Opinion
Bill Gates Shakes Up the Climate Discussion
 
																								
												
												
											Bill Gates’ new climate letter made some people angry and others happy. Everyone has an opinion. Today I share mine. Image: Grok.
 The Honest Broker
 The Honest Broker
It is not just his three truths, but the fact that he said them out loud
Wednesday, in his periodic letter to the world, Bill Gates shared three truths about climate change — and shook up the climate discussion. While the longer term implications of his letter are uncertain, early signs are that Gates has injected a welcome dose of climate realism into the discussion.
Here are his three truths (and I encourage everyone to read his whole letter):
- Climate change is a serious problem, but it will not be the end of civilization;
- Temperature is not the best way to measure our progress on climate;
- Health and prosperity are the best defense against climate change.
For most THB readers, these truths will be well understood, even common sense, and will seem neither shocking nor scandalous.
But for some steeped in climate advocacy grounded in visions of “existential threat” or a looming apocalypse, Gates’ truths have rocked their world.
Some examples from the activist media:
- CNN: “a stunning claim”;
- Politico: “soft pedals climate”;
- Axios: “escalates debate with scientists”;
- The New Republic: “we shouldn’t be listening to people like him”
Activist climate scientists joined their fellow-traveling media critics, criticizing the substance of Gates’ letter or expressing concerns that their political enemies might welcome it — Here are a few examples:
- Michael Mann: “This is horrifying . . . [climate change] represents an existential threat, exacerbating global security threats, threatening water and food supplies, leading to massive damage. . . it’s like a game of soft climate denial bingo”;
- Jonathan Foley: “I stopped listening to Bill Gates years ago. You should stop too”;
- Michael Oppenheimer: “{h]is words are bound to be misused by those who would like nothing more than to destroy efforts to deal with climate change.”
Of course, at the other end of the spectrum, there is President Donald Trump, who posted the following, which is just as over-the-top as the reactions from climate activists:
Just like the climate activists, President Trump is treating the letter as an ink blot for political messaging, rather than on its own merits.
I suspect the president does not agree with this statement by Gates:
“Climate change is a very important problem. It needs to be solved, along with other problems like malaria and malnutrition.”
From my perspective, Gates’ letter is a welcome contribution to a growing chorus of climate realism and energy pragmatism.
I’ve been asked by several people if I think Gates reads THB or my work — I doubt it, or else he wouldn’t have made a big mistake in his letter suggesting that extreme climate scenarios are today implausible due to climate policy successes. They are implausible because they were always wrong about coal.
I’ve never met Gates, but Bill should definately read THB!
Yesterday, as I settled into my seat for the flight back from Florida (where I spoke at New College) I was invited on very short notice to write an op-ed for the NY Post on Gates letter. I wrote it on the plane and sent it in somewhere over Oklahoma.
I reproduce the op-ed in full below. You can read it at the NY Post site here.
Why Bill Gates turned on the alarmists, and decided climate change isn’t the apocalypse (NYP title)
Earlier this week, Microsoft co-founder and billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates dropped a truth bomb into the discussion of climate and energy policy. His missive sent the climate lobby into a tizzy as he joined a growing chorus of voices aligned with today’s science and policy consensus on climate.
Gates actually shared three truth bombs, and let’s take a look at each.
Truth #1: Climate change is a serious problem, but it will not be the end of civilization
Here Gates recognizes that the most extreme projections of future climate change have been dialed back considerably over the past decade. Gates explains correctly, “the current consensus is that by 2100 the Earth’s average temperature will probably be between 2°C and 3°C higher than it was in 1850.”
This consensus has rapidly emerged not because the world has rapidly reduced emissions (as Gates incorrectly asserts), but rather because scientists have recognized that those extreme scenarios that have dominated climate research and policy were actually off target from the start.
Specifically, in work pioneered by my colleague Justin Ritchie of the University of British Columbia almost a decade ago, we now know that the previous generation of climate scenarios foresaw a world rushing headlong into coal energy to power the world.
Coal is the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel and a global energy system dominated by coal would indeed have had massive emissions with correspondingly largest effects on climate.
In reality, rather than in models, our research shows the world is not rushing into coal and the scenarios that projected as much as a six-fold increase in coal consumption are already implausible. The real world has already departed substantially from these projections.
In recent years, projected global temperature increases to 2100 have been successively revised downwards. Earlier this month the Norwegian group DNV issued its “most likely” projection for global temperatures this century to be a 2.2C increase and achievement of net-zero emissions by the 2090s.
These achievements would not hit the targets of the 2015 Paris Agreement under the U.N Framework Convention on Climate Change, but they are far from a global existential threat, according to the projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The new consensus is so robust that those taking Gates to task on this point might be considered today’s new climate deniers.
Truth #2: Temperature is not the best way to measure our progress on climate
For many, Gates assertion would appear obvious. He explains, “the global temperature doesn’t tell us anything about the quality of people’s lives.”
Consider the remarkable progress made over the past 150 years with respect to the human impact of extreme weather events.
Way back in the 1870s — when global temperature were supposedly ideal — approximately 50 million people died globally related to extreme weather, particularly related to an extreme El Nino event of 1877-88.
The 1870s also saw the Great Midwest Wildfires of 1871 which killed as many as 2,400 people, the massive 1872 Baltic Sea flood, a 1875 midwestern locust swam of an estimated 12.5 trillion locusts, the 1878 China typhoon that killed as many as 100,000 people, and the U.S. experienced 6 landfalling major hurricanes in the 1870s, compared to just 3 in the 2010s.
It is not widely appreciated, but 2025 (still with two months to go), is currently on track for the lowest global death toll from extreme weather in all of human history. Part of that is good fortune to be sure — for instance, the Northern Hemisphere is well below average in terms of tropical cyclone activity.
However, 2025 fits a remarkable long-term trend of lives improving due to advance in the applications of science and technology in preparing for disasters, coupled with the consequences of sustained economic growth around the world.
Sustaining that track record will take concentrated effort, but there is no reason that the human condition cannot continue to dramatically improve this century even as temperatures warm another degree or so.
Truth #3: Health and prosperity are the best defense against climate change
To understand this claim, there is no need to look at futures in computer models, one just needs to look at the world as it is today.
Think about it. Would you feel more protected against the vagaries of climate variability and change if you lived in one of the world’s poorest countries or one of its richest?
Now imagine if everyone around the world enjoyed the economic and technological advantages of the United States. Of course resiliency to changes in climate would be much greater if everyone around the world were as wealthy as those of us in the United States. As Gates observes: “Development doesn’t depend on helping people adapt to a warmer climate — development is adaptation.”
Gates includes what might have been a fourth truth, and one we should not forget: “Climate change is a very important problem. It needs to be solved, along with other problems like malaria and malnutrition.”
Understanding the true nature of a problem is a key first step in effectively addressing it. Climate change is indeed real, but it is not the apocalypse.
Comments welcomed! Please keep them on subject and as usual, no comments of a personal nature about anyone, thanks!
Before you go — If you think that we are making progess on climate realism and energy pragmatism and would like to see even more, then please click that “ Like” to let everyone know. More likes mean that THB rises in the Substack algorithm and gets in front of more readers. More readers mean that THB reaches more people in more places, broadening understandings and discussions of complex issues where science meets politics. Thanks!
 Like” to let everyone know. More likes mean that THB rises in the Substack algorithm and gets in front of more readers. More readers mean that THB reaches more people in more places, broadening understandings and discussions of complex issues where science meets politics. Thanks!
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
National
Watchdog Presses Ottawa to Release Hidden Lobbying Rulings
 
														With nine cases still undisclosed and a reappointment controversy surrounding the Lobbying Commissioner, the group warns that federal enforcement of ethics laws is losing public trust
More than a year has passed. Ten separate lobbying violations. Nine of them returned by the RCMP without prosecution. Zero public rulings. And a Commissioner who was quietly re-appointed for another seven-year term by the Trudeau regime.
What am I describing? A third-world dictatorship? Nope. Welcome to Ottawa—where democracy dies behind closed doors, and corporate lobbyists write the laws under the table.
Today, Democracy Watch, the last half-functioning watchdog in this country, blew the whistle. Again. They released a bombshell press release accusing Nancy Bélanger, Trudeau’s handpicked Lobbying Commissioner, of hiding her rulings on serious violations of the Lobbying Act. These aren’t minor infractions. We’re talking about shady dealings by major players: Facebook, WE Charity, SNC-Lavalin, and Imperial Oil—names you may remember from past scandals the media tried to memory-hole.
The facts are simple. Democracy Watch filed official requests to get these rulings. The RCMP, under Trudeau’s appointees, delayed disclosure for two years. Bélanger’s office extended its own deadline, then just… never released them. That’s illegal, by the way. But when the Liberals are in charge, the law doesn’t apply to them—only to you.
Now, why would they bury these reports? Well, ask yourself: who benefits?
Start with Facebook. Back in 2018, Kevin Chan—their top Canadian fixer—was caught giving “advice” to Cabinet ministers while failing to register as a lobbyist. Not exactly subtle. Then there’s WE Charity, Trudeau’s favorite shell organization for funneling money to friends and family. They handed out luxury trips to Bill Morneau’s family. Did they face charges? Nope. SNC-Lavalin—remember them? The company Trudeau went to the mat for in 2019, firing his own Attorney General to protect. And Imperial Oil? They lobbied Andrew Scheer and Karina Gould at a corporate event they sponsored. Nothing to see here, folks.
Here’s the question no journalist in Ottawa will ask: Did Nancy Bélanger bury these rulings in exchange for her reappointment last December? Did she gut the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct, water down the rules, and turn a blind eye to violations just to keep her job? It’s not a conspiracy theory—it’s an obvious incentive. And it stinks.
Democracy Watch co-founder Duff Conacher was blunt: “By continuing to hide her rulings on nine lobbying violations, Commissioner Bélanger is covering up scandalous situations, protecting the lobbyists and politicians and public officials they were lobbying.”
That’s the polite version.
The real version? The Trudeau Liberal regime—and yes, we’re still calling it the Trudeau regime even with Mark Carney as his bland globalist replacement—is corrupt to its core. This is a government that protects its friends, buries oversight, and weaponizes institutions like the RCMP and the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner to silence dissent and cover up for insiders.
Just look at the pattern:
- RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki was Trudeau’s puppet.
- Her successor, Michael Duheme, was appointed after the RCMP “let off” the lobbyists.
- Bélanger, who failed to disclose 10 rulings, gets another 7 years in power.
Coincidence? Please.
Eighty percent of Canadians—across the spectrum—say they’re concerned about unethical lobbying. And they should be. Because what we’re seeing isn’t just a few bad actors. It’s institutionalized corruption. And worse—it’s bipartisan silence. Where is the outrage? Where is the mainstream press? They’re too busy fact-checking memes and writing hit pieces on Pierre Poilievre to ask why the Lobbying Act has been turned into toilet paper.
The Liberal swamp didn’t get drained. It got deeper. And if you think electing a new face like Mark Carney will change anything, think again.
Carney was Trudeau’s right-hand globalist — a man who cut his teeth at Goldman Sachs, then went on to run both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England. He didn’t come back to serve Canadians — he came to manage them, like assets on a spreadsheet. He now rules Ottawa like a boardroom, where accountability is a nuisance and democracy is a branding exercise.
The Liberal swamp didn’t get drained. It got deeper. And if you think electing a new face like Mark Carney will change anything, think again.
Lets be clear: What this country needs isn’t another bureaucratic shuffle. We need a reckoning. We need real transparency. And we need to dismantle the corrupt machinery that allows lobbyists, politicians, and unaccountable commissioners to play god behind closed doors.
This isn’t about left or right. This is about the survival of Canadian democracy.
Because right now, it’s being auctioned off—one lobbying meeting at a time.
National
Watchdog Asks Whether RCMP Brass Shielded Lobbyists in Ottawa’s Influence Scandals
 
														 Sam Cooper
 Sam Cooper
From ArriveCAN to SNC-Lavalin, new scrutiny of Ottawa’s regulators raises questions about whether the RCMP and federal oversight bodies have become politically neutered.
Canada’s federal lobbying commissioner and the RCMP are under new scrutiny from a national transparency watchdog demanding to know whether the lobbying regulator has concealed rulings in nine violations that were referred to the Mounties — and later quietly sent back without prosecution — in a wide range of cases from the ArriveCAN procurement imbroglio to the explosive SNC-Lavalin affair, in which a former attorney general told the RCMP they could look at criminal obstruction charges.
The allegations relate to testimony now before a Parliamentary ethics committee, which has revived long-standing concerns from critics about Canada’s politically appointed watchdogs — and about the RCMP itself.
Framing his most pointed suggestion — that the RCMP may be politically neutered — in the form of questions, Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch, a witness before the committee, asked in a release Thursday:
“Did former RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki let off the lobbyists because she was appointed by and served at the pleasure of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau? Did … current RCMP Commissioner Michael Duheme let off the lobbyists so Trudeau would appoint him first as Interim Commissioner in March 2023 and then as Commissioner in April 2024?”
Conacher’s statement presses for the release of nine rulings by Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger — cases referred to the RCMP and later returned to her office without charges. He accuses Bélanger’s office of failing to release those rulings for more than a year, despite access-to-information requests dating back to 2023.
In Conacher’s October 30 release, Democracy Watch accused both the RCMP and the Commissioner’s office of “blatantly violating” the Access to Information Act. The hidden cases, the watchdog said, may involve unregistered or unethical lobbying by major corporations including Facebook, WE Charity, SNC-Lavalin, and Imperial Oil.
“By continuing to hide her rulings on nine lobbying violations, Commissioner Bélanger is covering up scandalous situations, protecting the lobbyists and the public officials they were lobbying,” Conacher said. “It’s shameful that the RCMP, whose top officers are chosen by and serve at the pleasure of the ruling-party Cabinet, continue to take so long to investigate lobbyists who violate the law — and that they fail to prosecute almost all violations.”
Renewing his attack on RCMP leadership, Conacher added: “Their negligently bad enforcement record is more clear evidence that a new, fully independent anti-corruption federal police and prosecution force is needed.”
Conacher cites hearing evidence that Bélanger testified before the House Ethics Committee on April 16, 2024, acknowledging that her office had referred 15 cases to the RCMP since 2018 — and that the Mounties had “let off” the lobbyists in nine of them. In her most recent appearance on October 6, 2025, she updated that total to 18 cases referred, with 10 returned without charges, two prosecutions completed, two “in discussion,” and two still under investigation, Conacher said.
Conacher pointed to Bélanger’s confrontational exchange over the ArriveCAN procurement scandal with Conservative MP Michael Barrett during the April 2024 hearings.
“I wrote you about a month ago regarding GC Strategies. This is the Liberal government’s hand-picked favourite IT firm. They don’t do work on the applications but collect a commission for connecting the government with unknown firms,” Barrett said. “Can you tell us today if you’re investigating GC Strategies or its principals for contravening the Lobbying Act?”
“As I told you in the letter, I’m very much aware of the facts of that case, and I cannot confirm whether I’m investigating. You know that I do that because I do not want to jeopardize a possible RCMP investigation,” Bélanger answered.
Barrett then listed the company’s reported meetings with senior officials across government, including former Chief Information Officer Paul Girard and a series of departmental directors.
While contracting rules were breached, no criminal charges have been laid. In June 2025, Public Services and Procurement Canada barred GC Strategies from federal contracts for seven years. The government also barred two other firms involved in the ArriveCAN project — Dalian Enterprises and Coradix Technology Consulting — from future federal tenders.
The ArriveCAN app was launched in April 2020 as a digital tool to track traveller health information and customs declarations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Auditor General Karen Hogan later reported that poor record-keeping and excessive reliance on outside contractors caused the project’s cost to balloon from an initial $2.35 million to about $60 million, exposing what she called “a breakdown of basic management controls.” According to her report, GC Strategies alone was awarded more than $19 million for its share of the contracts.
An independent audit by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada found that the federal government awarded 106 contracts valued at approximately $92.7 million between April 2015 and March 2024, many without competition.
Conacher’s most recent demand for disclosure dovetails with the committee’s ongoing probe of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, following testimony by former Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick. In that tense hearing earlier this week, Wernick was pressed on whether prime ministers’ conflicts of interest should be policed internally through “ethics screens,” or whether blind trusts and full public disclosure are required. Wernick defended the current system as “one tool in a broader toolbox,” while Conservative MPs Michael Barrett and Michael Cooper countered that it leaves Canadians relying on “hope and trust.”
The hearings also raised concerns about Prime Minister Mark Carney’s extensive Brookfield holdings, now shielded by an ethics screen covering about 100 files — what Wernick called “the most extensive private-sector record since Paul Martin.”
The parallels between the Bélanger and Wernick hearings highlight the same structural concerns: officials accountable to the Prime Minister are also responsible for policing the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s conflicts. For Democracy Watch, that circular system — extending from the Lobbying Commissioner and Ethics Commissioner to the RCMP Commissioner — represents not oversight, but insulation.
Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
- 
																	   Internet2 days ago Internet2 days agoMusk launches Grokipedia to break Wikipedia’s information monopoly 
- 
																	   Business2 days ago Business2 days agoBill Gates walks away from the climate cult 
- 
																	   Alberta1 day ago Alberta1 day agoNobel Prize nods to Alberta innovation in carbon capture 
- 
																	   Business14 hours ago Business14 hours agoCanada’s attack on religious charities makes no fiscal sense 
- 
																	   Business2 hours ago Business2 hours ago“We have a deal”: Trump, Xi strike breakthrough on trade and fentanyl 
- 
																	   Banks1 day ago Banks1 day agoBank of Canada Cuts Rates to 2.25%, Warns of Structural Economic Damage 
- 
																	   National1 day ago National1 day agoCanadian MPs order ethics investigation into Mark Carney’s corporate interests 
- 
																	   National1 day ago National1 day agoCanada’s NDP is now calling women ‘non-males’ 
 
								



 
																	



 
											 
											 
											 
											 
											 
											 
											