The Ice Age Cometh! Forget Global Warming!


FOTCM Member
Some interesting information: The black line in the graph below shows the Antarctic sea ice extent of 2020 so far. The Belgian dr. who keeps a close eye on such developments writes: "Sea ice on Antarctica is still growing with the same speed and magnitude as the 20-year reference average. There is however more ice than the last 3 years." He makes a joke at the end saying that this will probably be all over the news.

In this tweet he shows a graph by the Danish Antarctic Research Institute which shows an increase of 400 gigatons of ice sheet in Greenland since Sept 2019.

Perhaps also interesting is that in one of his tweets he links to a paper (Kalisa et al. 2020) by climate scientists in China, UK, Nigeria and Rwanda that shows no increase in droughts in East Africa.

Another: He often points out that the temperature in cities is a bit higher than temperature measured in the countryside. In the graph below you see the difference in the surface temperature between land and ocean. He writes: "Climate alarm followers are worrying about an increase of temperature of 1.5 degrees Celsius since measuring began in 1850. Most of the warming however can be attributed to concrete and asphalt in the area of the measuring stations. The surface of Earth is 70% water, therefore there is practically no warming."



There was heavy snowfall in the Altai village.


On Thursday, September 10, a snowstorm struck the Altai village of Tashanta, located in Kosh-Agach district.

The first snow that covered the streets and houses melted a few hours later. Altai publicists report that they saw snow in other parts of the republic, though not in such numbers.

The village of Tashanta is located in a mountainous area at an altitude of 2 thousand meters above sea level. Locals regularly observe sharp changes in the weather - snowfalls in late spring and early autumn are rare here, but not unique.



I have a feeling that Trump is in the know about an upcoming ice age. Take a look at his remarks recently with the California National Guard starting at around 5:18:

President Trump Delivers Remarks at Ceremony Recognizing the California National Guard

He says "It'll start getting cooler, you just watch". He also says "science doesn't know actually" in response to a statement saying that he should listen to the science behind the "official" climate change viewpoint. A few people are heard chuckling after hearing trump say this stuff and the guy on the far right is seen smiling after too!

How current and future policies are influenced by this would be interesting to witness if we are to have Trump in the white house again, which is likely.


FOTCM Member
I have a feeling that Trump is in the know about an upcoming ice age

Yeah, I was just commenting on Trump's remarks. It's just another thing that Trump gets right, he sees through a lot of BS. His reply to the guy who said science doesn't agree with him, "Well, I don't think science knows, actually", is hilarious and shows how Trump is not scared to confront the BS and won't back down. And he's right!


Meteorologists have run out of names for cyclones (storms and hurricanes) in the Atlantic.

News (in Russian) - Второй раз за всю историю наблюдений закончились имена для циклонов

Southeast of Cape Verde, the 21st storm of the season formed, which was given the last name on the list - "Wilfred".
Storms are now given names based on the letters of the Greek alphabet (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, etc.). The 22nd and 23rd cyclones have already received the names "Alpha" (in Portugal) and "Beta" (in the Gulf of Mexico).
This happens only for the second time in history, the first was in 2005, when 6 letters of the Greek alphabet were used.
WMO uses 6 lists of male and female names, which are in alphabetical order. If a storm brings severe destruction, then its name is no longer used. Name lists include 21 letters, not 26, since it is difficult to choose 6 names for 6 lists that start with the Latin letters Q, U, X, Y and Z. Names meet certain conditions - they are recognizable, there is also a balance between English, Spanish and French names.
At the same time, the name by the letter of the Greek alphabet is not excluded from the list in the event of especially destructive consequences, since they are not used often enough.

P.S. Thus, in this 2020 we ALREADY have 23 cyclones and before the 2005 "record" (Hurricane Katrina was this year), there are very few cyclones of 27.
Wikipedia gives graphs according to which the peak of cyclones occurs in September-October. The most unpleasant months are yet to come.

2005 (Katrina): 2005 Atlantic hurricane season - Wikipedia

2017: 2017 Atlantic hurricane season - Wikipedia

2018: 2018 Atlantic hurricane season - Wikipedia

2019: 2019 Atlantic hurricane season - Wikipedia

2020 (as of September 20): 2020 Atlantic hurricane season - Wikipedia


FOTCM Member
The British edition of the Financial Times recently published positive reviews for two books that contradict part of the global warming narrative. Such a stance is unusual for the MSM who have been supporting the Global Warming agenda for decades.

Now, the question is why did the FT publish these two positive reviews? Is it just to maintain a veneer of balance, while 99% of the published articles are pro-warming and 1% disagree with this narrative? Is it because, as suggested by the article below, FT realizes that a pro-warming editorial line hurts its readership numbers? Is it the beginning of a change of the MSM narrative concerning the climate? Is it because those two books don't really address the core issues of the warming narrative - from the review below, one book deals with the polar bears population numbers and the other one dismisses any apocalyptic outcome?

It's difficult to say at this point. I guess future will tell.

British FT Positive Review for Two Climate Skeptic Books

September 18, 2020


Financial Times Logo
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The British Financial Times, like most British mainstream media, normally takes a radical green pro climate action stance. So it is a pleasant change to see the FT arguing against accepting every wild climate claim at face value.
Are cooler heads needed on climate change?
Two controversial authors take aim at the scare stories — and puncture a few myths on the way.

There was a time not long ago when one of the visual metaphors of choice for our planet’s sombre future was a sad looking polar bear standing on a fast-diminishing ice floe. As carbon emissions belched into the atmosphere, rising temperatures were devouring the bears’ icy habitat and threatening their starvation.

Yet there was something wrong with this picture. There was no real evidence that polar bear numbers were collapsing. According to estimates compiled by the Polar Bear Specialist Group, part of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, bear numbers have actually been going up — from roughly 15,000 in 1970 to about 26,500 today.
It’s a fallacy explored by Bjorn Lomborg in his book, False Alarm. The main threat to polar bears was not changing climate, he claims, but (now curbed) wild hunting. “If we want to protect [polar bears], rather than dramatically reducing carbon dioxide emissions to try to tweak temperatures over many decades with a clearly uncertain impact . . . our first step should be to stop shooting them,” he writes.
Lomborg’s is one of two books that set out to challenge what one might call “climate miserabilism”. The other is Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger, an American environmentalist turned pro-nuclear campaigner. They explore the way in which climate policy is increasingly shaped by emotive, alarmist and sometimes misleading messages.

Many will take issue with some of the detailed arguments. Is the Paris agreement really as expensive as Lomborg says? Are extreme weather events really the phantoms that both authors claim?
But these books provide a corrective to many of the green assumptions that dominate the media. And if they make the world a little more questioning of the next polar bear story, that is no bad thing.
The books covered by the FT review are False Alarm by Bjorn Lomborg and Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger.
I don’t want to get too excited. Even The Guardian occasionally publishes stories which contradict their usual green narratives. But just maybe FT is starting to notice that some of their audience is getting fed up with reading a constant stream of tired green negativity, day after day.


About 15cm of snow fell in Kyrgyzstan.


On the night of September 18, snow fell in Talas region of Kyrgyzstan, said district governor Zamir Sydykov.

Local authorities and farmers estimate the area under snow-covered crops.

Pastoralists managed to drive cattle out of pastures. However, the harvest remained untilled. In rural municipalities, damage is assessed.

Snow cover reached 10-15 cm in some places. There were traffic jams.




Source:About 15cm of snow fell in Kyrgyzstan.


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Tropical Storm Beta Makes Landfall On Texas - The Sun Awakens - Climate Fraud Exposed - LIA Science
Premiered Sep 22, 2020

Strong agitation and return of the #neige at the end of the week #pyrenees early episode in sight

A change of weather is approaching that will take us directly to autumn days, with highs of 20 ºC, snow and winds. we tell you


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Recently a sudden and potentially unprecedented mass die-off of migratory birds occurred in New Mexico and elsewhere, which appeared to have killed hundreds of thousands of birds, and perhaps even millions, scientists estimate according to Science Alert.

The article mentions the recent 'cold spell' but focuses mainly on the West Coast wildfires as a cause due to smoke inhalation and smoke which could have forced the birds to change their migratory routes, which in itself might have exhausted the birds.

However, in this article from Electroverse, researchers at the University of New Mexico think the birds died of starvation due to the record-cold and snow.

Researchers at the University of New Mexico believe it was the RECORD COLD WEATHER that caused the hundreds of thousands of birds to fall from the NM skies earlier this month, due to a lack off edible insects and hypothermia.

For weeks social media was ablaze with speculation and theories, and it being social media, one cause was permitted to take-flight: the California wildfires. However, objective science has now spoken and, as usual, it completely contradicts the mainstream narrative.

According to UNM Ornithology PhD students Jenna McCullough and Nick Vinciguerra, who were busy collecting samples around the Sandia Mountains while the parrots on SM were blindly tweeting #climatebreakdown!, the historic Arctic front that rode anomalously-far south on the back of a meridional jet stream flow was the primary cause of the deaths.



FOTCM Member
Now, the question is why did the FT publish these two positive reviews?
It's difficult to say at this point. I guess future will tell.

For sure there seems a "veneer" approach, yet it makes me think of the C's on overlapping camps (not those words exactly - think it was more in line with circles). Without searching the exact words, they are overlapping and yet at odds with each other in terms of outcomes, and when to pull the trigger (or not to pull any trigger). We see that camp A did just that this past spring under the guise of covid, under the already established programmed mechanism of AGW, and the changes they can enforce. Camp A (here described by CJ Hopkins as 'GloboCap') may result in camp B having further losses (obvious this has/is happening), and camp B (not perfect) does not appreciate it, a camp with their own ideas - and perhaps some shared societal ideas of a better nature. Then there is the possibility of a camp C that may yet align with camp B, and both may be closer to the people.

Reading old history from three hundred years ago, the printing presses operated to attack or defend differing positions (of course this has been a constant); in the interests of political/economic camps, and sometimes it was done in creative ways against those with wishful thinking aligned against the people, and carefully done over time with a final chapter outside their initial 'veneer' (to use your word again) that people could no longer ignore having captured their sensibilities (also factoring their wallets and stomachs). Back then, the oligarchs survived or they were semi-defeated by the pen, the tower and bars - and worse, with the traditional public's loud voices taking over the charge. With the way things are going, camp A will have a harder time defending their AGW leaning Tower of Pisa, let alone their covid-fizzle that anyone who can read a graph can see, and then there are their designs for our electronic bondage (perhaps the capstone of their tunnel vision of utopia) that appeals to some, rejected by many. Thus, they can only enforce for so long (while causing a lot of damage in the interim) until the pendulum again moves the other way. Unfortunately, the stack is loaded, and a lot of powerful people have taken a knee.

Looking back into history, and one might think it does not change, it is not just one or the other in camps, there are the anti-oligarch oligarchs, the anti-imperialist imperialists (or monarchists et cetera). One might say there are anti-banker bankers, the anti-democrat democrats, the anti-republican republicans, just as there are the anti-journalist journalists and anti-globalist globalists caught where they are, so nothing is ever clear or settled - jockeying for positions in their overlapping and opposite ways - switching alliances (both STS and STO driven).

One never knows what can happen.

Back to polar bears in the FT article you quote, Pierre, noted Bjorn Lomborg in his book had said:

“If we want to protect [polar bears], rather than dramatically reducing carbon dioxide emissions to try to tweak temperatures over many decades with a clearly uncertain impact . . . our first step should be to stop shooting them”.

Can appreciate him dispelling one fallacy of the AGW crowd, yet he inserts another that does not make much sense in terms of the population reference (the reality of the arctic) and stopping the hunting of them, which is limited anyway, with the exception of the Inuit who do not harvest for food and clothing and who have quotas and may face deductions for when they kill them in self-defense (that is a problem for them - attacks on their communities from growing poplar bear populations):

For management purposes, there are 19 subpopulations of polar bears across the circumpolar world. Of those, 12 subpopulations are located mostly in Nunavut, though some overlap with other jurisdictions.
Charlie Inuaraq called on NTI and the GN to promote Inuit knowledge of polar bear management, saying news reports should include the perspectives of Inuit as well as scientists.

“Put the news out about what we do,” he said. “It’s misleading.”

He called it “bothersome” to have researchers come into his community for short periods of time, and then dictate to residents how many bears can be hunted.

They take their research over our traditional knowledge,” he said.

Qikiqtarjuaq HTO representative Loasie Alikalaqtuq said Inuit subsistence hunting is a right.

“It’s what I eat and what I use for clothing,” he said.

But we pay respect to the animals,” he said. “The polar bear is an intelligent, complicated, thinking species.”

It will be interesting to see who, if any, follows suit in the publishing world and the strength of their direction. Perhaps these cracks will open up to more balance, yet at this point some shocking outside intervention will be required before people start to take real notice.
Top Bottom