CBC makes a fool of itself – again

Today, May 14th, the “Tops News Headlines” section of the CBC website has the following headline on top: “More people could be hit by global ‘ransomware’ cyberattack Monday, police agency warns”.

Do the CBC reporters not read news from other sources? Consider the following news item which was on the BBC website yesterday.

Global cyber-attack: Security blogger halts ransomware ‘by accident’

Yes, this particular cyberattack is over. For some background here are some relevant tweets, in chronological order, from the twitter feed @MalwareTechBlog. This Twitter handle is registered to the guy who accidentally stopped this cyberattack.

May 12

From what I can gather the NHS ransomware is WannaCrypt (wcry) spreading using P2P exploitation of SMB with leaked NSA exploit.

May 12

Some analysts are suggesting by sinkholing the domain we stopped the infection? Can anyone confirm?

Retweeted

propagation payload contains previously unregistered domain, execution fails now that domain has been sinkholed

Retweeted

Infections for WannaCry/WanaDecrpt0r are down due to registering initial C2 domain leading to kill-switch

May 12

I will confess that I was unaware registering the domain would stop the malware until after i registered it, so initially it was accidental.

May 12

So long as the domain isn’t revoked, this particular strain will no longer cause harm, but patch your systems ASAP as they will try again.

  3h3 hours ago

Thanks to who found what looks like a new ‘kill switch’ domain and who registered it and transferred it to our sinkhole.

Retweeted

My bad – finished analyzing all worm mods we have and they all have the kill switch inside. No version without a kill-switch yet.

Yes CBC, you read that right. This “particular strain” of cyberattack is over because the virus will go check for the domain name and execution will fail. A new cyberattack will require a different virus code which doesn’t rely on checking for the status of this domain name. You should have known this two days ago.

It is strange that after every Ottawa Senators playoff game this season, CBC has been able to find “8 tweets that defined Game….“, but the reporters cannot find tweets relevant to other news.

American political hysteria

People I know and like, and people I hardly know, are going out of their minds with Trumpophobia. I have been approached recently on several occasions by people overwrought with fury and consternation about Donald Trump. One fellow even was boasting of a German passport he had recently obtained, saying that he could consider emigrating to the centre of the free world, Frau Merkel’s Germany. I am not making this up. I look forward to his discovering how actually free Germany is, with its tumultuous Muslim problem, its anti-free speech codes, and its thought policing. And as he is probably a Jew, I also look forward to his discovering how well his religion and ethnicity goes over in militantly anti-jewish Muslim circles and with German greenies. But of course he was only posturing; if he acted on his mistaken principles I might actually have respect for his mistaken position.

Other, less virtue-signalling Americans are droning on relentlessly of Trump’s supposed subordination to Vladimir Putin, the fixed election, the calumny, the stupidity, the venality, the awfulness of Trump.

This summer I confidently expect to have to endure the Democrats whining constantly during their summer migration and stay in the village where I have my country place.

I have some advice:

Shut up!

You are being tedious beyond any reasonable limit!

I am fed up with your whining. I am not interested. Go away! If you persist in this,  Trump will drive you into chemotherapy, catatonia, or dementia.

To quote the Master, Oscar Wilde,

-in matters of society, it is not a question of being right or wrong, but of being charming or tedious.-

And you are all being tedious in the extreme. Get over yourselves. Talk by 60 year old seriously privileged white people about -resistance- to Trump is more fatuous than you can imagine.

“In China, you cannot criticize the government, but you can criticize Darwin”

Said a Chinese paleontologist:

“In China you cannot criticize the government, but you can criticize Darwin. In the United States, you can criticize the government, but you cannot criticize Darwin.”

One of the books pushed aside by Whittaker Chambers’ Witness has been “Darwin’s Doubt”, by Stephen C. Meyer, which I have now resumed. I confess that, the more I read into Darwin and Darwinism, and I read a lot about Darwinism, it is evident that:

  • He published two entirely distinct theories of evolution, natural selection and sexual selection.
  • He published “The Descent of Man, or Selection in Relation to Sex” thirteen years after “The Origin of Species”.
  • Accordingly, natural selection is not a complete theory of evolution. A complete theory explains all the facts in its purview. The Origin of Species does not pretend to do so.
  • The fact that Darwin published two distinct theories means that he did not consider that natural selection is a complete theory of evolution. (This is to his credit as a serious scientist).
  • It follows that, if two theories of evolution have been promulgated by the greatest biologist of the 19th century, there may be more mechanisms or explanations for evolution.

The longer you look into the question, as a lawyer examining evidence, the more you are compelled to conclude that the case for the origin of species in naturalistic or purely materialist theories is unproven. The Darwinian case is plausible; it is not proven. Nor can such a thing ever be proven. It can be argued, and argued persuasively, but it is beyond human capacity to prove,

Natural selection cannot be a “fact” in the sense in which that philosophical illiterate Richard Dawkins speaks. It is and will always remain a theory, more or less – I would argue less – plausibly demonstrated. Evolution may be an observed fact, but whether it occurs through natural selection exclusively or by other causes is, as Darwin attested,  an answered question. It occurs by at last two forces: natural and sexual. Whether there is a third or fourth cause of evolution has not been established, but in principle it cannot be ruled out.

And we get this far merely by noting that Darwin promoted at last two theories of the causes of evolution of species.

When will people take account of this obvious fact? If two theories were promulgated by Darwin maybe

a) natural selection was thought insufficient by the Master himself;

b) maybe a third or fourth explanation is equally available

We can get this far without any discussion of intelligent design whatever.

Now you may be ready for this movie.

In the United States, you can criticize the government, but you cannot criticize Darwin. I recall Francis Bacon saying that if he had the ability, he would burn all of Aristotle. I understand now why he wanted to do so. It was not Aristotle, it was the position that the Church had put him in. And Darwin has been similarly quasi-deified by a materialist establishment.

 

You heard it here first

Female sexual restraint  is the basis of civilizational progress.

The matriarchy disincentivizes male energy.

The matriarchy is the result of female liberation.

A feminist future is an oxymoron.

Feeling better now?

By way of contradiction, if this video represented the whole truth, why are Islamic societies so fucked up? Disposable male energy is obviously not the whole answer, else these Islamic  fuckheads would be running the world, as they think they ought to be, but so clearly are not. So there must be some other factors at work besides female chastity and suppressed sexuality that make for progress. Free inquiry?

 

Whittaker Chambers 2

Continuing with Witness, I want to cite some of the reasons that Whittaker Chambers cites for the enormous vituperation and calumny that fell on him from all sectors of the American intelligentsia for his denunciation of Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy. My fascination with this case rests upon my belief that, if anyone sufficiently on the inside of the global warming catastrophist conspiracy, published a book saying, in effect, ‘here was where we doctored the evidence, and these were the climate scientists who did it, and this was what we intended to accomplish’, that man would be denounced and vilified in terms akin to the well-organized outrage that greeted Whittaker Chambers in 1948-1950.

Chambers cites two sources of this outrage: snobbery and psychiatry.

In accusing Hiss of Communism, I had attacked an architect of the UN, and the partisans of peace fell on me like combat troops. I had attacked an intellectual and a ‘liberal’. A whole generation felt itself to be on trial – with pretty good reason too, for its fears probably did not far outrun its guilt….The “conspiracy of  the gentlemen” closed its retaliatory ranks against me. Hence that musk of snobbism that lay rank and discrepant over the pro-Hiss faction.”

There was another, less tangible bond between those circles, which, together, accounted for a large part of the articulate American middle class. Both groups lived fairly constantly in the psychoanalysts’ permanent shadow, and few articles of furniture were less dispensable to them than a couch. And they shared a common necessity. Since my charge against Alger Hiss was that he had been a Communist and a Soviet agent, and there was besides, the Grand Jury’s perjury indictment, a good deal of clear and simple evidence that he had been, something, anything at all must be believed rather than the common-sense conclusion. The old masters -Freud and the author of Psychopathia Sexualis – were conned again. No depravity was too bizarre to ‘explain’ Chambers’ motives for calling Hiss a Communist. No hypothesis was too preposterous, no speculation too fantastic, to “explain” how all those State department  documents came to be copied n Hiss’s Woodstock typewriter. Only the truth became too preposterous to entertain.” (p. 698)

Only the truth became too preposterous to entertain.

When a whole generation commits itself to an error of this monstrous kind, such as Communism was and global climate catastrophism is, you may be sure that it will defend itself against self-knowledge by any means possible.

In the book, Chambers discusses an evening spent with a Czech exile after the Second World War, in which American politics was the subject. The Czech exile disagreed with his American host on something, and had occasion to say the following. [I paraphrase]

“Ah! but you have it wrong. The reason for this is that the American working class is Democratic, and the American middle class leans Republican, but the American upper class is Communist”.

An exaggeration, but not by much. There is something about $100,000 or more in a trust fund that causes its beneficiaries to go totally soft in the head. I know of no surer method to make someone ideologically leftist than inherited wealth, which so often engenders feelings that one “owes” society something more than one’s own good behaviour. From those to whom much is given, much is owed – and all that privileged background stuff. It reliably produces a vain self -importance which is dangerous to society in general.

It also leads to the betrayal of that society for its failure to live up to the absurd demands of over-privileged snowflakes.

In the 1920s and 30s the number of people benefiting from unearned wealth were few; nowadays it seems that the leftism which used to be a preserve of the truly wealthy has become a mass middle-class phenomenon.

 

 

Whittaker Chambers

 

Whittaker Chambers (1901-1961) was, from his mid twenties until his late thirties, a Communist and a spy for Soviet military intelligence (the GRU), who departed the Communist Party and his spying, and became a senior editor of Time magazine. He was a very gifted writer, and wrote a truly great book, Witness. His insights into what Communism was, why it nearly succeeded, and the enormous difficulty many Americans had in believing that there was anything the matter with the Soviet Union, are relevant to this day.

Books I read compete for my attention. I keep three or four on the go and more ready to to take up the slack at any time. At the moment, Witness has blown past the other respectable contestants by a furlong and is heading down the track to claim the prize.

People of a certain age will be forgiven for not understanding how much the 20th century was shaped by the Communist promise. It fell like Sauron’s Barad-Dür in 1989, contrary to every respectable opinion leader in western society, except the true hardened east European anti-Communists, to whom no one paid much attention.

Whittaker Chambers remarks that the driving force of Western intellectuals supporting the Party was not a belief in the economic doctrines of Marx, which hardly anyone read, but the promise of an egalitarian society and the end of material want. The age old and senseless suffering of man could at last come to an end, and if it took a few crimes to achieve it, then it was worth it. They had the Plan. No one else did.

It must be recalled that the Soviet Union, betrayed in its alliance with Hitler, took most of the casualties of World War 2. There was deep-rooted appreciation for the Soviet Union and its wartime sacrifices across most sectors of enlightened liberal opinion until at least 1948 and longer. The desirability of central planning of the economy was an assumed truth in almost every quarter of literate opinion. I recall George Orwell reviewing a book by Hayek, the Road to Serfdom. Orwell was aghast at Hayek’s bold denunciation of central planning of the economy. Says Orwell:

Professor Hayek denies that free capitalism necessarily leads to monopoly, but in practice that is where it has led, and since the vast majority of people would far rather have State regimentation than slumps and unemployment, the drift towards collectivism is bound to continue if popular opinion has any say in the matter.

But the vogue for central planning was underlain by a deep seated belief that Communism had the correct blueprint to understanding and acting in history.

Chambers’ view of Communism was that one could serve it for many years, and still not penetrate to its essence. Then, sooner or later, one would hear screams in the night.

Whittaker Chambers wrote:

What Communist has not heard those screams? Execution, says the Communist code, is the highest measure of social protection. What man can call himself a Communist who has not accepted the fact that Terror  is an instrument of policy, right if the vision is right, justified by history, enjoined by the balance of forces in the social wars of this century? Tose screams have reached every Communist’s mind. Usually they stop there. What judge willingly dwells upon the man the laws compel him to condemn to death – the laws of nations or the laws of history? (page xliv)

What provoked my interest was a passage much further along in the book concerning why the vast mass of American bien-pensants  revolted at the notion that Chambers was right in denouncing well-born native Americans who were part of his spy apparatus. Readers of this blog may be expected to have heard names like Alger Hiss or Harry Dexter White but may have forgotten the enormous brouhaha that erupted across the United states when in 1948 Chambers was summoned to publish his  accusations by a Congressional committee. Quite simply, he said these people were part of his spy ring. He knew so because he picked up documents from them weekly for years for the purpose of microfilming and passing on to Colonel Bykov, his GRU controller. Chambers was not believed by many liberals, and was sued by Alger Hiss for slander twice.  Hiss eventually went to prison for espionage. His guilt has been more than adequately proven by subsequent decrypts of Soviet signals traffic.

Chambers had to deal with the enmity of those who believed that Communism was basically a force for good in the world, and that he was wrong or mentally unbalanced for believing otherwise. Speaking of these “liberals”, Chambers wrote:

They were people who believed a number of things. Foremost among them was a belief that peace could be preserved, World War III could be averted only by conciliating the Soviet union. For this no p[rice was too high to pay, including the price of wilful historical self delusion. Yet they had just fiercely supported a war in which one of their ululant outcries had been against appeasement; and they were much too intelligent really to believe that Russia was a democracy or most of the other upside-down things they said in defense of it. Hence like most people who have substituted the habit of delusion for reality, they became hysterical whenever the root of their delusion was touched, and reacted with a violence that completely belied the openness of mind which they prescribed for others. Let me call their peculiar condition… the Popular Front mind.

The Popular Front mind dominated American life, at least from 1938 to 1948….Particularly, it dominated all avenues of communication between the intellectuals and the nation. It told the nation what it should believe; it made up the nation’s mind for it. The Popular Fronters had made themselves the “experts”. They controlled the narrows of news and opinion. And though, to a practised ear, they never ceased to speak as the scribes, the nation heard in their fatal errors the voice of those having authority.  For the nation too, wanted peace above all things, and it meant it could not grasp or believe that a conspiracy on the scale of Communism was possible or that it had already made so deep a penetration into their lives.”

Does that remind you of something?

97% of scientists believe that ….?

Anthropogenic global warming?

Climate change?

I am waiting for the Whittaker Chambers of the anthropogenic global warming movement to write his book on the scale of the deception, the skullduggery and the extent of the conspiracy. It will be resisted to the same extent that Whittaker Chamber’s testimony was, and by the same sorts of people. The AGW thing has not arisen to totalitarian power anywhere yet, but not for want of trying.

In any case, for any number of reasons,  Witness makes for compelling reading, not least because it is a great story well told about the struggles of the 20th century, and of a man and his God.

 

True believers

Totalitarian sumptuary

 

Last night we were talking about Trump, and my friend accused me of being a ‘true believer’. I took his meaning to be that I had suspended my critical faculties in regard to Trump.

So I have had occasion to self-interrogate: am I a true believer? Do I, or have I, suspended critical analysis?

If the accusation had come from a fanatic for Hillary, it might have been dismissed. But he is not blind, and is mostly shrewd. My friend was strongly against the second Iraqi invasion, and ranted for about ten years about Iraqi civilian casualties, to the point of being  insufferable at times. In the perspective of history, it can be argued that the second Iraqi invasion by the United States was destabilizing, a waste of resources, and accomplished nothing. It might even be argued that Saddam should still be  on the throne, even if it meant that Saddam would get away with killing 30,000 Iraqis a year, as was his wont. It can certainly be argued, as the late George Jonas did, that Saddam should have been deposed and hanged, and the US should have got out shortly after his capture.

So my friend can be right at times for bad or poorly articulated reasons. Same as me, I suppose.

To the best of my ability, I try to stay skeptical about Trump, without succumbing to enthusiasm. What bugs me about the anti-Trumpians is the same as the global warming catastrophists: their opposition seems demented and irrational. The arguments always seem to come down to a firm belief in their own moral righteousness, deviation from which is not merely error, but sin. Their arguments come down to mantras like “97%”, or virtue signalling, and professions of their moral superiority, Trump’s manifest limitations of character, and hence their correctness.

But I keep thinking, what if that crazed fucker actually solves a world problem or two? What would it be like to have an Iran which was afraid of the United States? A North Korea that was relatively pacific? A China that was working constructively with the US? A Canada without milk marketing boards? [to reduce it to the purely local]. A United States with a simplified tax system and lower rates?

To be a conservative is to be concerned with error, particularly one’s own. A system of government designed around the reality of fallibility results from concerns for error, for over-concentration of power, for the excesses of popular will.

I happen to think the constitution of the United States goes too far in dispersing power, and that a great deal of the irresponsibility of its constituent parts derives from an excessive concern for a recurrence of George III. Nonetheless, I continue to suspect the political system can turn at any moment into tyranny when popular enthusiams are not sufficiently constrained.

Does that make me a tory? Yes. Does it make me a conservative? Well yes, but of a liberal society.

What mostly concerns me about the anti-Trumpians and the global warming catastrophists is a shared conviction of their righteousness, and an imperviousness to evidence. No amount of evidence seems enough to jolt them from their doctrinal assurance.

Who is the true believer in that case?

 

 

Jews, Hindus and Anglicans

Explanations are sought. They can be racial, cultural, or selective on any basis whatever, such as recent immigration policy in the US.

_________________________________________________________

I got an immediate response from Arran Gold, from his mountain fortress.

His explanation for the rankings are:

1. Subterfuge

2. Affirmative action

3. White privilege

Tobermory responded:

Hilarious, Arran! And yet, Episcopalians are privileged beyond whiteness (like most “old money” in the US, the Bushes attend that church). For those who have had the pleasure of a visit to Maui and taken the 10,000-ft drive up to the top of dormant volcano Haleakala, you may have noticed that at sea level are store-front evangelical churches attended by native Hawaiians, at 1000 ft are Baptist churches, at 1500 foot elevation are Presbyterian, and at a balmy, eternal-spring 2500 ft are Episcopalian churches, surrounded by large Tudor-style homes with rose gardens, i.e. exactly mirroring their ranking in the chart 🙂

 

Tacitus on the Germans

 

Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian, prose stylist, senator, consul and provincial governor.  He lived roughly from 56 AD to after 117 AD. He wrote a famous description of the German tribes, their lives, and customs, called Germania. Read it.

“For myself, I accept the view that the peoples of Germany have never contaminated themselves by intermarriage with foreigners but remain of pure blood, distinct and unlike any other nation.  One result of this is that their physical characteristics, in so far as one can generalize about so large a population, are always the same: fierce-looking blue eyes, reddish hair, and big frames – which, however, can exert their strength only by means of violent effort. They are less able to endure toil or fatiguing tasks and cannot bear thirst or heat, though their climate has inured them to cold spells and the poverty of their soils to hunger.”

What I most admire in books written before late 20th century governmental and self-imposed censorship is the treatment of different peoples in terms that are always more accurate than not because they are racial, tribal, or national, as appropriate.

It is not racist to discuss races in racial terms. What is so shocking to us is that people did so freely and without malice or condescension before about 1960. This is what they were like, these authors tell us.

You can read the same unselfconscious frankness in Thomas Jefferson’s discussion of black people in his Notes on Virginia or Francis Parkman’s descriptions of the Hurons, Iroqouis, French and English in his great works of early North American history.

That is what was so surprizing about these authors: their complete freedom to describe people as they saw them, without a Human Rights Commission on their back.

We are not living in a time of intellectual freedom. We are living in a time that future generations may well call a Great Darkness.

50 million years ago

The Daily Mail has carried an article which says that:

Scientists today announced that levels have reached record highs of 410 parts per million which could snowball over the coming years causing global catastrophe.

If the trend continues experts say by 2050 we will have levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that have not been seen for 50 million years.

By 2050? Despite all observed warming being consistently less than IPCC estimates, let us just take this fable for truth, shall we? Let us just ignore how much ice there is still to melt in Greenland and Antarctica, and contemplate what it was like when the earth was much warmer than it is now.
How hot was in back there in the Eocene era? And how much CO2 was in the atmosphere?

The graph above serves as a proxy for what has happened to the earth’s climate, though it measures only polar ocean conditions. It immediately establishes on gigantic fact, that they do not tell you about in newspapers.

The world has been getting colder for about 50 million years.

For the early Eocene there is much discussion on how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere. This is due to numerous proxies representing different atmospheric carbon dioxide content. For example, diverse geochemical and paleontological proxies indicate that at the maximum of global warmth the atmospheric carbon dioxide values were at 700 – 900 ppm[7] while other proxies such as pedogenic (soil building) carbonate and marine boron isotopes indicate large changes of carbon dioxide of over 2,000 ppm over periods of time of less than 1 million years.[8] Sources for this large influx of carbon dioxide could be attributed to volcanic out-gassing due to North Atlantic rifting or oxidation of methane stored in large reservoirs deposited from the PETM (Paleocene- Eocene Thermal Maximum) event in the sea floor or wetland environments.[7] For contrast, today the carbon dioxide levels are at 400 ppm or 0.04%.
When was this thermal maximum? According to Wikipedia, 49 million years ago. Close enough to 50 million for the purposes of the discussion.
What were the conditions at this thermal maximum?

The poles were largely or completely ice-free.There was little or no glaciation anywhere.

The middle to late Eocene marks not only the switch from warming to cooling, but also the change in carbon dioxide from increasing to decreasing. At the end of the Eocene Optimum, carbon dioxide began decreasing due to increased siliceous plankton productivity and marine carbon burial.[7] At the beginning of the middle Eocene an event that may have triggered or helped with the draw down of carbon dioxide was the Azolla event at around 49 million years ago.[12] With the equable climate during the early Eocene, warm temperatures in the arctic allowed for the growth of azolla, which is a floating aquatic fern, on the Arctic Ocean. Compared to current carbon dioxide levels, these azolla grew rapidly in the enhanced carbon dioxide levels found in the early Eocene. As these azolla sank into the Arctic Ocean, they became buried and sequestered their carbon into the seabed. This event could have led to a draw down of atmospheric carbon dioxide of up to 470 ppm.[12] Assuming the carbon dioxide concentrations were at 900 ppmv prior to the Azolla Event they would have dropped to 430 ppmv, or 30 ppmv more than they are today, after the Azolla Event
Thus, plant life in polar oceans caused a sequestration of carbon dioxide, thus reducing temperatures.

Another event during the middle Eocene that was a sudden and temporary reversal of the cooling conditions was the Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum.[13] At around 41.5 million years ago, stable isotopic analysis of samples from Southern Ocean drilling sites indicated a warming event for 600 thousand years.

Six hundred thousand years – longer than there have been anatomically modern humans. We only left Africa 50-30 thousand years ago.

A sharp increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide was observed with a maximum of 4000 ppm: the highest amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide detected during the Eocene.[14] The main hypothesis for such a radical transition was due to the continental drift and collision of the India continent with the Asia continent and the resulting formation of the Himalayas. Another hypothesis involves extensive sea floor rifting and metamorphic decarbonation reactions releasing considerable amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.[13]

At the end of the Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum, cooling and the carbon dioxide drawdown continued through the late Eocene and into the Eocene-Oligocene transition around 34 million years ago. Multiple proxies, such as oxygen isotopes and alkenones, indicate that at the Eocene-Oligocene transition, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration had decreased to around 750-800 ppm, approximately twice that of present levels.[15][16]

Observe that, in conditions utterly without human influence, CO2 levels were ten times what they are now, and then reduced by natural actions to twice what they are now.

The article also shows that fossils of cold intolerant reptiles and tropical plants have been found in the high Arctic. Axel Heiberg Island is possessed of a large petrified coniferous forest. Imagine feathered dinosaurs stomping about in polar darkness through sequoias and palm trees.

Again from the Wikipedia entry on Axel Heiberg island:

Over 40 million years ago during the Eocene era, a forest of tall trees flourished on Axel Heiberg island. The trees reached up to 35 metres in height; some may have grown for 500 to 1,000 years. At the time, the polar climate was warm, but the winters were still continuously dark for three months long. As the trees fell, the fine sediment in which the forest grew protected the plants. Instead of turning into petrified “stone” fossils, they were ultimately mummified by the cold, dry Arctic climate, and only recently exposed by erosion.[7]

Alas, this happy story of a warmer earth comes to an end about 49 million years ago>

The Eocene is not only known for containing the warmest period during the Cenozoic, but it also marked the decline into an icehouse climate and the rapid expansion of the Antarctic ice sheet. The transition from a warming climate into a cooling climate began at ~49 million years ago. Isotopes of carbon and oxygen indicate a shift to a global cooling climate.[12] The cause of the cooling has been attributed to a significant decrease of >2000 ppm in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.[7

Further information on the fascinating subject of how it was so warm and got so cold can be found in the Wikipedia article on the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) which is a Big Deal in for scientists seeking to understand that earth’s history and the relationship of CO2 concentrations to climate change.

Sequoias on Axel Heiberg island? Alligators in Great Slave lake? Maybe in 20,000 years. Or maybe, as is more likely, we shall have ice sheets covering North America as far south as Manhattan.  Remember, Long Island, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket are the moraines left by continental ice sheets that covered our country until a trivial 11,000 years ago.

Are we about to resume global cooling as this current interglacial comes to an end in a couple of thousand years, or next winter?

Or will we see heat such as we have not seen since the middle of the Eocene?

The earth has survived both extremes.