Wetting themselves.

The BBC is in full cry over the COP21 talks in Paris that are about to begin.
From their front page on their web site:

COP21: Rallies call for Paris climate change action

Six graphics that explain climate change

COP21: Beginner's guide to the UN Paris climate summit

COP21: Why do two degrees matter?

COP21: Eco activists Brandalism launch Paris ad takeover

Is there an economic case for tackling climate change?

Will carbon capture ever happen in the UK?

COP21: Paris climate deal 'more likely' after terror attacks

I dread to see what else they come up with tomorrow.

One thing they seem to be perplexed about is why less and less people consider climate change a threat. I don’t think that they understand that more and more people have come to realise that there is better info on the WWW. After all their predictions for the general election were totally wrong. People are starting to wake up to the fact that investigative seems to have left the MSM behind.

If I was the BBC I would be quietly reading the sceptical web sites and then pursuing the claims made on them. They might get a surprise with what they would learn.

Most important.

The truth about Islam.

If you're offended by the truth, don't watch this video.

Makes you think about how such an ideology can be unquestioned by it's own followers.

Religion of peace. Pah.

The BBC is working up to it.

That is, COP21 of the IPCC (Intergovernmental committee on Climate Change).

For the last two days in their early morning BBC news they have snuck in references to climate change.

Yesterday they had a report by David Shuckman on waste at landfill and he just had to bring in the phrase “greenhouse gases” . the fact that the article was about drones monitoring was just the back story.

Today there was a brief story about the Queen going to Malta for a meeting. The words “climate change” were just dropped in for no real reason.

 

What will be the story tommorrow? You tell me.

What?

Global warming or climate change?

About ten years a subtle shift took place by the warmists and those of a left and green persuasion. For years they banged on about the world was going to be fried by unstoppable global warming. Slowly but surely they have changed the title and called it climate change. Why’s that you ask? It’s because for the last eighteen years the world has not warmed as it should. It’s stubbornly refuted their arguments.
From the executive summary from the UK Met Office:

Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but there has been little further warming over the most recent 10 to 15 years to 2013. This has prompted speculation that human induced global warming is no longer happening, or at least will be much smaller than predicted.

They do waffle on to try an excuse this anomaly, such as the heat has suddenly been swallowed by the deep oceans. Why that should happen as any fule knows that warm water usually rises to the surface.
To get to the point. now we have every twat pontificating that although the global temperature overall hasn’t risen it’s caused a plethora of disasters around the globe instead. We had David Shukman from the BBC blaming floods in the Philippines on Global warming. Has he ever been in the Philippines during the monsoon season, for any length of time? It permanently pisses down with rain. Flash floods are to be expected.
We’ve also had the Prince of Twats, Charles blaming every disaster in the world on climate change. Even the rise of ISIL in Syria.
We all know that climate has been changing for millions of years. Sometimes the temperature rises and sometimes it goes down. What’s new?

I receive no money from any oil company or multinational. I’m just a poor engineer who looks at the facts and figures presented and realises that we are being sold a crock of shit.

(Multi million pound donations will be grudgingly accepted)

If you're a vile terrorist follower of Islam,then this is probably the magazine that you will be expected to read.

Maybe I shouldn't keep banging on about militant Islam, but this one couldn’t be passed up. If it offends anyone then tough shit. Allegedly I live in a country which celebrates free speech (although I have some doubts) so this picture couldn’t be passed up for publication.


And frankly I don’t give a damn whether is upsets anyone belonging to the religion of “peace”.

Sign of the times

Quite right too.

Who are the terrorists?

Old but still relevant. It’s no good sticking our heads in the sand and hoping it will go away. Our politicians need to bite the bullet and admit that trying to cosy up with so called moderate groups such as CAGE is denying there is a problem.
France has suffered badly and rightly is declaring WAR on the terrorists. All we seem to get from our government is indecision. That is not the way a free democratic nation should work.

The gloves should be taken off.

I’m referring to the war on terror that is being waged against Islamic terrorists. As far as I can see the Russians have the right idea. Bomb them to hell and back. No laser guided bombs, instead sticks of dumb bombs from on high.

Of course someone will tell me I’m justifying breaking the Geneva convention. However the Geneva convention is for the protection of prisoners and civilians.

“The Geneva Conventions extensively defined the basic rights of wartime prisoners (civilians and military personnel); established protections for the wounded; and established protections for the civilians in and around a war-zone.”

It’s not as if Isil has been following the convention, so personally we shouldn’t have to fight a lopsided battle.

Article 3 states that even where there is not a conflict of international character, the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: non-combatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

 

As you can see from the emboldened text they have broken all of the rules.

So here’s what I suggest we do.

Raqqa is purportedly a stronghold of Islamic state and should be cleansed. Therefore a warning should be given that if the population don’t leave within 48 hours then the consequences are theirs to shoulder.

Then I’d nuke the place.

Too extreme? Why should we fight with our hands behind our backs?

I might just drop a hint to a particularly rich gulf state that unless they stop funding terrorists, they might find that one of their Holy cities might become a sheet of glass as well.

A tweet in reply to the Paris atrocity

Says it all.

The dark side of that John Lewis video

Just for fun.

Poetry