The super CO2-spewing lifestyles of the billionaires makes many of them very vulnerable to the mega-rich guilt syndrome, leading to the support of left-activist oriented issues. A classic example of this phenomenon is the left dominated global warming fear-mongering.
Because of the guilt-complex, billionaires often will become the useful idiots of the anti-CO2 left. Thus, billionaires, such as Bill Gates, will condone and engage in the mindless CO2 fear-mongering promulgated by leftists, yet are completely reluctant to sacrifice his/her outlandish, personal $30,000 per month CO2 electric bill. Instead, the billionaires propose the rest of humanity should sacrifice by reducing their electric bill (CO2) to zero. (See below for the latest peer-reviewed article about climate-model-idiocy.)
Okay, the facts are still real world facts, despite the zombie billionaire dreamworld - reducing industrial and transportation CO2 emissions to zero by 2050 is totally impossible. And unless the billionaires are recommending that all fire combustion and human breathing be banned, the zero-CO2 idea is simply galactic stupidity on the scale of the stupidity that is exhibited by,....well....er....a 66,000 square foot house for a few family members, just for example.
How did Bill Gates and other Cancún-loving billionaires become so galactically stupid about global warming and CO2?
Simple. They've been infected by the computer virus contagion known as "virtual climate models" that only makes a stealthy jump from the Window's operating system (XP, W7, etc.) to very rich humans. It's been speculated that this stupidity-inducing virus was created by the combined effort of Indian/Chinese government hackers, in hopes of assuring massively idiotic economic and energy decisions being self-imposed on Western economies. [Caution: Attempting to remove this virus causes a human variety of the BSOD syndrome in those mega-CO2 emitting individuals already afflicted with megalomania and severe guilt complex. Removal failure is confirmed by continuous re-boot to the stupidity-state when confronted with real climate evidence and science.]
Soooo, back to the real world and no more Microsoft bashing in this post - what's the latest peer-reviewed science really say about climate models? In summary, one has to be really, really billionaire-stupid to believe any climate model's predictions:
"1. "the physics of unresolved phenomena such as clouds and other turbulent elements is not understood to the extent needed for incorporation into models," so that...
2. models are presently merely "experimental tools whose relation to the real world is questionable," that...
3. "current models depend heavily on undemonstrated positive feedback factors to predict high levels of warming," that...
4. "there is compelling evidence for all the known feedback factors to actually be negative," that...
5. "even supercomputers are inadequate to allow long-term integrations of the relevant equations at adequate spatial resolutions," that...
6. "current models all predict that warmer climates will be accompanied by increasing humidity at all levels" but that "such behavior is an artifact of the models since they have neither the physics nor the numerical accuracy to deal with water vapor," and that...
7. "the models' predictions for the past century incorrectly describe the pattern of warming and greatly overestimate its magnitude." In this regard, Lindzen further states that a doubling of the air's present CO2 content might lead to a warming of only "0.5 to 1.2 degrees centigrade," [Lindzen, Richard 2010]
Additional postings about the incredible idiocy of climate models. Other peer-reviewed postings.