Just a couple of things you should know about climate change

The earth's climate is changing. That's a fact. Incontrovertible. Accepted by just about everyone.

It has been changing for the 4.54 billion years that the earth has been in existence and I can exclusively reveal, here, to you, that it will continue to change for the next however long it is until the sun becomes a red giant and incinerates the earth. About another 12 billion years or so. That's a long time, some people might even have paid off their student loans by then.

Has man had an impact on the earth's environment? Of course. We have made the place tidy, habitable, able to produce enough food to feed the growing population. And increasing industrialisation and use of fossil fuels means that we are emitting growing quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.

(Update: I have been criticised by some readers for using the term 'tidy' (above), as if it demeans the general stance of this piece (invariably by opponents). But there is almost no blade of grass in the UK that hasn't been shaped, managed or influenced by human activity over the centuries. Whether by agriculture, hunting, fishing leisure or development. The 'wild and natural countryside' you might visit from time to time is not really 'natural' or untouched by human hand, but what we have arrived at over time. And it is beautiful. And productive and serves the purpose we need it to. 'Tidy' is just short-hand for man's influence on the planet. Just wanted to make that clear.  

And, so the theory goes, this CO2 is causing the planet to warm which will, in turn, cause the glaciers and ice-caps to melt, raise sea levels to the point where many low-lying islands will become submerged and leave many parts of the world uninhabitable because of drought. Extreme weather events will become more frequent, polar bears will die out, tens of millions of people will be displaced because of man-made global warming. As Mr Blair said, 'Global Warming is the single biggest issue facing mankind today.'

So reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, reducing CO2 emissions and creating a 'sustainable' (note that word) world (where our use of resources does not make the lives of those who follow us worse) is not only desirable but vital to man's very survival.

Big, scary stuff I think you'll agree?

It was what Al Gore's film An inconvenient truth was all about, and it won him a Nobel prize. But then again Obomber won a Nobel Peace prize too. And Gore's film was prevented from being shown in UK schools because of the massively flawed nature of the science it portrayed.

But, today, the IPCC has issued its AR5 report to global acclaim (seemingly) and, unsurprisingly, since it has long had a policy that 'the science is settled', the BBC has been painting the report's findings as incontrovertible fact. So that's it then. It's real, it's here, we should be very afraid. We should sell our cars, never travel by air again and happily give the government all our money - indeed we should borrow more if we can so that we can give even more - to spend on wind farms and solar panels (even though at the UK's latitude they are ineffective for most of the year). 

I think there are a couple of background issues that are worth noting at this point before I get on to a more substantive look at what we face.

The first is to note that scientists secure funding for their research from a wide variety of sources and that major issues like a threat to the population come very high on the global funding list. As recently as 40 years' ago, many of the same scientists and certainly many of the same organisations were demanding increased funding into their climate research because of the potentially disastrous consequences of our changing climate as you can see here.

The only difference is that the 'biggest issue facing our planet today' in 1973, was the almost certain prospect of a coming ice age.

The second concerns the United Nations: With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the effective ending of the Cold War, (and before the emergence of international terrorism and a seemingly global conflict being drawn on religious lines at the moment), the UN found itself in something of an existential quandary. It was in danger of losing its relevance, it's position on the world stage, indeed its very existence. It needed to come up with a new mandate and new way of justifying its existence.

It came up with Agenda 21, a vision for a single world government in the 21st Century, and in order to try to achieve this goal, it needed to focus on an issue that affected every country in the world and indeed the whole planet. Climate change was perhaps a logical topic as a possible means of securing global take-up of a single issue as a prelude to the ultimate creation of a single world government and this was cloaked in the term 'sustainability' and launched in Kyoto in 1989. I have blogged about Agenda 21 and it's current embodiment ICLIE here.

Now putting forward a claim that climate was changing but it always had done and everything was going to be fine, was probably not very likely to get many countries around the world fired up about the issue and therefore make much progress towards this single world government. But telling developing countries that they could get massive subsidies from developed countries on the back of a potential global climate disaster, that our way of life in the west was under threat, and that governments around the world could generate much higher levels of taxation from their citizens in the name of saving the planet.. well unsurprisingly that got people's attention. And their support and commitment. Scientists around the globe must also have pricked up their ears too. But it wasn't about finding out what was really going on in our climate, but finding ways to prove that this disaster was imminent and that the only way we could fix it.. etc etc.

The third issue is about that seemingly unbridgeable defense of these scientists: the 'Peer review'. 'Peer reviewed' science is, we are told, effectively fact as far as scientists are concerned. If the findings of a particular paper are peer reviewed it means that the world's experts are in agreement: and obviously since you are a mere pleb, you will have to believe them. The trouble is that by 'Peer' what they really mean is 'mate'. Sending your theory about global warming to another scientist who derives their income from the funding available in the climate science sector, means that they are hardly likely to disagree. Particularly since you will be 'peer reviewing' their equally lucrative findings in a few weeks' time.

The term 'sustainability' is (by design) almost impossible to disagree with. It's a bit like saying do you agree that we want the sun to come up again tomorrow morning? According to the UN: 'Sustainability calls for a decent standard of living for everyone today without compromising the needs of future generations.'

One would have to be pretty cold-hearted and selfish not to agree with that sentiment. But Sustainability is now spreading it's claws beyond climate change and into many other aspects of our lives including development and planning, use of resources, land ownership, food production, even our access to the countryside, as part of the Agenda 21 erm, agenda. It now seems to be much more about control and the delivery of this single world government (that none of us has had the chance to know about or understand, much less vote for) than making effective use of scarce resources.

So, just some background which might cause you to think a bit more about whether Climate Change (you may have noticed that 'Global Warming' seems now to have been dropped in favour of this term now that the planet is no longer warming) is actually being caused by human activity or is part of a natural cycle that is largely governed by the activity of the sun.

I want to avoid the 'janet and john' or 'tit for tat' approach in this blog. You will have read stories about melting glaciers, melting ice-caps, sea-level rises, an increased frequency of extreme weather events around the world. My theory (I simply cannot understand how these things are happening if this theory is not somewhat accurate), is that somehow the MSM (Main Stream Media) including, in particular the BBC, have somehow been duped, forced or persuaded into buying in to AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) and no longer seem willing to contemplate any kind of debate or examination or scepticism on the subject. Governments too seem to have bought in, hook, line and sinker. I find that really strange and in many ways, highly sinister.

I can point you to other stories about growing glaciers, record levels of arctic and antarctic ice, extreme weather events being less frequent than in the past. You can use google as well as I can and so, presumably, can journalists, but they don't seem to want to.

One credible (in my opinion) piece was run some time ago and can be listened to here. It's quite long but one of the eminent scientists in the broadcast likened climate science to a jigsaw. One where we don't yet have the corner pieces, let alone the straight edges, let alone the full picture. And yet the world is being forced to set it's energy policy, a policy that is costing everyone massively in terms of green taxes, on the basis of this peer reviewed, politically motivated 'science'.

The IPCC has been found to have falsified data. To have refused to release data to interested parties, indeed even FOI requests were rebutted before the raw data was leaked to the world and found not actually to stack up as far as the conclusions that were put forward. The University of East Anglia was found to have falsified data and documentation and to have deliberately misled the wider world. The Met office (which is one of the key players in this global climate change 'industry') published its data on the fact that the planet has not been warming for at least 16 years on Christmas Day last year. Without any fanfare - a cynic might think they were trying to bury the information. Especially so since three consecutive days of sunshine seems regularly to be latched onto by the Met Office as an incontrovertible sign of global warming. (maybe I exaggerate a little but you know what I mean).

This is a take on the science and the data being put forward and how credible it is - here.

And here's a recent report on the poor Polar bear whose habitat is being irrevocably destroyed by AGW. So they say. Here.

OK so I lied a bit about the 'tit for tat' stuff. But you need to know some of this in order to have an informed view on the biggest issue facing mankind. And I agree that it is becoming the biggest issue - not because of the threat to the planet, but because of the treat to our freedoms (Agenda 21 and a single world government), the threat to our financial wellbeing (green taxes) and the threat to our way of life that adopting these proposed (and I would say unnecessary) changes will make.

OK almost there now, sorry this has been such a long piece but it's a big and complex and important subject I think. I don't believe that we can really control the atmosphere or temperature on the planet. Climate was changing before we arrived and will go on changing when we are long gone. The planet has a way of adapting, of finding equilibrium. Increased levels of CO2 means more plant growth, more consumption of CO2 and, therefore, over a long period, balance.

Many credible organisations are now starting to contemplate the prospect that the world is set to go into a period of cooling as the sun's activity slows (sunspots etc) in the cyclic way that it always has. Even NASA has put out some data on this possibility. Here. 

OK, you'll have deduced by now that I am a sceptic. I hope the above might make you think about this a bit more before just accepting what the majority of the MSM tells you. My advice, as with just about all things that you're told these days, from surveys to claims about health benefits, is to follow the money and judge for yourself how credible are the claims being made. Is what you're being told being done for your benefit or for some commercial gain. I think that AGW is massively about commercial gain rather than about genuinely saving the planet. You might disagree - it's a free world. Maybe.

Couple of final points that are perhaps a bit more parochial but nonetheless crucial in shaping our activity in the future.

Firstly a rise in CO2. Is that undeniably a bad thing? I blogged here about my thoughts on a miniscule rise in CO2 and its potential to change the climate. But this is also highly relevant in my opinion. A rise in CO2 can also be directly related to an increase in life expectancy. Is the IPCC trying to kill people? here.

The other thing is the cost of trying to control the climate. As I say, I really don't think it can be done, and that it is massively arrogant to think that we can - Canuteesque in many ways. But the cost of trying to do so is 50 times greater than would be the cost of adapting to climate change. It is simply not worth it financially. Details here.

OK, finally, to be entirely parochial about this, what has Kyoto achieved? Is the world buying in to the sustainability and AGW agenda? Is everyone on board with this? Because, if they're not, it's impossible to address the rising CO2 emissions that we are as a world, creating. So obviously the world's biggest emitter - the USA - must be on board right? Wrong. The US never signed up to Kyoto and has since, despite Obama's pro climate action rhetoric, actually moved away from controlling emissions, although, ironically (not that they'd understand the term) their fracking revolution is actually reducing CO2 emissions.

But then of course China (which will overtake the US as the world's biggest emitter by 2020) must be on board then. Erm no. And it's building a coal-fired power station a week right now. India? No. Canada? Was on board but has since ditched Kyoto as 'bunk'. Germany then? Well yes, sort of. But having tried to move away from carbon-based energy and invested massively in wind energy (yeah right) it is now importing nuclear power from France like it's going out of fashion and has returned to building new coal fired power stations. Australia signed up, indeed went as far as any other country towards the green agenda, with carbon taxes etc. But they have just kicked out their government, largely on the basis of the AGW scam, and are now reverting to a non-Kyoto stance.

And that leaves poor old Blighty. We signed up to Kyoto and expected everyone else to follow. Mr Miliband steered through the UK's Climate Change act in 2008. Committing us to reduce our CO2 emissions by 80% by 2030. By law. Unilaterally.

The thing is, the UK emits about 1.6% of global CO2. That's less than China's current year on year increase. So if we reduced our output by 100% - and spent billions in the process, increased domestic energy bills by hundreds of pounds a year (which is already happening), forced energy intensive industries out of the country (which, again, is already happening), our efforts would be rendered insignificant already by China's increases.

So it's a problem that in my view is incredibly unlikely to actually exist, and that we are trying to solve, unilaterally and at massive cost, but in a way which has no earthly chance of being effective or making any difference at all to saving the planet.

But we're all paying for it. Thanks to Mr Miliband, Mr Davey (the fuckwit Lib Dem energy Minister), Mr Cameron and the mainstream media including in particular, the BBC.

Happy?

Couple of updates: My take on the current state of the rip-off UK energy sector - here.

And what is Green Energy? Defined, here.

Thanks for reading. Keep warm if you can as the earth cools.

Banksy on advertising

Prog Rock

Very few people will admit to being 'in a box' musically. Imagine my despair when I watched, with she who must be obeyed, one evening, when the BBC was doing a 'prog rock' compilation. 'Haven't you got this?' she said. 'Yes, I think I have.'

'And this?' (mumbled) 'yes, I think so...'

'?'

'Yes OK yes I have got this too and will have most of the rest that they're going to play OK?'

Prog Rock then. Not 'Glam Rock' or 'Heavy Metal' but more of a fusion between classical and electronic music, longer tracks, often instrumental, fantasy stuff sometimes, you remember those Roger Dean Yes album covers? It was about the whole album, artwork, lyrics, stage show, all being part of the art-form.

Lord of the Rings (before you'd heard of it let alone read it) meets classically trained (posh boys - usually), with the power of electronic instruments (especially Hammond Organ and Moog Synthesizer), massive amplification and distortion, LSD and other 'mind expanding' stuff in a kind of post hippie 1970s world. What's not to like? ;)

Emerson Lake and Palmer, an early 'Super Group': Keith Emerson (The Nice) Greg Lake (King Crimson) and Carl Palmer (The Crazy World of Arthur Brown). Their second gig was the infamous Isle of Wight festival of August 30th 1970. This track, on the album Brain Salad Surgery of late 1973 tends to sort the men from the boys in terms of your musical taste. It's only 29 minutes. Enjoy... or avoid like the plague! 

As already admitted, I am a fan of 'Prog Rock' but not to the exclusion of all other genres. You can, I think view it as the diametrical opposite of the Punk movement which followed and which, one has to think, was in some ways spawned as an antidote to Prog Rock: Punk is hard, short (tracks), blunt, shocking, loud in an abrasive way, violent, tends to be working class instead of posh boys. Musical talent was secondary to the ability to be 'in yer f*cking face'. And I love punk too, but it gives you more of an insight into Prog Rock to think of it as the exact opposite. Also I don't think Prog Rock can claim anything like full responsibility for spawning Punk, some of the inane 'pop' stuff of the early to mid 70s (Greece, David Cassidy, the New Seekers etc) was enough to make you want to do some damage to the system.

Now I was a big Peter Gabriel fan, still am: But in 1975 he'd gone off to do his own thing. And not in a friendly way. I thought, it'll never work Genesis without Gabriel? Nah. The drummer's going to sing? Yeah right. This'll be the end of Genesis - shame they had such a great name and some real talent in the band. And a growing following.

Whatever happened to them? Trick of the Tail (Collins vocals) is my favourite Genesis Album, just ahead of The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway (Gabriel). 

OK so two clips and about an hour in already! You need to have the time to enjoy Prog Rock, that's kinda the point, and you need to listen to it, concentrate on it. Pretentious? Up it's own arse? Oh yes, of course, but still great in my opinion!

Can't do something on Prog Rock without including Yes. This is Awaken from 1977.

Or this, probably the most famous Prog Rock album of them all and the album which effectively made Mr Branson the money he needed to build the Virgin empire. All from a back-street record store, a college music project and an album that changed the industry in many ways. It exemplifies Prog rock.

There are loads more examples I could have used, I think Rush are great exponents of the art-form, particularly in their 2112 and Hemispheres albums, but I really cannot end this without including a Pink Floyd piece. Not one you often hear I think - and their greatest prog rock album was of course 'The Wall' - an entire double album, subsequently made into a film, which is essentially Prog Rock in its origin (and a great film btw). It also came with a great stage show which I was lucky enough to see in 1980.

But this comes from an album that you know very well. Indeed one of the most recognised albums ever made in terms of its cover. But when did you last (indeed have you ever) listen to it? Funny that I think. Anyway, and unsurprisingly given my twitter a/v, this is 'Sheep'.

Enjoy. and thanks for reading, even if you didn't listen all the way through! ;)

Santana: just look up the word 'cool' in the dictionary

Before your time? Maybe. Irrelevant? I don't think so. Ask most famous lead guitarists in the world who they look up to and have been influenced by, and they'll mention Carlos Santana. If they don't, it's probably because that's taken as read. It's almost as if the questions was 'Who, apart from Santana, have you been influenced by?'

Born on July 20th 1947 Carlos Augusto Alves Santana made his name with the fusion of rock and Latin American music in the late 60s and early 70s. He played at Woodstock. You might have heard this before, one of my Desert Island discs for certain:

Some of the cleanest best defined guitar solos of all time in my opinion. He's also done a brilliant versions of Black Magic Woman and a great many other classics. Samba Pa Ti is one of his most famous and best. Really makes that Gibson SG sing I think.

The 1990s were something of a wilderness period but he staged a very strong return to prominence in 2000 when Supernatural won 9 Grammy awards including album and record of the year and Smooth became a major hit in the UK. I saw him that year at the NEC and it was amazing to see the combination of hardened rockers (like me) and kids who'd come to hear that 'pop' single. They were probably bored by the rest of the gig but the whole place came alive when they played this track! Kids eh? ;)

Anyway this is 'Put your lights on'. My suggestion would be; and the sound up - enjoy.

twitter's two-way communication is a danger to government. And that's a good thing

Sadly I'm old enough to remember those early days of the internet, when governments and in particular retailers saw the information super highway as a fantastic means of communicating with people; selling them ideas, information and products. Indeed the UK (and many other governments around the world) wanted to make sure that as many people as possible had access to this new communications facility.

I remember being skeptical about the 'information revolution' that was claimed for the world-wide-web. I'm not skeptical any more. It has, I would say, delivered all that was claimed in spades, and a lot more besides. Some good things and some bad, as usual; that will always be the case with new technology.

Even the media - broadcast and print - has been forced to relinquish its grip on opinion and information and become online resources - but not the only ones - for information and opinion: The Murdochs and BBC's of this world no longer have as much influence as they once had although they're making a good fist of using the new communications channels to deliver their messages and (too often I think for the BBC and others) their views on world events.

But here's the thing: The proponents of the internet, the retailers and governments talked and thought about it as being a fantastic means of communicating 'with' their audiences. And by 'with' I really mean 'to' and 'at' their audiences. A one-way street whereby they could tell us what they thought, influence our opinions, views, purchasing and voting behaviours and that would be it. Job done. A semi-captive audience to which they could get their messages across effectively, clearly and persuasively. And because we were 'signed in' we would likely be much more receptive to their 'messages' than passive TV viewers or readers of printed media.

And that has worked in general terms. The growth of companies like Amazon has been amazing; the death of the traditional high street in many places has been alarming but inevitable.

But what they didn't realise was that, eventually, the internet would facilitate communication in the opposite direction. That it would give these 'markets' and 'consumers' and God forbid 'voters' the chance to respond. To communicate back.

And that's a major headache for them.

OK I don't want to go into retailer tax evasion; horsemeat, car recalls etc here so I'll take the retailer out of this blog from here on in if you don't mind, it's now just about government and the internet if you will.

There was some initial talk about the internet being used to facilitate referendums (referenda?) on some issues (as a means of promoting internet take-up but not as a really serious offer since governments don't want referendums that they aren't absolutely certain they can win) but that was pie in the sky of course. It was always about influencing people, getting their message across and winning the day.

So facebook was welcomed as was myspace etc., as a fun thing that would let people tell each other what they'd had for lunch (nom nom), no threat there. Comments pages were embraced as a means of people making their views on a particular newspaper article and gaining a bit of 'kick about' - but who reads comments pages?

So along comes twitter. Probably not designed as being subversive but as a more effective communications tool. I seriously doubt that its founders saw it as potentially the most powerful communications tool yet devised but it is.

Because it's not just talking to one's 'mates' or family. It's talking to the world. It's gathering information from everywhere, from governments and opponents, from trusted media sources and from people on the ground; people suffering in a war zone and propagandists who want to influence you irrespective of truth or reality. It gets news before any other media, that 'news' may not be accurate, credible or true, but it's 'out there' for you to make a judgement on. It's dangerous and exciting. Compelling even. Addictive? Yes I think so.

But it's certainly not a one way street. It allows groups to be formed. Opinions to be arrived at, promises to be noted and remembered. Minor (sometimes major) misdemeanors to be recorded. Credibility to be questioned. It gives voice, and therefore power, to the individual. It questions authority.

And when principles are in short supply, when honour and responsibility, as opposed to feathering one's own nest and, frankly, a 'fuck everyone else' mentality is the order of the day, this becomes a major problem for the establishment.

I often hear the refrain that there are 65 million of us (population) and 650 of them (MPs). That's true of course. But hitherto it has made no difference at all. I think it will start to make a difference because we now have a two-way street. Because of twitter.

It's a nightmare for the government: It gives us the ability to fight back against their ever increasing levels of surveillance and spying on us. People are now much better informed than was the case only a few short years ago, when we went to war in Iraq, for example. Instead of a million-person march (not in my name) that was just ignored, twitter carries much more weight and bright, clever, influential people can add their views to the national debate and create a groundswell of opinion that is becoming impossible for governments to ignore. And that's a good thing. Possibly a great thing in my opinion.

It is giving some power back to the people and this recent bullshit that 'they work for you' when in fact they promise you anything to get into power but then completely ignore your views, values and wishes (eg immigration, energy policy etc) will begin to be dismantled over time. Indeed it is already happening on issues like Syria and the EU as twitter becomes an increasingly powerful thorn in the side of government that just won't go away.

So we need to fight any suggestion of censorship or control of twitter in order to maintain its level of influence, credibility and power. In an increasingly controlled world, thanks to the threat of terrorist attack, it could be our last hope of taking back control over these people who supposedly work for us.    

Thanks for reading.












 

Are we yet ready to think the unthinkable?

If I were to suggest to you a course of action that would solve the ongoing crisis in the Middle East; would make everyone on the planet safer than they are now; would give women the same access to education, opportunity and justice as men, wherever they are in the world...

Would stop people killing each other for no real reason other than their greed; would enable people to work towards a better life for themselves and their families through peace, would end poverty and allow everyone on the planet the option of working hard to better themselves...

You'd probably think I was mad or some kind of liberal leftie with a communist leaning or someone with no grip on reality.

And you may well be right - I don't think so - but let's see.

A simple yet complex question for you: Can you impose freedom on people? Or is that an oxymoron - a completely contradictory concept?

'You might not think you need this, but you do, and we're going to take control of your life in order to give you the freedom that you need.' 

Sounds laughable really when one puts it in that way. But look a little more closely.

I am no fan of the ever more controlling governments of the West. Of increased surveillance, tighter controls over what we read, watch and say; of the widening gap between what voters want and what governments actually do. And I think we need to re-establish the client (us) - government relationship as soon as possible. They are supposed to work for us after all.

But I would argue that the West offers considerably more in the way of freedom, to everyone regardless of gender, race or background than any other political system. Of course there are laws but they seem generally to be fair and to have been arrived at through a thorough, proper and lengthy period of testing. In essence, if you play by the rules and pay your taxes, you can enjoy quite a high level of freedom in your life in terms of what you do, how you earn a living, where you go, what you do in your spare time, etc.

A lot of people in less fortunate societies around the world would fight to the death to achieve the freedoms we take for granted as our 'rights'.

And many are doing so.

And that's the problem.

At it's worst, past colonisation was exploitative of people and their country's resources. It was about growing a power base, about benefiting from the resources - sometimes, sadly, in the form of human resources as slaves. At it's best it brought huge benefit to those countries in the form of law and order, peace, trade and opportunity.

At it's best British colonisation (and I'm sure there are echoes in other countries' actions) was effective in sharing and exporting the lessons we had learned from our history; our sometimes painful and bloody process of arriving at a better, freer and fairer system of governance. Effectively we were short-circuiting or 'fast tracking' the development of other countries' methods of governing and legal systems because we had been there and done that, and knew what worked and what was (largely) fair and equitable.

In effect, having gone through that sometimes painful process, we were like the 'grown-ups' sharing our knowledge and experience with the 'children' who weren't yet experienced enough to understand why our laws and systems made sense and would be of benefit to them.

And in India, the USA & Canada, Australia, New Zealand and others, the base-board of British freedoms and laws have resulted in prosperity and relative harmony even after the original colonising power has retreated from the stage, having embedded the values of this experience of which I speak, in their legislature and ways of life.

OK so here's the controversial bit. You knew it was coming.

Instead of lobbing a few Tomahawks into Syria as a slap on the wrist to Assad for killing 1,500 of his own people with chemicals (even if I have serious doubts as to whether this is true); and having been unmoved while 100,000 people have been killed in that conflict over the past two years by 'conventional' arms; why don't we, instead, do something that will actually solve the problem?

We went into Afghanistan, conquered the oppressive Taliban and then effectively handed back power to the 'children'. We did the same in Iraq, took control and then handed it back to people who were not equipped intellectually or in terms of control, to run the place. In both cases the former tribal groups re-emerged - the 'children' if you will - and off we go again.

In my view the only way to sort these places out is to take over. Properly and completely. To ruthlessly impose our laws, to dictate what they can and can't do. To run these countries as colonies until the children understand how it all works, adopt our values, afford their citizens the freedoms that we take for granted, respect the rights of everyone, especially including women, and essentially grow up and become citizens of the world instead of terrorists and bullies in their own backwaters.

And if this means banning the biggest weapon of mass destruction of them all - religion, and in particular Islam - then so be it. People are only drawn to a better life in the hereafter because they have such a shit life in the here and now. And they have such a shit life in the here and now because they are constantly at war, killing each other because they are being tricked by ruthless people who use religion to brainwash them into doing stuff that their basic humanity would abhor.

It's time we stopped bombing these 'children' and started to help them. Truly help them, with force if necessary - and believe me it is necessary. It's time to solve the problem once and for all, not just to carry on making arms manufacturers richer and achieving nothing. We are not helping people at the moment, just ensuring that their lives remain as shit as possible for as long as possible. Enough.

Thanks for reading.