Why Did Gore And The United Nations Consider 'climate change' More Urgent Than Genocide?

Question

As the emissaries, dignitaries, ambassadors and 'self-appointed representatives' of the concerned countries gathered in Indonesia, it only served the greater good of mankind that Gore would castigate America while peace and prosperity was sweeping throughout Darfur.

Who dares say the UN is worthless?

Answer 1

I'm wondering how you came to that conclusion. The fact that the UN is taking action on one issue does not mean they are ignoring all the others. There are many urgent issues facing the world, and the UN does its best to address as many as possible.

Answer 2

The reason is that one of the world's greatest conspiracies has yet to feel the heat of our liberal media.

All of the global warming stuff is based on computer models - you know the kind -- garbage in, garbage out. Al Gores film for example shows an Amazon lake that is almost drained - he does not mention that this is the result of a dam up river and not the Sahara moving in. Secondly, 90% of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the oceans -- duh.

The conspiracy is that if the UN can force the US to ruin its economy by working at these objectives, then the 233 little countries in the world can benefit and --voila, we have world socialism. Note that India and China are not targets of the warming scenario.

Put Al Gore and Jimmy Carter in the same boat and you have an idea of what is going on. Sputtering socialism.

Genocide (a la Darfur) does not get the focus because nobody can figure a way to make money by stopping it. So, Dorothy, yes there is a Santa Claus, but capitalism does not give a hoot about genocide----unless a buck is to be made.
And, yes the UN is worthless.

Answer 3

Did Darfur ask for peacekeepers to come in an handle the situation?
Last I heard more and more countries that your type keep crying about their problem has refused the help of UN peacekeepers.
Should we still waste time holding conferences on it when their government doesn't want the help?

And should only one problem be on the UN table at one time?
Nothign would ever get done by the UN or our federal government handled things in such an inefficient manner.

Answer 4

I dare say the UN is worthless, as for the Global warming CRAP any good lib will tell you animals are more important than Humans, so what's a little Genocide compared to the plait of the Jackalopes the will perish because you drive an SUV!!!!!!!

Don't even try to explain that the Volcano in Hawaii is spewing more Green house Gasses every day then every man-made source will in a year combined!!

Answer 5

He is a fraud and he is the face of the movement (making tons of money off it too). Having said that, the # of scientists trained in climate related fields that are against the man made theory grows constantly, especially outside the US. We should care about pollution because it does have effects such as on our health- asthma etc- but stop scaring people with junk science

Answer 6

probably because of this......how long should the UN keep having conferences on a issue they can't really do anything about?

Here is a list of all the resolutions made on Darfur long before this weeks, global climate conference.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/sudanindex.htm

In this link, you will find that the UN already held a conference on it and already approved peacekeepers to enter Darfur, but their government refused the help:
http://breakingnews.redstate.com/blogs/genocideisnews/2006/aug/31/un_approves_peacekeepers_for_darfur_but_asks_sudans_permission

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,,1811690,00.html
Sudan has refused to allow UN peacekeepers to join or replace an African Union force in Darfur, the troubled western region where fighting between militants, militias and government forces have killed more than 200,000 people in the past few years.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/08/31/sudan-darfur.html?ref=rss

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-04/CN-DARFUR-UN-04apr06.cfm?CFID=168720601&CFTOKEN=10820888

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=139043

Answer 7

It's probably simply an issue of scale. By this point, it's quite obvious that there is no oil in Darfur, and therefore no genocide worth stopping.

Global Warming, however, is quickly becoming a more reliable business than terrorism ever was. Think about it, we don't even have to invade any countries to maintain the appearance of fighting a war on global warming...

Answer 8

Think that the world changing could make people starve or emigrate, causing war and problems, while genocide is taking place it will take place much more if we don't sort out this world.

Answer 9

He figured someone might read this:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

and think:

1. He is a shyster
2. He is an idiot
3. Why are we giving him $$$

4. All of the above.

I guess the next thing he will preach about is all of those SUVs on Mars causing its polar caps to melt!

Answer 10

Actually, dealing with global warming IS more important. Genocide msut be stopped, certainly. But if we don't stop global warming, we are not going to have enough of a civilization left by the end of this century to worry about genocide.

The right-wing--who are responsible for both problems not being properly addressed--don't want to hear that. They are afraid it would offend their bosses-the oil companies, who dictate our national energy policy.

Tough luck--for the rest of us, its their greed or our lives. Guess which ne people aare going to consider "more important."