I was turned on to Vivaldi's "Four Seasons" in 1995 while reading Reginald Lewis' autobiography "Why Should White Guys Have all the Fun." Of course I'd heard parts of the work throughout my life in movies, commercials, and even cartoons, but it was after reading how Lewis would sit in his private jet and listen to the piece that I was compelled to purchase it for myself. I bought three versions that week and numerous versions since. Lewis was my idol, a blue collar guy from a rough Baltimore neighborhood, who went to Harvard and became a star on Wall Street.

His drive to achieve unlimited personal goals and attain wealth made the American Dream more accessible to me. Four Seasons is the perfect soundtrack to such a dream - it's real live harking back to a time when climate change wasn't an excuse to confiscate money but to celebrate life and challenges that come with life. Here is the sheet music and sonnets:

 
Spring has come and joyfully the birds greet it with happy song, and the brooks, while the streams flow along with gentle murmur as the zephyrs blow.

There come, shrouding the air with a black cloak, lighting and thunder chosen to herald [the storm]; then, when these are silent, the little birds return to their melodious incantations.

And now, in the pleasant, flowery meadow, to the soft murmur of leaves and plants, the goatherd sleeps with his faithful dog at his side.

To the festive sound of a pastoral bagpipe, nymphs and shepherds dance under their beloved roof, greeting the glittering arrival of the spring.

Summer
In the harsh season scorched by the sun, man and flock languish, and the pine is on fire; the cuckoo begins to call and soon after, the turtledove and the goldfinch are heard singing. Zephyr [the west wind] gently blows, but Boreas [the north wind] suddenly enters into a contest with its neighbor, and the little shepherd weeps for he hears the awesome threatening storm and his fate.

To his tired limbs rest is denied by the fear of lightning, awesome thunder, and the furious swarm of flies and hornets!

Alas, his fears are justified. The sky is filled with thunder and lightning and hail cuts down the proud grain.

Autumn
The peasant celebrates the pleasure of the happy harvest with dances and songs; and inflamed by the liquor of Bacchus, many end their rejoicing with sleep.

The mild pleasant air makes all abandon dance and song; this is the season that invites all to the sweet delights of peaceful sleep.

The hunters, at the break of dawn, set forth with horns, guns, and hounds. The animal flees, and
1
Charles Payne

Charles Payne

Charles V. Payne is a regular contributor to the Fox Business and Fox News Networks. He is also the Chief Executive Officer and Principle Analyst of Wall Street Strategies, Inc. (WSSI), founded in 1991 which provides subscription analytical services to both individual and institutional investors.

Most Recent Articles

Join the Debate
50 Comments So Far
« Previous1Next »
dhr Wrote: Mar 06, 2013 2:30 PM
Mr Payne, I watch you every day on Fox Busiess Channel with Varney and want to tell you how much I respect you. You are intelligent and yet, with all this nonsense going on, you retain a wonderful sense of humor. Although I don't know you, I feel as if I do and that you are a very good and kind man (in spite of what liberals might think of you). Keep up the good work in informing the public.
Roy323 Wrote: Mar 01, 2013 1:32 PM
Mr Payne-I must tell you that, try as I would over and over, "Vivaldis' Seasons" proved only one thing to me! That was that I was doomed to be a "Hillbilly" foever! I was a Beautiful piece, but I,m pretty sure I was impatiently waiting for Haggard or Jones' Next masterpiece(s). Different Strokes, You know?
I do enjoy your Daily Columns. THANKS MUCH
atpennswoods Wrote: Mar 01, 2013 7:00 AM
Very nicely done, thank you.
Original Saepe_Expertus Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 8:48 PM
I STILL AWAIT the 'Climate Change" Fraud-Mongers to explain how 'anthropogenic' issues on Earth are leading to the melting of the polar Ice-Caps..................on MARS!!!
steve1-1 Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 8:19 PM
Love your writing and your thinking! Thank you!
Simplecaveman Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 6:34 PM
Climate change is the biggest scientific fraud since the Piltdown Man.
LonePine Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 4:30 PM
Inspirational, Mr Payne. I've been arguing for at least a couple decades that the earth itself, and it's relation to the other bodies in the solar system, over the millions of years since we began the dance of life towards a cerebral cortex, has changed it's Own climates, its Own ecologys, more times than the average victim of the modern American public education system can count. I wonder if anyone has ever investigated how much all those environmental research ships contribute to climate change. Keep your powder dry.
chicaree Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 3:35 PM
warmer temperatures will result in 40,000 fewer deaths in the United States annually, saving $20.0 billion (maybe twice that now adjusted for inflation). Well now how about the extreme weather we have been having all around the world that was predicted way back in the 80's that severe weather would be the first expression of climate change. Hurricane sandy coming up on 60 billion, 2011 intense drought across the mid west came in at 40 billion, The joplin mega tornado over 2 billion and many lives lost just to name a few. 2010 saw the heatwave and fires though-out Russia, Australia has suffered first record breaking floods and this past year heat waves that broke all records at 120 degrees. OH YEh climate change isn't really real.
Snarkasterous1 Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 12:39 PM
"In Greenland warmer temperatures have helped fishing and even hastened the return of daily cattle."

Wow - daily cattle - are those the Holsteins cross-bred with fruit flies?

; -)

- Snark
hboring Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 2:38 PM
I suspect it's "dairy" cattle.
JennyO2 Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 10:07 AM
Michael2006 is correct, we have the brains to plan for any negative effects of a warmer planet. Whether it's warming, cooling, or maintaining is something to which we either can or cannot adapt. The media don't tend to think globally about the climate, just the northern hemisphere. It's hot in the US or Europe, but it's colder in S. America and Australia. It's called "the weather." Stop wasting money and killing the economy over it.
JennyO2 Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 10:29 AM
I loved this column, by the way. The poetry of the seasons, the beauty of flowers blooming thru the snow, a day at the beach, the crisp chill of an October football game, might as easily be set to Simon & Garfunkel, Mozart, Janis Joplin, or in Charles Payne's case Vivaldi.
Chris from Kalifornia Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 9:54 AM
Vivaldi's The Four Seasons is about one of the most boring pieces of classical music around. Bleh!

If you really like classical music you should try this:

Alexander Glazunov: The Seasons

Far better if less well known. For me, I like rousing music like Mussorgski's Pictures at an exhibition as arranged by Saint Saen or The Bachanalle from Samson & Delilah.

If you want to compare music to Politics you could do no better than to compare Washington DC to Mussorgski's "Night on Bald Mountain" as portrayed in the Disney movie "Fantasia".
Casey92 Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 9:12 AM
FBI stats say there were 8668 gun murders in the US last year. More than 75% were
by black/latino gangs over "turf" or drugs. Why are we afraid to address this stat?
A pundit on Fox Sunday past said that gun murders were reduced in New York by
50% because of the stop and frisk laws. If an automatic, without judicial interference,
3 year sentence were initiated for having a gun not registered to you, this would stop
the majority of these probelms. I don't think it is possible to stop the "loonies."
Casey Koehler
hboring Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 2:41 PM
Stop and frisk without probable cause is unconstitutional. SCOTUS has held that felons do not have to admit carrying a weapon, as it would violate the 5th amendment against self incrimination!.
strebor Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 8:11 AM
Well ya know if you seek music to make a point.

Behold "The Man who shot Liberty Valance."

That tune is a parable unto itself.
M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 7:46 AM
Payne has moved into the second stage of climate denial. "Yes, the globe is getting warmer but it will be good for us."

He selectively quotes a few papers while ignoring the vast majority of research that show mostly negative aspects of a warming climate.

Yes, the climate has never been warmer than now, but humans were not around. Our entire economic and agricultural society has been structured around a climate that is now rapidly changing. Payne prefers to ignore the real threat and instead is happy that people in Greenland can now raise cattle.
Michael2006 Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 8:14 AM
The real issue is not whether the climate is warming. Perhaps it is. If it is, the question becomes, "to what extent is human activity responsible?" - and further: "if human activity is the primary forcing mechanism for warming, will ceasing or reducing that activity retard the advance of the warming or decrease it?". This is, by no means, determined. Therefore, the most appropriate policy decisions should focus on how to protect targeted areas of the world from the potential negative effects of a warming planet. Not hobble economic activity via cap and trade or treaties mandating reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.
M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 8:43 AM
Current warming is primarily driven by human activity.

How do we know?

It is true we don't have a "control" earth to see the difference but we can also look at what we know about basic physics. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it has been increasing for the last 150 years. (Anthropogenic CO2 has a different isotopic signature than natural CO2). Solar activity is often a driver of climate change but there has been no increase in it to match the warming we have seen. We know from paloeclimate studies the level of warming tied to CO2 increases.

Is it "proof"? No, that is not how science works. But the preponderance of evidence points to major human influences on current warming.
Michael2006 Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 9:49 AM
Odd that you would be so certain given that the scientific method never suggests certainty, only statistical significance of a hypothesis test. Nevertheless, you didn't answer the most basic question of deterministic functional relationship between reducing CO2 emissions and reductions in warming. Nor will you be able to because it cannot be empirically determined. Formulating climate simulations to generate favorable outcomes is not an acceptable alternative either.
Chris from Kalifornia Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 9:57 AM
Actually the climate historically has warmed then the CO2 increased. Not the other way around.
M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 10:23 AM
"Actually the climate historically has warmed then the CO2 increased. Not the other way around. "

Yes and no.

Paleo records show that the periodic cycle of glaciation is about 40K years and it is initially driven by the differences in solar insolation caused by the Milankovich cycles. However, this small change in solar energy is not sufficient to drive the climate change. Instead the warming of the ocean causes the release of CO2 and this is the major driver. Recent studies show that in the southern hemisphere, CO2 does precede warming.

So CO2 is a driver of climate and the current warming is being effected by CO2 not changes in the earth's orientation.
M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 10:30 AM
Certainity? I believe I said the preponderance of evidence.

Would reducing CO2 reduce curb warming?

There is a large amount of warming that is yet to be seen since the climate reacts slowly. So, even if we stopped all CO2 today there would still be some warming in the pipeline.

Assuming we have not gone beyond a tipping point, where the natural feedback take over and continue the warming, we should see global temperatures stabilize is we can hold the CO2 under a threshold level.

David3194 Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 11:20 AM
The "science" behind global warming is to start with a theory and change the experiments to fit the theory. First, are we warming? How do you measure to "One percent" when there are constant geographical and instrumental changes? Why follow carbon dioxide when it represents 0.3% of the atmosphere when water vapor, another greenhouse gas, represents 70% of the atmosphere? Why blame changes on CO2 on man when it naturally fluctuates and any planetary increase will be sucked up by phytoplankton in the ocean? Who says temperatures of the earth must remain constant? And who in their right mind would say that giving money to the government would change the temperature of the earth?

Just asking.

Dave, AZ
Retchemist Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 11:44 AM
All the CO2 absorbed into the water systems of the world does not come out due to the formation of insoluble metal carbonates. Even more is removed by microscopic plant life. This may be one reason why the CO2 measured is actually lower than models predict.

It is true that as the temperature increases, less CO2 is absorbed by the water, but as the temperature increases, more water vapor is put into the atmosphere.

Water vapor is much, much, much better at warming the atmosphere than CO2. Global average for CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 ppm. The global average for water vapor is > 2,000 ppm. If these numbers are true, there is no way that CO2 generated by man could be a significant contributor to global warming.
Snarkasterous1 Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 12:45 PM
And so the utter absence of actual global warming over the most recent 17 years fits how, exactly, with your near-certainty that CO2 is the primary driver?

Um....not at all? Yep, that's the right answer.

You alarmists are actually quite funny....ice age coming in 1970s, scorching heat in the 2000s.....what's next, flood of in-law visitations?

The only constants in libbies' endless alarmism is the pursuit of huge research grants, and advocating for more, and larger, and more intrusive government programs and "solutions."

No thanks, libbie. I'll just wait 'till you alarmists move back to warning us about the next ice age.....shouldn't take long....

- Snark
Andy583 Wrote: Mar 01, 2013 8:15 PM
"Solar activity is often a driver of climate change but there has been no increase in it to match the warming we have seen."

Complete nonsense! The Solar data was fudged by the IPCC. http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/judithgate_ipcc_consensus_was_only_one_solar_physicist

Sorry but the "preponderance of evidence" in no way supports AGW. The true test of a theory is it's predictive skill.

"The IPCC model shows a prediction accuracy of 7% and the atmospheric system model an accuracy of 75% for the same most recent 21 months of time…" See one is based upon Co2 "Models" and the other on "Observations". http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/24/finally-a-climate-forecast-model-that-works/
Andy583 Wrote: Mar 01, 2013 8:16 PM
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said,


“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”

Consider the following tests:

(i) Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%.

Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails.
Andy583 Wrote: Mar 01, 2013 8:17 PM
(ii) During the 20th century, a global warming of between 0.4O C and 0.7O C occurred, at a maximum rate, in the early decades of the century, of about 1.7O C/century. In comparison, our best regional climate records show that over the last 10,000 years natural climate cycling has resulted in temperature highs up to at least 1O C warmer than today, at rates of warming up to 2.5O C/century.

In other words, both the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. Hypothesis fails, twice.
Andy583 Wrote: Mar 01, 2013 8:17 PM
(iii) If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature.

In fact, the opposite relationship applies at all time scales. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5 months during the annual seasonal cycle, and by about 700-1000 years during ice age climatic cycling. Hypothesis fails.
Andy583 Wrote: Mar 01, 2013 8:17 PM
(iv) The IPCC’s computer general circulation models, which factor in the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, project that global warming should be occurring at a rate of +2.0O C/century.

In fact, no warming at all has occurred in either the atmosphere or the ocean for more than the last decade. The models are clearly faulty, and allocate too great a warming effect for the extra carbon dioxide (technically, they are said to overestimate the climate sensitivity). Hypothesis fails.
Andy583 Wrote: Mar 01, 2013 8:18 PM
(v) The same computer models predict that a fingerprint of greenhouse-gas-induced warming will be the creation of an atmospheric hot spot at heights of 8-10 km in equatorial regions, and enhanced warming also near both poles.

Given that we already know that the models are faulty, it shouldn’t surprise us to discover that direct measurements by both weather balloon radiosondes and satellite sensors show the absence of surface warming in Antarctica, and a complete absence of the predicted low latitude atmospheric hot spot. Hypothesis fails, twice.
Andy583 Wrote: Mar 01, 2013 8:19 PM
Summary

The current scientific reality is that the IPCC’s hypothesis of dangerous global warming has been repeatedly tested, and fails. Despite the expenditure of large sums of money over the last 25 years (more than $100 billion), and great research effort by IPCC-related and other (independent) scientists, to date no scientific study has established a certain link between changes in any significant environmental parameter and human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.
Andy583 Wrote: Mar 01, 2013 8:20 PM
In contrast, the null hypothesis that the global climatic changes that we have observed over the last 150 years (and continue to observe today) are natural in origin has yet to be disproven. As summarised in the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), literally thousands of papers published in refereed journals contain facts or writings consistent with the null hypothesis, and plausible natural explanations exist for all the post-1850 global climatic changes that have been described so far. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/global-warming-anthropogenic-or-not/
Andy583 Wrote: Mar 01, 2013 8:28 PM
"Would reducing CO2 reduce curb warming?

There is a large amount of warming that is yet to be seen since the climate reacts slowly."

Over 16 years of no warming despite an increase of Co2 by 10% says otherwise.
Hawker 1 Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 8:46 AM
"Climate has never been warmer than now" Never ever have I heard such outright lies as I am now hearing every day from the most goofy ,stupid kool-aid drinking fools peat and repeat leftist. I wonder just what they think they will get from the producers in the long run from such lies. I guess they are like the ticks on a dog they do not care as long as they get their bellie full of someone else's hard earned life's blood.
Hawker 1 Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 8:54 AM
Give me a phone , give me a home but not where the Buffalo roam I want it where you are from . I want what you have but do not ask me to work to earn it for you have stolen it from me via slavery in every from. You owe it to me for my savor has told me so.
So give it up and work harder to provide it to me for you owe it to me and my 20 chillen for my savior has told me so.
Hawker 1 Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 8:55 AM
Jim69 Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 9:54 AM
How about a correction for "savor"? Why capitalize "Buffalo"? Why no period after roam?
What does it mean :"...stolen it from me via slavery..."? I think you mean children but who knows given your other remarks.
M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 10:16 AM
Sorry, that should read

"Climate has been warmer than now"
Roy323 Wrote: Mar 01, 2013 1:40 PM
Jim69-C'mon now! You ever lived in Mississippi, Georgia etc--""chillun/chillen" is absolutely part of the Lingo. Ya Heah?
Snarkasterous1 Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 12:42 PM
yep, "rapidly changing" - by what, less than a degree C per century? Yikes! A veritable rocketship....were one to make up a model (not one of which accurately predicted the 17-year hiatus on warming that has actually happened in the real world) and tweak the inputs so that a "hockey stick" endless acceleration of warming were extrapolated for centuries, one might be able to scare enough people to win huge research grants, and to garner support for yet more governmental control over others' lives! Yippee!

Yep, "RAPIDLY changing" - if one is a libbie imbecile. How about NO CHANGE IN the most recent 17 years......is that "rapid" in your addled comprehension?

- Snark
RickeyB Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 1:58 PM
Everyone check this out - two German physicists have published a peer-reviewed paper which they say proves that CO2-caused global warming violates laws of physics:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Reginald10 Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 4:13 PM
"Humans were not around?" Sez who?

In Roman times, and again in the "Medaeval Climate Optimum" (at the beginning of the Renaissance), farmers were growing grapes (for wine) in England. It's been too cold there for the past several hundred years. Only recently have some vineyards had limited success in growing grapes.
So it's really just getting back to where it's been, during the best climatological times of history.

And we're still coming out of the last Ice Age, so it SHOULD be getting warmer!
M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 4:51 PM
"In Roman times, and again in the "Medaeval Climate Optimum" (at the beginning of the Renaissance), farmers were growing grapes (for wine) in England. It's been too cold there for the past several hundred years."

of course, you should tell them...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2010/may/21/english-wines-vineyard-stays-uk
Andy583 Wrote: Mar 01, 2013 8:32 PM
The Medieval Warm Period - A global Phenomenon

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
GWashingtonComesToTown Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 5:58 AM
For those concerned with the destruction of our freedom, liberty, loss of jobs, higher income taxes, and an out of control government (check out):

www.constitutionliberty. com


Sign up for the Newsletter!

Thanks.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 3:59 AM
I love all the classical music, but then I played French Horn in Band and Orchestra.
Yes, the "Global Warming" or man made "CLIMATE CHANGE" is the biggest hoax to come along for many years. We aren't even yet as warm as it was BEFORE the little ice age in the 1600's when they farmed on Iceland and grew grapes in Newfoundland (VINELAND) and they made wine in Sweden and Norway.. Let us NOT forget why "Greenland" was named and settled too.
Andy583 Wrote: Mar 01, 2013 8:41 PM
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/pics/10_000_years.jpg
« Previous1Next »