I think I'm more used to hearing his name pronounce Algore (like Igore).
This explains why very nicely.

This German comment points out a certain side effect of some suggested aid programs at Kopenhagen I have extreme difficulties with.

http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/a...ermoerder.html

Basically it points at the dilemma that some African mass murderes for exmaple from Sudan claim a general historic guilt of the West, see the West agreeing - and accepting compensation - by paying these countries high ammounts of money - to battle climate issues - that are claimed to have been caused by these poor dictatorship's poverty - that has been caused by the West - that this way helped to cause local wars and genocide like in Darfhur.

Of course this is absurd a thinking. The genocide in Dharfhur is somethign that really in no way has been caused by the modern or historic West, not directly and not indirectly. It is a anti-Christian progrom in the main, plain and simple.

One could also point at corruption levels in Kenya. Extremely brutal violence and civil war on Kongo. Mugabe in Simbabwe. And more.

And these thugs and slaugterers could expect to get access to hundreds of millions - our tax moneys, yours and mine. Since the money will be meant to battle climate problems, I'm sure they will immediately turn from Sauls to Pauls, behave like saints and will not even think a second on taking the money for themselves and their clans. Why always be so pessimistic, eh? We are all humans, and climate is important and good intentions are what makes the world go round.

Before we sent money to many African regions, I think we should send an armada of assassins wiping out the whole social class of corrupted politicians' and ambitiously conspirating Colonels' families and tribes first. And since this is almost impossible to be acchieved due to their tribal community structures and blood revenge from generation to generation and all that archaic stuff, I think we should send neither assassins nor money to these countries (and stop delivering weapons as well, I admit). The whole Copenhagen goal, even if they acchieve the most optimal maximum outcome some hope to reach, is set many times too low on a level so that this regional failure in Africa would not make a global difference anymore anyway.

Not kind to say such things, I know. But true. And if the philantropic, all-tolerant consensus crowd feels disturbed in their daisy-picking smile-all-summer-long sit-in: the more annoyed over the disturbance they are the better. :yeah:

Foreign Aid (My definition):
Taking money from poor people in a "rich" country
and giving to rich people in a poor country.

Snestorn
You sure hit the nail on the head with that.

Magic

He has a vested interest in the issue. Regardless of wether or not he is in an 'offical' capacity for the United States he is viewed as if he is.

Many view him as if he 'speaks for all of america' which of course is a mistaken impression but a useful one.

You are incorrect. The motive came first. Then the trick was to work out how to use 'science' to sell the idea convincingly.

Global warming started as a political agenda to address the issue of more fairly distributing wealth and technology across the planet. The tricky part was how to achieve that end result without letting the masses know that that was the real agenda.

Global Warming was the answer they came up with. You blame the wealthy, technologically advanced countries for any extreme climatic changes, even though most of those changes are naturally occurring phenomena as the planet continues to evolve, and then you try and guilt those technologically advanced countries into financially compensating the less advanced countries.

This is not a new idea. As I said in an earlier post, I was present at a meeting 30 years ago where this very scenario was addressed. The only surprise to me was that it took them such a long time to get the idea off the ground. :)

Big Al dodges more questions :har:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fooYtalS9Gc

dont forget your tinfoil hat:damn:

http://www.nouvelordremondial.cc/wp-...conspiracy.jpg

I had to, for the lulz.
And as a note, the first person to predict warming from CO2 emissions was Svante August Arrhenius, and he published most of his work from 1900 to 1908 on that subject. Your 30 year number is off a bit.

In the end, GW is one of those subjects that will still be being passionately discussed many years from now. You have extremists on both sides of the scientific argument, and those who believe that the issue is as much politically based as it is scientifically based.

Personally, I no longer give the subject a moments thought. :)

Not even when legislation is put into place that will effict your life directly?

I know, I know, this proves nothing. Still, hard to ignore. :hmmm:

that there will be more weather extremes, has been predicted since long. Their is no surprise in that taking place, both in your place, and in ours, too. We over here have much too much rain over the past ten years, for example, and more floodings.

People only are surprised that fate does not save them personally. "How could that be...?"

If there is truth in saying that people only learn if the pain becomes too much, then this might be an answer. :cool:

If there is one thing about nature that never changes it is the fact that it is always changing.

It must be true, "eminent scientists" claimed it :D

And before anyone gets all uppity with me, I am not saying I know this is true or believe one way or the other... just making a post. :ping:


http://media.philly.com/images/20100...swint10z-a.JPG