Woke Up

I guess we can all sleep easier in our beds now:

Billionaire Bill Gates has dramatically changed his position on climate change, acknowledging for this first time there is no “doomsday” risk from global warming.

In a memo published by Gates Notes Monday night, the Microsoft co-founder, who has poured billions into combating global warming, urged a move away from what he called a “doomsday outlook” and toward improving living conditions in developing nations.

“Although climate change will have serious consequences — particularly for people in the poorest countries — it will not lead to humanity’s demise,” Gates wrote. “People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future.”

Hey Bill:  as long as you use your money and not taxpayer money to improve living conditions in developing nations (what we call “shitholes”), knock yourself out.

I wonder what made him change his mind about the looming catastrophe that is Global Warming Climate Cooling Change©?

Whatever it was, it has to do with money.  Count on it.

Just. Go. Away.

…and I only used that title because my original thought (“Just. Fuck. Off.”) may have been judged as a little intemperate.

Once more unto the hysterical breach, my friends:

The planet is grappling with a “new reality” as it reaches the first in a series of catastrophic and potentially irreversible climate tipping points: the widespread death of coral reefs, according to a landmark report produced by 160 scientists across the world.

As humans burn fossil fuels and ratchet up temperatures, it’s already driving more severe heat waves, floods, droughts, and wildfires. But there are even bigger impacts on the horizon. Climate change may also be pushing Earth’s crucial systems — from the Amazon rainforest to polar ice sheets — so far out of balance they collapse, sending catastrophic ripples across the planet.

“We are rapidly approaching multiple Earth system tipping points that could transform our world, with devastating consequences for people and nature,” said Tim Lenton, a professor at the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter and an author of the report published Sunday.

In other words:

Sorry, but nobody with any form of humanoid brain should give any credence to these hysterical “Do this NOW or we’re all gonna dieeeeeee!”  doomsayings anymore.

In the first place, “climate change” is not the major consequence of human activity.  Considering that almost every “landmark study” — from Mann’s infamous (and debunked) “hockey stick” graph onwards — has been based on flawed, incorrect or fraudulent data manipulation, not least in predictive climate models, there is no reason to suggest that there is anything we as humans can do to somehow affect any form of climate change, let alone reverse it.  (Even assuming that mankind — and I’m looking at you, China and the other Third World nations — can actually act in concert, the entire activity could be reversed simply by the Sun doing one thing instead of another.)

In other words, there are greater forces in play here, and it doesn’t appear that people can do anything to affect them, even if they wanted to — and that’s a big if.  Try telling the people who own these seafront properties in Hawaii, for example, to abandon them because the properties’ existence may be harming the offshore reefs:

They’ll tell you to fuck right off, and I can’t say I blame them.

Now tell China and India to stop the pollutant-heavy flow of the Yangtze and Ganges rivers (to name but two) into the ocean, and the response will be “fuck right off, squared“.

As for the statement:  “…multiple Earth system tipping points that could transform our world, with devastating consequences for people and nature”, what’s happening here is the old extension of Murphy’s Law (If something can go wrong, it will) which states:  “If a number of things can go wrong, they will either go wrong simultaneously or else in the order best designed to create the maximum damage.”

It’s a humorous take on failure, but like “strange women lying in ponds distributing swords” is not a good basis for government, basing ecological policy on Murphy’s Extended Law is just as foolish.

Of course, the greater the preponderance of factors pointing to massive failure, the greater the need for panic and precipitous action to prevent it.  Hence the grouping of ocean current weakening, coral reef disintegration and cataclysmic weather events into one Great Big Disaster.  (They left Donald Trump out of the list of calamities, but that’s probably just an oversight.)

Sorry, but we’ve seen, and recently, the dolorous consequences of precipitous, fear-driven action as a response to perceived calamity (#Covid).  The same attitude (“we won’t be fooled again”) should apply equally to these climate loons’ dire predictions.


By the way:  if you really want to worry about something occurring in nature, try this one.  And there’s not a single thing we can do about it.  Not even selling our evil SUVs or eliminating plastics.

More Backtracking

This one had me giggling like a little girl:

Bentley has decided to delay its electric vehicle plans.

The historic carmaker that’s headquartered in Crewe, Cheshire, has opted for a shift in strategy as they now plan to renew three models with petrol engines, instead of electric.  The company originally planned to transition to a fully electric lineup by 2030 – under its Beyond100 strategy.  These previous plans included offering only plug-in hybrids and EVs by 2026, then eventually phasing out hybrids for a zero-emission lineup.

But why, oh why are they seemingly defying the EU/BritGov’s NetZero diktat ?

Bentley CEO, Frank-Steffen Walliser, said: “There is a dip in demand for luxury electric vehicles, and customer demand is not yet strong enough to support an all-electric strategy.

“The luxury market is a lot different today than when we announced Beyond100.

“Electrification is still our goal, but we need to take our customers with us.”

That last sentence is just to appease the Greens.

Frankly — given that Bentleys have stood for “luxury + power” ever since they won several Brooklands and Le Mans races in the 1930s — there’s little reason to think that a typical Bentley customer should be any different in, say, 2030 (or ever) than they’ve been since those halcyon days in the 1930s.

Massive engines — gasoline/petrol-powered — with ripsnorting power and “sufficient” speed are a Bentley trademark.  Hell, many Bentley customers — current and potential — are still seething about the company’s decision to dump the W12 in favor of a turbo V8.

And just as a reminder:  Bentley is owned by Volkswagen (the W12 is actually a VW design from the Phaeton).  VW is also the owners of other brands… and what are they doing?

Porsche, another brand that is owned by the VW Group alongside Bentley, recently announced plans to delay the launch of its latest EV due to low demand.  Instead, the iconic German sports car marque plans to focus on internal combustion engines and innovative technologies such as wireless charging — recently demonstrated with the upcoming Cayenne EV.

Similarly, Audi, yet another VW brand, has abandoned its goal of becoming an all-electric brand by 2033, instead opting for flexibility based on market conditions.

Oh.

Yeah, and those “market conditions” are being signaled by their respective customer bases with a common voice:  “Screw those stupid Duracell motors:  we want real engines in our performance cars.”

I could have told them this would happen, and in fact I did on these very pages.

And hey, I don’t own stock in VW — but if I did, I would have dumped it the very second they announced their stupid all-electric / electric-only initiative.

And This Is Why

And as the car manufacturers like VW and Mercedes continue to wonder why their stupid customers are refusing to buy their little Duracell cars, there’s this report from the trenches:

Wheeler Dealers host Mike Brewer has claimed purchasing an electric vehicle was the “most stupid decision” ever made, revealing he has ditched his EVs and returned to petrol models.

Oh noes!  Whatever could have happened?

“The day I decided to sell my Porsche Taycan, which is a high-performance beautiful electric car, was the day that I couldn’t charge it. I went down to see my parents. On the way back there was nowhere to charge it, all the chargers were broken and nothing would work.

“When I did find a charger that was working, there were 12 people queued up waiting to charge their cars. The car went into ‘limp home’ mode, meaning I had to drive it at 40mph on the motorway, I realized I’d just paid £130,000 for something I was driving at 40mph on the motorway embarrassed. Why am I doing that? Why did I put myself through that anguish?

“Plus it was losing £5,000 per month at that time so it was the most stupid decision I’ve ever made.”

Is that all?

“I did buy one of those electric Mercedes recently, an EQC. 10 minutes and I’d done enough of that. That went back. I watched it lose £20,000 over the course of a couple of months and went ‘I don’t like that anymore’ and it went.”

And:

“I went very quickly back to an ICE and very quickly back to a flat-six.”

So, I think, will a huge number of his viewers.

When you can’t charge your car battery and the car’s value is depreciating faster than a Bentley’s… it’s time for a change.

…and not:


For my Murkin Readers who’ve never heard of Mike Brewer, here’s the background on Wheeler Dealers, which ran for over 20 years on Brit TV.

Modern Take

In Orwell’s Animal Farm, the pigs’ chant changed from “Four legs good, two legs bad!”  into “Four legs good, two legs better!”  and the farm changed forever.

Well, when it comes to airliners, it seems that the latter has become the norm — just substitute “engines” for “legs”, and you get the picture.

Modern engines, we are told, are more efficient and more eco-friendly (in that they burn less fuel and therefore squirt much less of that eeeevil carbon-whatever into the atmosphere), so therefore twin-engined long-haul aircraft are so much more desirable, you see, than those fat and dirty old 707s and 747s.

Amazingly, the oh-so eco-friendly Germans don’t agree (albeit for the wrong reasons), and are keeping some of their 747s:

This four-engine behemoth, first flown commercially in 1970, is no longer financially viable in an era of increasingly-efficient twin-engined jets. The final passenger-configured jumbo was delivered eight years ago, and Boeing has no plans to restart the production line.

But one European airline hasn’t turned its back on the 747 just yet. Germany’s Lufthansa, perceived by many to be aviation’s kings of efficiency, still operates 27 jumbo jets – 19 of the newer 747-8s, and eight older, slightly smaller 747-400s – and is even upgrading some jumbo jet interiors with swanky new Allegris seats as part of a £2bn Lufthansa fleet-wide refit. 

Here’s the reason:

Why the lingering attachment? Part of the reason is simple and unromantic economics. According to aviation analysts, operations out of its Frankfurt and Munich hubs are each at take-off slot capacity.

So, with flight numbers capped, Lufthansa really needs its biggest aircraft, and the 364-seat 747s-8s drop neatly between the Airbus A350 (293 seats) and A380 (455 seats).

Yeah, whatever.

I happen to prefer flying aboard the older 747s for one simple reasons, based on the old saw:  “Two is one and one is none.”  Using that as a yardstick, I happen to think that four engines are safer than two.

I know, I know;  according to the cognoscenti, modern twin-engined airliners can stay in the air if one engine breaks.  But to my way of thinking, if one engine can break, its identical twin can also break, for the same reason.  I know the chances are not high, statistically speaking;  but the chances are not zero.

And forgive me for being a little skittish about my transportation suddenly turning into a lawn dart at 28,000 feet.  Under those circumstances I’d like the odds to be somewhat more stacked on my side, and four engines are not going to fail simultaneously, or even sequentially.

I know that this is more of a moot point nowadays, when it appears that my transatlantic flying days are pretty much over.  And annoyingly, according to a cursory study, Luftwaffe  Lufthansa is persisting with the European Airbus 330 for DFW-FRA.  (Why Frankfurt?  Because if you’re going to connect at an airport in Euroland, Frankfurt is as good as LHR or CDG, to name but a couple, and better than MAD or — gawd help us — ROM.)

But the principle remains, because it’s true for any passenger, not just me.  So in my opinion, Orwell’s original thesis is true:  four legs good, two legs bad.

Circling The Drain

Wow, nobody (except for the Terminally Stupid) could have seen this coming:

Japanese automotive giant Honda is reassessing its strategy for electric vehicles as it navigates challenges stemming from the high costs of EV development, flattening EV demand, and the impact of U.S. tariffs.

In the first quarter of its 2025-2026 fiscal year (April 1 to June 30, 2025), Honda took a one-time charge of ¥113.4 billion (~$780 million) related to its EV-related troubles. In total, the impact of the EV charge and its exposure to tariffs took a toll on Honda’s operating profit during the quarter, as earnings fell to ¥244.1 billion (~$1.69 billion) from ¥484.7 billion (~$3.35 billion) just one year ago.

Yeah… who else thought that the EV industry would fail without massive government subsidies / Green-based regulation?

Well, yes.