and every single argument the hacks put up is demolished in peer reviewed papers with extremely convincing data.

          I find sites like this both boring, because the same moronic and retarded lies are perpetrated again and again and again, interesting, because I'm constantly amazed at the sheer crap people will take on board when they are too confronted and alarmed by reality, and a bit alarming: because those same people vote.

          So go ahead and stick your fingers in your ears and chant “Not true, not true”, and click your ruby slippers together 3 times saying “There's no place like global warming”, but we all know the reality. You're just scared.

  • alberttheos

    Bill Gates is a loving man! How dare you speak against him. He would never hurt a fly. He, in particular, cares so much about the starving children in Africa! Thank you, and I am a moron.

  • Lookingglass

    The man believed to be the richest person in the world did have a warning though – he fears developed nations may plunder their foreign aid budgets to pay for the cost of tackling climate change.
    Mr Gates says this would be a mistake as aid budgets not only save lives, they also improve people’s health and, in turn, that stops population growth – a key reason, he says, for global warming.
    “I just want to make sure that that funding doesn’t come by reducing the funds for Aids, drugs or vaccines, which, after all, not only do they save lives but its this improved health that actually gets a country to reduce its population growth,” he said.
    “And, in the long run, for all these environmental issues, having a population that’s not growing so rapidly is what will allow us to live on a sustainable basis.
    “Climate change is very important, it is an issue money should go to. It just shouldn’t come out of health aid budgets.”

  • Lookingglass

    Mr Gates says this would be a mistake as aid budgets not only save lives, they also improve people's health and, in turn, that stops population growth – a key reason, he says, for global warming.
    “I just want to make sure that that funding doesn't come by reducing the funds for Aids, drugs or vaccines, which, after all, not only do they save lives but its this improved health that actually gets a country to reduce its population growth,” he said.
    “And, in the long run, for all these environmental issues, having a population that's not growing so rapidly is what will allow us to live on a sustainable basis.
    “Climate change is very important, it is an issue money should go to. It just shouldn't come out of health aid budgets.”

  • Anonymous

    I am a proud supporter of eugenics. In case anyone was wondering.

  • $927230


  • Aeveleigh21


  • Jo
