True.
And one thing necessary is to bring out what other branches of science, not just the climatologists, have been finding. Like geology, the Quaternary branch of it, that studies things like old soil deposits. Because in those you can find old pollen, and there is pollen from plants that now can only grow much pretty far south found in deposits way further north.
So, from that, we know, for a fact, that temperatures have been a lot higher than they are now in several periods of the past, and fairly recent past too, in written history. You can't just start from something like "pre-industrial" and then assume that that would be the gold standard of climate and everything higher than that is bad... especially when that "pre-industrial" period happens to be the tail end of the Little Ice Age, which is even in our damn history talked about as a time when it was colder than it had been before, because the people who lived through it recorded it as such.
But these days different branches of science don't seem to talk much, if at all, to each other.
And then the effing so called "journalists" and "news" never seem to question the climatologists as to how they would explain things like that. Why did the Vikings leave Greenland? Why is that pollen from warmer weather plants found much further north than they can now grow? Why did the climate warm back then, and why is similar projected warming now considered to be bad when it has happened before? Why does rising CO2 seem to follow warming, not precede it in previous warming periods, even if they are admittedly fairly closely connected?
No it's not over, that analysis, like all the ones before it, will just be ignored. I think we are in the situation with that idea where we will fully get rid of it only after the scientists who got their careers pushing it are out of the picture.
Perhaps somebody should find the nitter thread and put a link here, so that even those people who aren't on X can read those facts. Perhaps somebody, for example, might want to send that link to a friend who isn't, even if they themselves are.
For those of you who say they don't want any immigrants: consider that her type can at least balance a bit your own liberal Americans, maybe even sometimes change the minds of those who haven't gotten their minds already frozen and can still think. If you keep taking in the ones who get it, who fully understand what your founding fathers were looking for because they, as that woman says, have real experience of living under tyranny, you may have a better chance of keeping your freedoms. Get them to speak in schools, just get them to speak in general, and tell why they prefer MAGA, what it is really like when you don't have freedom because they have the real experience, and maybe they can lower the number of at least younger people who get brainwashed by the liberals.
They loved Trump once too. When he was "just" the businessman and the TV star, ran in the same social circles as the Clintons and other Dem stars, and seemed even to be friends with many of them, and didn't rebel too obviously against their politics. Presumably for the same reasons why Musk did what he did, it seemed to be necessary for achieving what they wanted to achieve, when their main goal was the success of their businesses and the uniparty ruled the land.
As far as I am concerned, the main part is that you can't do any major structural changes on the base level. XX will remain XX, XY will remain XY, no matter what the outside looks like. A trans "man" is a female playing, to some extent, the role of a man in society, and they can never take that role fully due to their basic construction. A trans "woman" is a male doing the same, with the same caveat. At best any trans person is somebody in an in-between situation, not able to become the opposite sex they claim they want to be, but unwilling to embrace what they are, and so stuck to being an actor trying to play the role of what they'd like to be.
Now I do think people should have the freedom of choice to do that, with the caveat that they should not try to push themselves into what they are not fit to do, like males competing in sports reserved for females because they have an unfair advantage there due to their genetics, or trying to lie about their actual sex when looking for partners for sex or especially marriage.
So I'm okay with trans people in general, and willing to play along with their roleplaying, but if, and only IF they are willing to admit that it is roleplay, not a real change. A transwoman is a transwoman, something that will remain always as a separate category from biological women, same with transmen. So it is a mental disorder, but there are plenty of those that can still allow the person having them to fit into society without causing any major problems for themselves or anybody else, as long as they want to do that, and are willing to fit in.
That tolerance stops however when they start to demand that we'd pretend they are no different from the real men and women.
And I'd reserve a special category of hell for those troublemakers - seems to be mostly men - who don't even bother to try to disguise themselves well enough that you might actually mistake them for the opposite sex, like men who just put on a bad wig and lipstick and then look for situations where they can raise hell because somebody "misgendered" them. For heaven's sake, at least TRY a bit more if you want to do that roleplay.
Makes sense, especially now when he is just starting to work and clean up that place. Maybe in a year or two he can start to trust that his security detail would not include any black hats, at least by then he can get men who have been more thoroughly vetted.
What is interesting is how hard governments and MSM etc tried to deny the existence of UAPs, whatever they may be, because there is SOMETHING going on. One explanation may of course be simply that they have no clue, and didn't want to admit that because they thought it would make them look weak, so the preference was to keep their, and our, heads in the sand and just hope it would either go away, or at least never do anything else than it had been doing, which was little enough that it remained possible to most try and ignore the whole thing.
But then there is also the possibility that the governments, or at least some people in high positions, actually do know what UAPs are, or know at least part of it, and maybe even have gotten those rumored crashed ones, and have been able to benefit from those in some ways, but are keeping it all under wraps so that only they can keep on doing that. Or they know they are a threat, and are preparing ways to keep themselves safe in one way or another, but just them, maybe offering the rest of us as a sacrifice to the whatevers or who knows what.
On the other hand, when WWI started several of the European countries were still the really big players of the world, running things with their colonies on most other parts outside of Europe too, especially the British Empire. And even though the British Empire was starting to lose a lot after WWI it was still sort of around when WWII started.
Now... their importance has maybe shrunk a bit?
Hm. Maybe do what used to be the common way with music: strip the rights to the product from the original creators who turned out to be monsters, and let others to use them to make their own versions. Lots of old popular songs were done and redone a lot of times before some version became the established one that we now remember. Nobody seems to really know who originally created the music for the song we now know as "Yankee Doodle Dandy", for example, and the lyrics changed several times before the now known version was written down.
So: let some other film makers, like let's say Angel studios, or anybody who wants to do it, make new versions of the Star Wars movies, with different actors, and then continue the story with their fully own films. Let writers take Stephen King's stories and use whatever bits they want of them, perhaps somebody could rewrite something like IT where the kids who defeat the monster finally do it with the help of the towns church's pastor. Take Jagger's music and let others do as many covers with somewhat different versions or rewrite the words to their own liking.
That way we could keep what was good but remove it and its connection to the original makers, maybe permanently.
A lot of them may be a bit regretful after the honeymoon period when they find out that Islam tends to take things a bit more seriously than European Churches have for a long time now, and they are actually supposed to obey the rules of that religion, like not consuming alcohol or trying out several sex partners before considering marrying. Sure there may be some who actually find the tight rules sort of comforting, but a lot of them are probably doing that more as a lark rather than having any serious conversion, because it seems like something of a trend and others are doing it and they want to stay fashionable, and maybe a bit rebellious etc. and sooner or later they will want to revert back to the more fun freer lifestyles, if they even ever really wanted to give those up.
He has really liked the role he got to play, as the heroic leader admired by everybody. Doesn't like that the plot got changed and he suddenly found the actual role was about to be revealed, that of a villain, a cheat willing to sacrifice his people to keep up his position in the eyes of the outside world (who knows what Ukrainians now think of him, for real...). The worst part for him may be that he knows he isn't even the archvillain, really just one of the bigger henchmen working for the real villains. Way less important for the real plot than he would like to be.
BTW, if you want to put an optimistic spin to why the release of the Epstein files was delayed again: perhaps they want them to be the big news of the day or week when that happens, big enough that even the MSM sources can't just bury that news to some page nobody usually reads, or ignore them completely, especially if they have some "interesting" names like maybe Clintons, so that plan was changed and that release was left for later when they started to think that that meeting might blow up one way or another.
Mars isn't really habitable, yet, but as I assume Musk to be a science fiction reader, and somebody who wants to live in a certain type of science fiction story, even that might be manageable, although terraforming would take generations.
But it will happen only if you start it at some point. And while it is a huge challenge, there are people who like challenges. Presumably Musk is one.
And as I have said before, if he is familiar with Robert A. Heinlein's work, or more, even a fan of it, his life seems to parallel that of the protagonist of the story "The Man Who Sold the Moon", of business tycoon D. D. Harriman who spends his entire life and career to fulfill his childhood dream, of getting men to the moon and establishing a colony there. But that story is a prequel to an earlier story, called "Requiem". In that we found out that Harriman himself, while turning space flight into a possibility and helping to establish that colony, never got to live there himself. He had become too important to his companies to leave them, and when he finally retired, his doctors did not give him the clearance to get into a rocket.
So in that story he sneaks to a rocket operated by one man, and bribes him to get him to the moon. And he finally gets there, but his body was too weak, and he lives only long enough to die on the surface of the moon (in a spacesuit), but he is happy as he finally got to fulfill that childhood dream. The man who took him there leaves his body there, with the poem "Requiem" by Robert Louis Stevenson scrawled on a tag from an oxygen bottle. To him Moon was his obsession, and the home he wanted to go to.
"Under the wide and starry sky Dig the grave and let me lie: Glad did I live and gladly die, And I laid me down with a will! This be the verse you grave for me: Here he lies where he longed to be; Home is the sailor, home from sea, And the hunter home from the hill."
And Heinlein's point in those stories, as in most of his stories, pretty clearly is that men like that are the reason why humans have gotten where we are, spread everywhere on Earth, with our technology making our lives much easier that it used to be (or were at the time of the writing of those stories, Requiem was published 1940, The Man Who Sold the Moon a decade later, a time when a lot of science fiction writers were optimistic about the future), and off Earth as the next challenge.
Heinlein's stories always also pushed for freedom - the freedom to have, and to do, what you want in your life, whether it is just to work and have a family, or if it is to conquer space.
And another repeating theme in Heinlein's, as those of several other science fiction writers of that era, when it comes to that personal freedom to live your life as you want to live it: there is no place left on Earth where you could go and create a place where you could live exactly as you want to, you always have to adjust to the views and cultures of the people already there. So if you don't want to spend your life trying to either persuade others to adopt your ideas, or to become a tyrant who takes over and forces others to adopt them, pretty much the only alternative you would have left is to conquer space and establish a colony somewhere else with like minded other people. Lots of those stories in science fiction, as well as those where the protagonist of the story has to escape an Earth that has become too oppressive to some colony somewhere out there where they can be free, or at least more free...
My guess is that that may be the mindset of Elon Musk. He may think of himself as D. D. Harriman of the real world, the one who gets us to Mars.
Or his wish to be a true pioneer. If somebody took one of those first ships to America they mostly didn't plan to return, they "wanted to die" in the new world. But the aim was to build a new life for themselves there first, and just after that to become a permanent part of the place, part of the soil where their descendants would live. That is not a "death wish".
BTW, his dealings with women rather sound like something from Heinlein's later era stories too. Heinlein was mostly a pretty strong conservative with his stories otherwise, but he did seem to have swallowed the whole "free love" idea of the hippies even if he didn't take all that much else from them, that and nudity as something that should be normalized.
Guy was a pretty mixed bag when it comes to ideas, his earlier novels are good, but after the early sixties, when he could get sex in them, they start to get weird, lots of that "free love" stuff, sometimes including incest in the later novels. But one thing he always got in was that making babies is good, and that should be one of the goals of having sex, not an accident to avoid. Seems to have been a believer in gun rights too, those he never wrote as something that should be eliminated or that might be bad.
It is a bit hard to guess though how much of those "free love" ideas were something he actually fully believed in, how much he put into his stories because he thought it might make them sell better. He also does seem to have been somebody who liked to play with ideas in general, and seem to have used other things most as a start for thought experiments, a "what if", like "what if we got a society where this was the norm" etc.
So - Musk pretty strongly gives the impression of somebody who perhaps grew up especially on the Robert A. Heinlein stories. Just him using "Grok" for his AI version, that word is from the Heinlein hippie era bestseller "Stranger in a Strange Land".
We and everything else alive, that has been not just humans. Seems to be a pretty fundamental aspect of life in general, to expand, to conquer what hadn't life there yet. Get life to where it wasn't yet. If you think that we all were created by what we call God, maybe you might think that that perhaps that might be something our creator "programmed" into life in general.
There hasn't been much information about his reading or movie watching habits, but the general impression I get is that of a science fiction fan, and somebody who maybe grew up reading a lot of the so called golden age fiction. Especially maybe Robert A. Heinlein.
Which had a lot of stories that made the future with all its technological improvement seem like a fun, exciting time you'd want to live in, even with the occasional setbacks.
So what I get from him: he is somebody who wants that future, he wants to live in that future he maybe daydreamed about in his childhood and youth. His whole life parallels that of a certain fictional character from Robert A. Heinlein's short story, "The Man Who Sold the Moon", D. D. Harriman, a man who wanted the moon in his youth and then spends his whole life getting people to go there, and no, he didn't do that as a scientist, he did that by making money and making it financially possible, becoming one of the world's richest men in the process (or the richest, it has been a long time since I last read that).
Sounds like Musk, doesn't that? Musk wants Mars, but that kind of sounds like the end goal everything else is used for for him. All those other companies, and maybe his involvement now in politics and support for Trump might be mainly so he can get Mars. Some of his companies are maybe only so he can get the money for it, others so he can help others to invent the technology that will make it easier, and that might be also neuralink etc, not just SpaceX because you want to be able to do things there when you get there, not just do it like we have so far done with the moon, get there and quit.
Yes, that is what is said, but if there were anything else, like names for whom they haven't got good proof that they were actual clients I'd presume they would be left out, without explaining anything. Because I'd assume they would not want to point fingers and ruin the lives of anybody who might be innocent, just in case said person actually was innocent. Blackstone's ratio - "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" - and all that.
Too ambitious for her own good, or addicted to publicity. Although yes, it is possible it was staged. But if she is still alive she is really probably too addicted to publicity to stay hidden for the rest of her life, so if any new "influencer" who looks like her surfaces in the next months, or few years latest, well, considering how internet works somebody will presumably find it.
Or somebody will tell. They ended up telling about that "Ghost of Kyiv" not too long afterwards too, presumably because too many internet sleuths figured it was a fake.