I meant to include this with the last post, but forgot. It is a list of 33 reasons to rejoice that the Climate Change movement is on the ropes. Some of them strike me as significant, such as 1,6,9,11,16,19 and 32. The rest are marginal. The Mann v. Steyn outcome is cause for celebration, even schadenfreude, but is not over yet. Greta Thunberg is really just growing up some, moving on to new targets for her angst. Maybe someday she’ll be a conservative. The rest could be said to be retrenching, I fear. This ain’t over, not with all the money and power behind it, and we all know, here at least, that Trump is just a sock puppet. I like what I see coming from him on climate and energy, don’t understand tariffs or why he is moving on them, and deportations seemed designed to enrage the left. I know in my heart of hearts that he is as phony as Al Gore’s climate angst.
Each of the 33 is linked, so have fun if you have time.
Over 30 items here: Evidence that the climate scam is collapsing
Piece of Mindful 
Another informative article about the tariffs I came across –
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-tariffs-global-economic-reordering-by-mark-blyth-2025-04
Blyth explains how this move, despite surface appearances, reflects a shift in approach by the ruling class, and both parties have to get on board. Of course the pols’ job is to sell it as their own nutty passion, and take ownership, whenever they are in office. And the out of office, to act shocked and appalled.
He gives some plausible and defensible reasons for why they would make this radical course change, although one can imagine other agendas less agreeable being in play.
LikeLike
Tim Ozman has an interesting take on the climate change schism between left and right. Much of the right, which has a foot in alt right media, takes chemtrails very seriously. Ozman points out that this gives them their own sort of “climate fear” or sky paranoia, whatever. So left/right both have their own version of the same essential narrative. While mocking the other sides’ belief. And both are not “scientific,” (as understood by most adherents) but more of a reflexive, religious belief structure, appealing to their subconscious or intuitive biases and worldviews.
LikeLike
Compare to the similar propaganda approach with JFK etc, where it doesn’t matter what theory you believe as long as you believe the essential narrative element of his having been shot. And Ozman has other examples, where left and right seem wildly opposed, but have been given mirrored narratives.
LikeLike
So what happened to the genealogy article on MM? I see he posted his article from way back. Honestly, who the hell cares about genealogy? And I give this as strong criticism of MM and his hypothesis. It’s always the weakest, most useless parts of his research. I agree with Mark that his is fair game. So someone is someones ancestor, whoopee. I have never had a conversation or meeting with any scientist at any level where that point came up.
By the way I have mentioned before i am directly related to Anne Boleyn, and the founders of Delaware and Virginia. No one in America cares. Really. I didn’t know until I researched it myself. My paternal grandfather owned a restaurant and worked a lumberjack on the side. Theres millions upon millions of people like myself. It means nothing.
LikeLike
Moreover Miles likely obsesses over genealogy because he has some big shot ancestors. Congratulations Miles, we’re all so impressed. I remember reading Lord Mountbatten in his biography obsessed over his genealogy and ancestors. It’s the same as patriotism, a false pride in other peoples achievements. And I don’t think the powers that be rely on blood relatives for everything – I certainly wouldn’t trust anyone based on familial relations. Most humans are alike, the whole idea these people are superior is complete crap.
LikeLike
Last, I just remembered the best argument against the significance of genealogy. If the mailman was your grandpa, your cucked. Or adopted. Tracing a family tree means nothing unless your grandmas were always faithful. I remember hearing a study years ago that said a significant percentage of recorded births were the products of cucks.
LikeLike
I remember a really insightful line by comedian Chris Rock talking about marriage and choice of mates, speaking to guys, who said “Remember, you were not her first choice.”
LikeLike
Ray –
I’m kind of in the middle between these poles of extreme certainty and extreme skepticism.. There’s certainly a lot of literature, movies, pop culture etc all about “blue bloods” and their concern over good marriages, bloodlines, the peerage, etc. Plus a huge scientific enterprise from at least the late 19th century, concerned about evolution, genetics, eugenics, and so on. And religions going back millennia, obsessed over a lot of these questions.
Of course it’s likely many in the extended family would fall away, but maybe some core of the really big families do maintain a continuity? And have techniques honed over time that insure it? I don’t know.
LikeLike
Ray is probably right about cucks, that a lot of stray dogs get over the fence, but then we have things like Hapsburg chins and those long long downward tilted noses and only somewhat barely passable morons like Gates and Charles III to suggest that inbreeding does lower quality, necessitating new blood being brought in to mate and produce cucks so that the royals can carry on.
LikeLike