In my work with small children I’ve become aware that they test their limits, and therefore will test the limits of my patience. It is as if children want to see if they can wear you down. My advice to parents is to chose your battles, and then never give in. If you give in then the child learns that wearing-you-down is a good strategy, and does so with increasing frequency. (On the rare occasions when the child is actually right about something, and not merely trying to get their own way, make them wait as you reconsider; pretend to consult an expert on your phone, and so on; and then make it clear that the final decision is yours and not theirs.)

I find the same is true with politicians. They too try to wear you down. They too want to get their own way. Often they employ what is called “The Big Lie.”

 A big lie (German: große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

Joseph Goebbels developed the idea a bit further,

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

A person who loves the Truth, and who also recognizes that straying from the Truth leads to no end of needless misery, finds the above statement of Goebbels vile and appalling. One refuses to salute the lie, as a lone man refused in this famous picture.


It is interesting to focus in on the man, (whose wife was Jewish, and later died in a concentration camp, as did the man, though their child survived), and see the reactions of the men behind him. He was creating a stir, and having an effect.


It is not comfortable to be in the shoes of such a brave person, yet all who have pointed out  the flaws in the idea of “Global Warming” have stood in those shoes, for nearly thirty years, (if you take, as a “start date”, Hansen’s testimony before Congress, on June 24, 1988.)

People who have criticized even minor aspects of Global Warming have seldom had the opportunity for adult debate, and rather have been marginalized, ostracized, mocked and derided, falsely accused of being bribed by “Big Oil”,  denied promotions and funding, and this treatment has been a pain that has continued on and on, and grown worse as the “Big Lie” became more and more obvious, as more and more studies had to be hidden because they countered the balderdash, even as an entire generation of children was brought up being fed the lie like pablum.

One false factoid that always has made me wince is the “97% -of-all-scientists-agree-Global-Warming-is-real-and-a-man-made-problem” lie. Even the most precursory look at the various polls involved revealed the subsets they chose to use excluded nearly all possible disagreement.

However the fact the factoid was false didn’t stop, or slow in the slightest, our former president and former secretary of state from hauling out the 97% factoid like a stale joke, raising an index finger, and pronouncing the factoid like almighty gospel.

Their behavior made me cringe, as did the fact many in-the-know politicians were quite aware Global Warming was balderdash, as a serious threat, yet said nothing. When the former president mentioned “Climate Change” in a recent State Of The Union address, there was a palpable murmur of giggles through the audience. It was as if many were in-on-the-secret but going-along-with-it. As a lover-of-Truth, I watched with a sense of repressed horror, because such behavior on the part of public servants seemed a gross betrayal of the trust which the public has (or had) in their leaders.

I also felt pain because so many young school teachers basically teach from-the-book, without doing a great deal of research on their own, and when they were handed a book that stated that 97% of all scientists believed Global Warming was a serious threat, they trusted the book. They taught what they were told to teach, innocently becoming part of a lie.

But what hurt worst was the effect the lie had on a generation of children, especially because it was always stated the lie was “for the children”, until the very phrase “for the children” became synonymous with gross hypocrisy.

Rather than nourishing a love of nature, children feared they were breaking it. As a person who runs a Childcare dedicated to increasing children’s awareness and love of nature, this was especially obvious to me. I had to push past the preconception that walking in the forest would kill the moss you trod upon, and to replace that dread with the sense the Creator created creation because He loved us; creation was for us; it was a wonderful landscape-painting where we could walk through the frame and into the picture, with the Creator holding our hand and saying, “Do you like my painting?” The lie stated otherwise: That we ruined everything we touched, and that we should be banned from all involvement.

And so the years passed, one after another, with the pain going on and on and on. Every time I tried to point out the lie I faced cruel accusations, was called a “denier” and worse, and even read that “deniers” should be locked up, or shot. Added to my pain was an element of increasing fear.

And then, yesterday, a new president walked into the white house, and immediately removed references to Global Warming and Climate Change from the White House web-page.


I can’t describe how odd it feels. The pain is gone.

It’s weird how easy it seemingly was. It is like having a headache that goes on and on and on, until you finally take an aspirin, and then, bingo, the pain is gone.  And you think to yourself, “Why didn’t I do that before?”

Please forgive me for grousing just a bit, for we’ve had the aspirin all along. The aspirin is Truth, and I’ve been prescribing it for decades.

40 thoughts on “DELIVERED OF A LONG PAIN

    • Churchhill wrote,”It may almost be said, ‘Before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein we never had a defeat.'”

      It would be good to cross a divide such as that, though rather than “Alamein” perhaps it should be called “Alarmin”.

  1. Very nice post. When I sometimes argue with people about CAGW this works 97% of the time: “Yep, doubling CO2 raises the temp about 1 degree or so, but of course, CO2 has a logarithmic response and I think it starts saturating around 60ppm so we’re good there and then the coupled models don’t match observations so the bode feedback seems to be incorrect, don’t you agree?” Sometimes I think people who don’t take the time to try and learn the truth about something complicated just want to sound ‘science’ smart by quoting websites and scientists with a political bias like theirs and also I hate to say it but in the ‘everybody gets a trophy’ and ‘everybody’s smart’ age we’ve ended up with lots and lots of people who overestimate their own ability to think critically and scientifically. I sure hope we get back to real science, whatever the answer brings.

    • Mike,

      I do notice a deer-in-the-headlights look when I get enthusiastic about the details of arctic sea-ice at a party. It is not a subject I bring up, but when someone else brings it up I am eager to talk about the latest developments. I can see very quickly if they are talking through their hat or not. It isn’t all that different from hearing your grandmother say, “How about those Patriots”, and then discovering she thinks football is played with tennis rackets.

      It is interesting to think about whether “everyone gets a trophy” can be translated to “everyone is a climate scientist.” It would mess up the “appeal to authority” if everyone is an authority.

      One funny thing the former president did was to invite a bunch of scientists to the White House to make some point. They all came dressed in nice suits. Then it was time for the “photo op”, and white coats were handed out, so the scientists would look like scientists. The expressions on the men’s faces, as they were handed the white coats, was priceless.

      I think a certain amount of respect for authority is a good thing, but the authority in question must be polite when questioned. I lose respect when an authority dismisses the curious as know-nothings. In fact, when I meet a specialist at a party, it seems they most usually are standing alone and look a little bored, and are as delighted as can be to find someone who wants to talk about their specialty, rather than the Patriots.

      Most everyone wants to be agreeable and be agreed with. The trick is to ask questions and exchange information in an agreeable manner. However sooner or later one will discover something that needs further research. It requires more understanding. Then misunderstanding rears its head, and that tends to be disagreeable, and lead to disagreements.

      The real trick is to disagree in an agreeable manner. This is called being “civil”. Michael Mann needs to go to school, concerning being civil. When people disagree with him, he tends to sue them.

      Thanks for the thoughts. Enjoy your summer. We’re experiencing thaw and mud at the moment.


      You need to read the link I gave. The point is that the 97% number has no real basis in fact, and that the statement “the science is settled” is not true.

  2. I know the 97% figure is misleading but still, who are the scientists Mike in Chile calls having a “political bias”? Is it a small minority or what?

    Regarding expertise in complex issues, usually a PhD is the minimal starting point for real expertise on some issue. PhD + 10 years of work in the field is of course much better. There is no substitute for experience.

      • Nice quote from the super-expert R. Feynman. Lots and lots of things in the modern society require expertise earned through years of education and even more years of experience gained on the job. Things are complicated, and they will get even more complicated in the future. Encourage your children to become experts, it’s good for everyone. Don’t try to dumbify society for political gain please.

      • Hi guys, no, I don’t think that 97% of scientists are biased. My concern is that climate science that is funded by govt is looking for a predetermined outcome, and govt hopes that outcome can be used in press releases that further their cause. Research that looks for a certain outcome is not actual science, it’s ‘sciency propaganda’ in my opinion. I remember being warned about predetermined bias in 7th grade science class. Like Caleb I’m just interested in the truth as far as we can understand it given the data available.
        I like your last comment re Feynman and kids too, Styrge.

      • The problem with “bais” is that someone can be biased and not realize it. For example, in determining the so-called “97% consensus”, how many of the “scientists” were receiving grant money for AGW research?

        But, the problem is even bigger than that. How many of the “scientists” understand the physics of Earth’s energy budget, which is the key to determining if CO2 is having any effect. Does a paleontologist, botanist, biologist, or even a meteorologist fully understand thermodynamics, heat transfer, quantum physics, and the gas laws sufficiently to explain energy flows? Most likely, not.

  3. I would be more worried that research funded by private money is looking for a predetermined answer, so I don’t think public funding is the problem. Anyway, good to hear you don’t think that most scientists are corrupted.

    • Styrge, you are ignorant beyond belief at times. Research, whether public or private has the potential to be very good and absolutely terrible depending on constraints placed on the researchers. Usually there are no constraints placed beyond trying to shed light on a problem but in the case of GLO-BULL warming it became corrupt beyond belief a long time ago. I don’t think I have ever seen a situation as bad as anthropogenic warming where folks minds were made up and they didn’t want to be confused by the facts … or a situation where a tool like Mikey Mann could run so hard and far with an obvious piece of shit like the hockey stick.
      Corrupt is a hard word. But in my opinion, faced with the prospect of huge amounts of wealth and power, climate scientist chose the door with all the goodies and tortured the data repeatedly until it yielded the desired answer.
      Styrge have you ever taken any climatology courses or do you come at this problem unencumbered by knowledge?

      • Stewart,

        Thanks for taking the time to put down many of the things I would have said.

        I think it takes people time to comprehend that, at least in some cases, we are not talking about honest mistakes, but fraud.

        As I recall I got snipped from the Climate Audit site back in 2007 for using that bad word, “fraud”. I learned a lot about good manners at that site. However I think even Steve McIntyre’s patience has worn thin, after ten years of abuse.

        Let’s give “styrge” some slack. He apparently thinks “private money” has some evil power that “public money” lacks. The simple fact of the matter is that money is not evil, but loving it more than Truth is evil, no matter where it comes from.

        Thanks again. I know you are a veteran of the Climate Wars, and understand the “pain” this post is about.

  4. Stewart and Caleb, superbly written, thankyou. It happens I became a botanist then saw I had to study and experiment with Physics, atmospheric/gas/solar if I wanted to understand the rift growing between CC/AGW and reality. Much study. But it is the (Baconian) Scientific Method that make a scientist of anyone who uses it. Anywhere. Our enemies mostly have no cognisance of this, or maybe seek to hide this mighty tool for true freedom. Of course, many very successful people practice it without knowing it. As I think, Francis Bacon (check him out styrge) noticed. Learn, prove, take no one’s word for it. University study is a great way to get needed knowledge, but not the only way. We have a scientist honoured at my university, Massey, who was of great assistance to his compatriot Rutherford as they, and their student Geiger, invented Atomic science. He was unschooled in the academic sense. As for agw, Prof Woods destroyed that surmise a century ago by experiment. Pity we are dealing with fraud now….We are judged ultimately on what we do.

  5. I’m an expert in Earth Observation & Remote Sensing, not Climate Modelling. I do find it odd that whenever observed facts (about temperature, sea ice cover, atmospheric composition, glacier and ice-sheet mass-balance etc.) are published much of the “skeptic” community often jumps to deny those findings. Same applies for studies on proxies, if the results do not fit with the climate-skeptic narrative, they must be “wrong”. I such reactions unfortunate and irrational. If there has been a lot of scientific misconduct in climate modelling, I’d like to hear more about it. Which are the fraudulent studies? It’s easy to to make broad claims about biases and misconduct as long as one does not need to point out where exactly did the scientific process fail.

  6. When I saw this need this morning I was reminded of the big lie quote

    Psychological ‘vaccine’ could help immunize public against ‘fake news’ on climate change

    To find the most compelling climate change falsehood currently influencing public opinion, van der Linden and colleagues tested popular statements from corners of the internet on a nationally representative sample of US citizens, with each one rated for familiarity and persuasiveness.

    The winner: the assertion that there is no consensus among scientists, apparently supported by the Oregon Global Warming Petition Project. This website claims to hold a petition signed by “over 31,000 American scientists” stating there is no evidence that human CO2 release will cause climate change.

    The study also used the accurate statement that “97% of scientists agree on manmade climate change”. Prior work by van der Linden has shown this fact about scientific consensus is an effective ‘gateway’ for public acceptance of climate change.


    “We found that inoculation messages were equally effective in shifting the opinions of Republicans, Independents and Democrats in a direction consistent with the conclusions of climate science,” says van der Linden.

    “What’s striking is that, on average, we found no backfire effect to inoculation messages among groups predisposed to reject climate science, they didn’t seem to retreat into conspiracy theories.

  7. Here’s a good study on Arctic Sea Ice cover – it can be stated with very high confidence that current sea ice extent/area are lower than any time since the end (and therefore beginning) of the LIA (see Fig. 2), and probably lower than any time since 1200CE (see Fig.12):

    Click to access Polyak%20etal%20seaice%20QSR10%20inpress.pdf

    The scientists state: “Although this decline was accompanied by multidecadal oscillations, the accelerated ice loss during the last several decades lead to conditions not documented in at least the last few thousand years”

  8. Good morning Caleb, While I understand and appreciate the broader points you were striving to make, I hope you’ll forgive me if I point out a few items in this post that seem to be problematic. First, the veracity of the Goebbels quote you cite is possibly questionable, as described here:

    In addition, the reference to changes made to the White House website during the administration switch over, while technically accurate, is a story that has been distorted and lifted out of a much broader and meaningful context in a manner that was intended to make it suitable for broad dissemination as an enticing fake news item for the Trump-deranged media. You can read more about that here: (note: this link provides a convenient summary – by no means do I consider snopes any kind of “gold standard” for ultimate truth and accuracy). All that being said though, there’s utterly no reason to think that the Trump administration is going to obsess much over the much-dreaded global warming apocalypse : )

    Anyway, writing regular blog postings is probably a bit like hosting a radio show every day, where it’s very difficult to be 100% accurate all the time. But I understand where you’re coming from. These days in which we live are strange indeed, and I often find myself comparing them to medieval times in various key respects – the Neo-Medieval Age, if you will. So thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and ideas with others.

  9. Hi Caleb. when you quoted from Mein Kamph, you are aware that Hitler was referring to the penchant that Jewry tells big lies, don’t you? Be careful, as a truth seeker, that you seek the truth, not a misconception of it.

  10. Caleb et al: It would appear that you have attracted the ‘trollosphere’ in their desperation and destructiveness. i have run into ‘styrge’ before, also pretending expertise that was a thin veneer. I last saw ‘it’ pretending that photoshopped steam emissions were not being presented as dark evil smoke. A real nasty piece of work it turned out to be, and under another nom de guerre in its war on truth. As for the Polyak paper: “A climatic simulation by Sedla´cˇek and Mysak (in press) suggests
    that after about 1900 AD the slow increase in atmospheric greenhouse
    gas concentrations was the main driver of sea-ice changes in
    the Northern Hemisphere, while other forcings such as volcanic
    activity were mostly responsible for the thermodynamically
    produced changes in sea ice area and volume during the preceding
    four centuries. The remarkable modern warming and associated
    reduction in sea-ice extent are especially anomalous because
    orbitally-driven summer insolation in the Arctic has been
    decreasing steadily since its maximum at 11 ka, and is now near its
    minimum in the precession cycle (Berger and Loutre, 2004). ”

    can be fruitfully discounted after the word “simulation”, because we then know it is fluff pretending to be data. OH yes, styrge is an expert, but at wasting our time. As for the introduction of nazi apologia here by BP? Very strange, could get tricky, by false association. I suggest we stick to observations of events in the chosen subject.

    • Simulation = physics-based models. Anyway, I was not trying to sell anyone the result of that simulation but wanted people to pay attention to what is know about past sea-ice extent based on proxies. It is clear that the local ecosystem is very different depending whether the sea is ice-covered or not, and this leaves a signal in the sediment. Therefore we are not stuck with information of the satellite-era only.

      • My elder brother has devoted his life to studying Physics, including Chaos Theory and the fine print of Strange Attractors. He might have a thing or two to tell you about your “physics-based-models.”

        You most definitely are in awe of your “physics-based models”, and are trying to sell them, because you have been enchanted and have sold your soul to them. So don’t say you are not trying to sell them. You are obviously sold.

        I am very, very aware that the “local ecosystem” is very different, depending on whether the sea is ice-covered or not. I mean, “Duh.” You haven’t been paying attention to the “signals” I’ve talked about on this website for years.

        Even now there are no wave-washed beaches on the north coast of Greenland, and the coast consists of ice-crushed beaches. However, due to isostatic rebound, the north coast has risen in the past 10,000 years, and beaches of the past are above modern beaches. And guess what? Geologists tell us they were wave-washed, only a few thousand years ago.

        That is why I get rude and say, “Duh”, when you get high and mighty and inform me, like I’m a dope, “Therefore we are not stuck with information of the satellite-era only.”

        I am packed full of that information. The most obvious is that in Greenland the Vikings could dig graves with wooden shovels that we’d have to attack with a jack-hammer now, because the soil is now iron-hard permafrost.

        Was it warmer then? Duh.

        You are apparently impressed by certain, selective sediment studies. I have curiously looked at many sediment studies, and what impresses me is how they vary, not only from bay to bay and lake to lake and coast to coast, but in different parts of bays and lakes and coasts. Selective studies are not an overview, and sometimes are evidence of absurd bias.

        Viking Sagas inform us men were swimming in waters that have killed people in five minutes in modern times, (unless the person had a lot of blubber). Obviously those waters were warmer a thousand years ago. And therefore “proxies” that state those same waters were “ice-covered” may be stilted by the months of February and March, and not accurately reflect the entire year. However you are so in awe of those “proxies” you basically tell the Sagas, the work of long-ago men who wanted to tell us in the future what they had been through, to go get fucked.

        In like manner, though you may not mean to do so, you are basically telling me, on my own website, to go get fucked.

        You probably think you are doing me some sort of favor, by dredging up politically-funded studies, and you hope to enlighten me.

        All I can tell you is I am really, really, really tired of unenlightened people thinking they can help me. I have been putting up with uncivil behavior for a long, long time.

        This post was not meant to discuss science. It is meant to discuss how fed-up I feel, and how odd it seems to have a president who, at least at first, seems as fed up as I am.

        Time will tell if he can make any sort of dent in the nonsense of Washington DC. But this post is not about how we should pray the nonsense stops. Rather it is about feeling a little shred of hope, for the first time in decades.

        Because you, styrge, have demonstrated so little sympathy for how hurt I have felt, I conclude you an unable to see the point of this post. Therefore you are banned from further comments. For you, “comments are closed”.

        Others are welcome to advise me how I might do a better job of making my point.

    • I think you are quite right to focus on the word “simulation”, because by inventing new parameters for their simulations certain individuals can create what boils down to very different “data”.

      I tend to notice the big differences because I keep track of things like multi-year ice. Two events have puzzled me. The first is when they say the multi-year-ice is gone, but the floating cameras show it is still there. (This may explain the de-funding of the cameras.)

      The second is when multi-year ice changes in new maps of past years. I assume the new “simulation” is in such cases very much like “adjustments” in the temperature record. Multi-year ice suddenly appears in the older maps, where the Nimbus satellite showed open water, whereas multi-year ice abruptly disappears in more recent maps. In the end the “simulation” produces a sequence of maps of multi-year ice steadily decreasing, and this is very impressive to naive people like “styrge” who trust and are made chumps by data manipulators. However old grouches like me just say, “Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! What about the old maps? How do you erase the old data?”

      Rather than simply explaining, and answering my question, the data-manipulators have been kicking sincere questioners in the groin for decades.

      All this post is about is how a person who has stood for honesty and truth, and been kicked in the groin for it, feels.

      I probably shouldn’t have brought up Hitler. That always seems to wind up being a mistake. However this is not so much a scientific post as a touchy-feelly post, saying how I feel.

      Obviously I will have to revisit this subject, because some obviously just don’t get it.

    • Sorry, I was not trying to be tricky – and I’m not a troll! Some day when I have more time, I hope to do my own online writing, and when and if the day comes, I think that if I wrote something that was possibly in error, I’d appreciate to have it pointed out it to me. At any rate, I think I made my appreciation for the sentiments of our esteemed blog host pretty clear, or at least tried to do so.

      • No offence taken. I don’t mind being told I should research another view. A lot of times I wind up discovering my vast repository of facts and trivia contains an urban myth I thought was fact.

        What I do mind is being told I should look at what I have already looked at, which is what “styrge” does.

        If my feathers are ruffled, it is due to “styrge” and not you.

  11. Styrge – Tony Heller had a nice example of multi year sea ice and the games that are played & I believe it was Jan 2016 at which time for example the two year ice becomes three year ice but comparing the 2 to 3 outlines you could see that a bunch of ice was disappeared to stop the multi year ice from increasing unconveniently. Lots of games are played with the sea ice and masks for example and the most blatant that occurred recently was DMI disappearing their one sea ice graph in time for the Paris meeting since it wasn’t showing the politically correct decline. I could never get my head around DMI’s claims for why the graph should be thrown in the bin or how exactly the masks were causing a problem. Anyway it is practices like that which get Caleb and I more skeptical of fair play by the warmists.

    • I “disappeared” styrge’s last comment because he has exceeded his quota. If I don’t cut him off he will bore me to tears by saying the same old thing and posting the same old charts. Anyway, this wasn’t suppose to be a sea-ice post.

      Thanks for pointing out that observation that Tony Heller made, about the “disappearing” ice. Unfortunately I don’t think styrge wants to look beyond his favorite graphs, charts and maps.

      O well, I figure if he doesn’t mind sea-ice being “disappeared” then he won’t mind being “disappeared” himself.

      • “…then he won’t mind being “disappeared” himself.”

        Well done, and well stated!

        (Although, we do so enjoy the fanatics….)

  12. Hmm …. I was replying to a Styrge comment that seems to have disappeared …. no matter.
    After I posted I also thought of the time when Susan Crockford pointed out to the US Alaska folks that they were showing no sea ice in a significant area of the Beaufort but their own polar bear tracking collars showed the bears they were tracking clearly hunting seals on ice which they said wasn’t there. Caught in a lie as clearly as a child with his hand in the cookie jar.
    A fine example of the old saying “figures don’t lie but liars figure”.

    • Yes, I did disappear the fellow. Enough’s enough.

      That Susan Crockford observation is just one more in a long list. As the years go by and the Alarmists never learn I just get sick of them. This post is more of an expression of the emotion involved in being a Skeptic for a long, long time, than any sort of scientific study.

      • Caleb – I get the feeling that a major problem is that us geezers are pig headed enough to believe our lying eyes and the young uns need a computer model to tell them which way the wind is blowing 😉
        By young uns I don’t mean ur children … they have yet to be assimilated by the collective.

  13. You don’t have to go back the the Vikings to find examples that clearly show that places have cooled. All you have to do is go back to the last century in the good old USA and see how the citrus industry was driven south from near Jacksonville in the far north of Florida during 1900 to south of the I-4 corridor (Tampa to Orlando) by the year 2000. There were far more damaging, tree killing freezes during the 2nd half of the 1900’s than during the first.

    • Interesting. I read somewhere they were trying to grow oranges in Georgia in the 1800’s. There must have been some warm years, for them to attempt it.

      The same seems to happen in Brazil, only it involves coffee rather than oranges, and they push the limit to the south rather than to the north.

      When I am fabulously wealthy I am going to hire a poor young person who can’t get a job because he majored in “History”, and put him to work studying oranges grown too far north and coffee grown too far south. It might teach us a thing or two about the ways our climate is fluctuating.

      • No coffee grown down in Chile. I think it’s warm enough but not wet and humid enough in the north of the country (Atacama Desert region is a tad dry). They do grow some tea though. They are big tea drinkers here although Starbucks invaded about ten years ago with some forty or so stores in Santiago now. Still, when we moved here three years ago we has a hard time finding a coffee pot that was the larger US size. One they had in one store was bright red with a picture of Elvis on the side ( no idea why) but we mistakenly passed on it. Now the bigger pots are more common but it’s still actually 40% cheaper to buy ground coffee from Starbucks than the grocery store. About $9 vs $15 for a half pound!

      • When I was but a young grad student whelp in Florida back in the early 80’s, I had the good fortune early one spring morning to visit a local tourist location outside of Orlando called the Clermont citrus tower. At the time, one could ascend the tower to behold a lovely view of thousands of surrounding acres of commercial citrus groves – the all-pervading scent of blooming citrus flowers was a truly wondrous sensory experience. By the time I left Florida, a series of devastating freezes had already wiped out the plantings (with emergent Brazilian competition driving in the final coffin nails). While the tower still stands to this day, the magnificent view of the central Florida citrus industry that it used to offer is utterly “no mas”. Things happen; climate changes.

Leave a Reply to Stewart Pid Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.