Christina Bellantoni Goes on MSNBC to Discuss Climate Deal, Health Care Reform

[Zakdayak]

Visfen is NOT CORRECT. THere is no debate on this, the only debate is how the bad the effects will be from Global Warming. And perhaps why Obama missed another opportunity to do something good.

[Visfen]

No, there is definetly a debate on this issue, especially concerning hte highly inaccurate and documentedly falsified and manipulated IPCC report.

There is for instance a huge issue concerning what the sensitivity of CO2 is, experts in the field suggest it is one sixth of what the IPCC suggest, and that has very practical implications, because that means that the threat is one sixth of what has been said and as such become our economic incentive.

400 years of no starvation or 1/20 reduction?

[Zakdayak]

I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Although I'll note that Denmark hasn't suffered an economic collapse after they decided to tax the living crap out of Fossil-based energy systems.

Scientists have known since the middle of the 20th Century that CO2 warms the Earth. It's just you and the good folks at PrisonPlanet that are draggin' their heels. Oh yes, and Corporate America.

[Visfen]

Yes it does,but that is not what is in question, it is a matter of how much, the significance and if that is what is the reason for the recent warming

You're doing the false equivalance fallacy all over´again, it's been done far too much

Wait, I can switch to Swedish then

Om du verkligen ville hjälpa tredje världen skulle Danmark skita iC02-skatter och ta kostnaden det skapar i ekonomin för att ge till folket i tredje världen

En minskning i en tjugondel i USA kan bota svält i 400 år

[BullnBearAnalytics]

Who gives a flying fuck about TPM's Christina Blobatoney! Talk about braggards!

[PersonalJesus348]

like a Mad Lib?

[Visfen]

Progress - the idea that any change is good, even one for the worse.

This is a disaster, cutting emissions by one twentieth in twenty years, will cost mroe than feeding the starving in the entire world for 400 years. This retardation of politics must stop. Please.

[inmyforties]

1:33 that picture with the premier of china. volumes.. volumes.. in 3 words: we are screwed. can't believe i'm thinking i'd rather have bush in that photo than obama. obama is just too refined and too much class for dealing with these racist pigs. yes, racists. that's what they are. racism is part and parcel of their culture. they consider darker skinned humans to be of lesser "value". out in the open and they're not secretive about it

[kargenlewis]

political white wash

[Pleblian]

Climate change is a fact, whether it's our fault or not.

However, maintaining a fiat based market economy where one tenth of the worlds population seeks to control all global resources that is responsible for creating all third world impoverishment, must to come to an end.

Nothing is going to change unless we address this issue.

Energy based economy now!

[Visfen]

Energy based economy? Facepalm ftw for the moronnic utopian. How the fuck would we dod that genius?

I have an idea, do the thing that has worked all troughout history, let people make decissions for themselves free from rulers and tyrany. Then maybe we'll get there in a hundred years or so.

[MAGNETGRUNT]

Bellabologny - Someone said "Most people aren't unaware of the good things in the bill" - - - I suppose that now i's ok to eat that bowl of fruit now that some of the turds have been removed. I wonder when these capitol hill whores are gonna report on climategate?

[p00lman]

Stop preaching violence, asshat.

[Visfen]

Stop supporting violence, asshat.

[p00lman]

You seem a bit confused. My comment was in condemnation of violence. Do you know what "preaching" is?

[Visfen]

No, you're confused, if the suggestion here by you is that someone who is opposed to the illegitimate violence by the state is a proponent for violence, then you are a supporter of violence. You might like your violence more, but there are many who don't.

Maybe you're confused about what the government is. It is a monopoly on violence as accurately defined by Murray Rothbard.

Wether you like it or not, want or not, the way things are proceeding, you will have a revolution in the US.

[p00lman]

Your reading comprehension skills need work.

usrevolution2 said nothing about "illegitimate violence by the state." He only preached revolution, which (as you confirm) implies violence. That is what I am speaking against.

And no, there won't be a revolution in the US. Tea party goers are a small cult of nutbags who have no sway over the country (mostly because they have no grasp of reality).

[Visfen]

What the hell do you think people revolt against? The government of course, which btw is what the 2nd amendment was for, people will use that right soon, you'll see.

I just hope for your sake it comes sooner rather than later, and that it's not violent.

WIth 20% unemployment, economic illiterates at the wheels, huge deficiit, this is going there because it is going to get uglier and uglier and then it's going to hit the wall with hyperinflation.

The majority of the people dissaprove of Obama.

[p00lman]

So you admit that "illegitimate violence by the state" was never part of the discussion. Good.

It's really odd that you would blame the economic crisis on Obama when it took effect long before he came into office. Unless you're blaming him for not coming up with a miracle cure, in which case I'd like to hear your suggestion.

[Visfen]

Violence of the state is definetly part of the discussion when somebody suggest revolution. That is what you revolt against

Obama is doing what FDR are did, he is prolonging the crisis and making it worse, only now we in Europe will not bail you out by increasing your competitiveness trough bombing ourselves

The cure is to let the market correction take place and to stop playing god with the economy. If you want to do anything - then shrink governmentHe's just doing the same thing as Bush now

[doink1422]

the senate bill is a joke i expect more like the house bill

[Zakdayak]

She was asked directly what's missing from the agreement, how about substantial cuts in emissions that are legally binding??

[p00lman]

But there is no international legal authority.

[Zakdayak]

I suppose that's why there's never been an agreement on LandMines or Nuclear weapons or anything like that, right?

[p00lman]

I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic.

There are explicit and implicit international agreements, but none of them are legally binding.

Organizations like the UN can try to hold countries accountable for what the majority sees as "crimes" and breaches of conduct, but they can't do any more than a single country can do - cut off the offending nation or wage war against it.

See: North Korea, Iran.

[Zakdayak]

It's true that the world is, to a large extent, anarchic. However, international agreements have existed before - and I will remind you that Obama ran as a believer in International agreements/cooperation. To suddenly fall back on excuses, while passing what amounts as nothing, goes against what he promised us. Suddenly change we can believe in is pie in the sky. I should note that international cooperation does work when done right. Ask Scott Ritter and many others.

[p00lman]

Once again, intentional agreements are NOT LEGALLY BINDING because there is NO INTERNATIONAL LEGAL AUTHORITY.

[Zakdayak]

Then why did he go? Why does anyone negotiate anything? And why are you covering for Obama and Bellantoni's towing of the WhiteHouse line? For example, on the economy, Obamanomics avoided the depression, but instead we have a Japanese style recovery. He basically chucked the advice that Stiglitz and Krugman over a four hour lunch. NOt to mention helping to incentivize the banks to NOT lend tarp $.

OR we can just discuss the weather in DC!

[p00lman]

Because it's worth making these agreements and sealing international trust.

My only point is that there's no way to legally enforce anything that was said.

[Zakdayak]

"Slow down" they threatenend to filibuster the military spending bill at a time with 2 wars in order to slow down the health bill!

"Most people aren't unaware of the good things in the bill" etc...common Bellantoni!!!

[MaladaptiveCatalyst]

"TALKING POINTS memo"

that says it all...I hope the Media realizes the hatred felt towards their so called journalism.

Talking Heads Memo

[greyflcn]

@MaladaptiveCatalyst

So are you proposing news that isn't financed by private ad revenue?

Something more like the BBC say?

[lllraverslll]

3:40 ohhh yeah that sertainly looks like global WARMING to me!!!!

Perhaps CLIMATEGATE should be reported about?

[spikesmth]

LOL you obviously haven't been listening to what climategate is actually about. Ignorant people shouldn't share their views.

[kevmo99]

A picture of snow in the third week of December does not disprove climate change. Go back to sleep.

[Mrcharliebobo]

@kevmo99 You need to WAKE UP!! Its a scam numbnutz!! The jig is up We know that its all bullshit to separate us from our money! nothing more, nothing less!!!

[Aspartame69]

No one knows. One things for sure, there isnt thousands of scientists involved in a 'scam'.

It might be natural, and if we change how we behave then were not doing any harm.

It might be slightly influenced by us, and if we change our behavious then we make a small impact on the situation.

It might be our CO2 that triggers a massive snowball of climate change, and if we do nothing, WE (or more accurately your kids) ARE FUCKED.

Its a matter of edging your bets.

[Mrcharliebobo]

@Aspartame69 - So by doing something you endorse the governments and the rich elite bankers and corporations of the world to unite and take money from us to do what we could do without them for free???? Are you retarded???

[Aspartame69]

You have enough ignorance to think we dont effect the climate at all, almost like, if not literally, you think god is going to keep the climate on an even keel. Thats retarded.

If you think that releasing what would otherwise be naturally stored banks of carbon into an enclosed system is likely to have no effect then you are almost certainly mistaken and just a shill for the exact people you hate, the industrialists, who pay for the propaganda you read and benefit directly from polluting.

[Visfen]

If you hate industrialism go live in a cave...

[Aspartame69]

I dont hate it, but the planet is not industries to destroy either quickly or slowly.

[lllraverslll]

yup you got it it is money and it always will be money love how they rated me but i guess all these sheep will have enough money to toss at them.

PS starting to think even sheeps are smarter at least they run from a wolf.

[greyflcn]

@ravers

So I kinda wonder what you think is so damning about those emails?

greyfalcon. net/ emails2

greyfalcon. net/ emails

[ZejithThemis]

Church of Climatology faithful are out in force. Talking Points Temple is full of 'em.

[p00lman]

Only in the US is global warming still a controversy because of selfish, greedy assholes who try to distort facts.

It's a manufactured controversy. In reality, all scientists have come to the same results.

[Mrcharliebobo]

@p00lman- And what results are you referring to?

[p00lman]

That it exists and is due to an increased output in CO2.

[Visfen]

You suggest only in the US? You're wrong, I have two professors at my university in Sweden that have been outpsoke about it, at least one geologist, several physicists and some mathematicians.

Only a few though have been reported on in the media, most of them cover their own asses by not speaking out too loudly and get their governemnt grants pulled in.

The climategate is a manufactured controversy, that is true, but the real controversy is ongoing, there is no substantial evidence...

[p00lman]

Uh, what? You're saying that the controversy is manufactured (therefore not genuine controversy) and that it continues (that the controversy is also genuine).

Which is it?

[Visfen]

The climategate was completely manufactured, we've know for decades all those things, and we've seen for years and with recent ACTUAL DATA SET ENTRIES (ergo can not be disputed) that there is no panic and we should calm the fuck down.

However I would suggest that the climategate debacle was good because it got head turned which otherwise would have been sheepishly listening to talking heads on TV instead of researching the actual science.

[p00lman]

Now you're talking about something completely different.

My original statement is that the controversy - the assertion that there exists a debate among professionals about whether global warming exists - is manufactured.

There is no debate among professionals. They all have found the data to support global warming.

[Visfen]

I thought you were talking about the climategate controversy, but now I see you're just sputing of abject nonsense.

"they have" no they haven't. They have lied about it for years and exaggerated to the extent that it is preposterous. As I said, if you look at actual measurments over the past 20 years, there has been no statistically significant warming. It's all nonsense. C02 is not driving climate, certainly not with any relevant sensitivity

The debate however is very much silent and silenced

[p00lman]

Funny how almost every scientist in every nation on the planet came up with the same "lies and exaggerations."

How's that conspiracy working out for you?

[Visfen]

But they don't come up with the same lies and exaggerations, there are huges differences merely in what hte IPCC say from year to year, and those are a few actually documented liars.

There are tons of dispute, for instance they are talking about a doubling in C02 over the past 100 years, well we don't have the capacity to practically do that, much less the fossil fuels for it.

Just one example of many how ridiculous this is.

[Visfen]

To call it a conspiracy is absurd, it is how science works you retard, you ask questions and disagree and the winner is not the theory whomever most scientists support byt the theory that stands the test of the scientific method best

And the AGW fails misereably there, it is a blatant fallacy that all to many people (especially economists) do not understand today, the fallacy of false equivalance. Implication is not equivalance

There's tons of dispute, even in organization that allegedly agree

[p00lman]

If asking questions and disagreeing makes a scientist, than youtube is a community of millions of scientists.

[Visfen]

Not really, you have to ask the right questions.

Like for instance, why is false equivalance accepted in AGW and what is the actual sensitivity of C02, the later is extremely important, without an answer to it we can't even say if this panic is relevant or not.

[p00lman]

Sigh, a student of the Glenn Beck school of thought. "What? I'm just asking questions."

[Visfen]

Who's Glenn Beck?

[jjrglobal]

@p00lman

Really almost every scientist?

Maybe you should stop getting your news from TPM or MSNBC, then you won't make such ridiculous statements that make you look dumber than a bag of shit.

[p00lman]

Here you go:

"Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion [on climate change]."

[jjrglobal]

@p00lm

Why would they jeopardize their funding which comes from, you guessed it, the Fuckin GOVERNMENT!? Could this be the reason why no "body of standing" has maintained a dissenting opinion. Their are plenty of scientist who have and they have all paid dearly.

Also, it could be that a lot of scientist and therefore scientific bodies of standing have been relying on a single point of view and perhaps deliberately faulty data to come to their conclusions about AGW. It could be that too, right?

[p00lman]

Check your reading comprehension.

"National or intentional standing" refers to their repute, not their source of income.

But it's funny that every such scientific body agrees on the same thing and that no one has come forth with conclusive evidence to the contrary, isn't it? It's just one massive conspiracy theory that no reputable source opposes. Man, that's weird . . . kind of like how all these people also believe the world is round. Why isn't anyone claiming it to be flat?

[Visfen]

I recognize however by your language on this issue that you have made absolutely no attempt to find out anything about the subject of global warming or even grasp the more important question which is "is it worth doing something about?". To reference mythical figures of authority that supposedly support what you want is impossible, and a logical fallacy.

So I ask you, no starvation for 400 years in the whole world, or cutting emissions in the US by one twentith, what do you chose?

[Aspartame69]

So which is it? First you say there is no climate change that is influenced by human activity. Now you fall back on another industrialist talking point that more crops can be grown in a warmer environment.

If the people who fed you this shit really believed there was no human impact, there would not be an either/or on the extra crops talking point, they would just automatically happen regardless of what we do.

Also, theres starvation because of economic imbalance, not due to warmth rofl.

[Mrcharliebobo]

@Aspartame69 - Are you totally retarded or just blind to anything that busts your little green bubble! assclown! And if you did some research you would find that those industrialists your hammering on about are the ones who are behind cap and trade! you fucking insignifiCUNT little chaod! Is there an organization that is advocating that we should keep polluting the planet assclown?? NO!!!!!!!! But you'll let some brainballz lead you around by the fucking nads with pure bullshit!!!

[Aspartame69]

The way you make your case in such a reasonable way shows how you are level headed and very likely know what you are talking about. Since you are using devastating locic and coherence i really can do nothing other than accept you are a rabid spastic dog breathed angry angst filled turbotard.

Its ok to be completely and utterly wrong about everything friend, no need to be so bitter.

[Mrcharliebobo]

@Aspartame69 - And thank you for giving us a fine example of what being wrong and thinking your right looks like. So how long did it take you to become this intellectually bankrupt??? numbnutz!

[Aspartame69]

Thanks for giving an example of someone, who had they been correct about anything, no one would ever listen to any of his emotionally charged, fact-less right wing fundamentalist inspired propaganda.

Its peoples nature to take advantage of any situation, thats obvious. What is also obvious is that we can effect the balance of a closed system and there is no god to help us, so regardless who profits from this, its something that is important we address, we only have one planet.

[Mrcharliebobo]

@Aspartame69 - What the fuck is that assclown?? are you a parrot? LMFAO!

[Aspartame69]

Good point well made. Thats a mighty strong argument Mecharliebobo. How is it that people have no time for your acne musings when they are so well posed without fact, tact, reason or evidence.

[Visfen]

Which is it? Well, the science don't know so I don't, but I'd say there's about 20% chance we have no affect on the climate, about 98% chance that the sensitivity is lower than the IPCC says, and 100% chance that is not cost efficient to do anyting about it.

It is however not a matter of crops growing, it is a matter of understanding economics. If you replace one energy source with a more expensive one it is a loss, and that loss could have saved billions of people over 400 years.

[Aspartame69]

Ok, so you have some figures that you pulled out of your arse and a short term plan to do nothing, with the possible consequence that we are having an effect and you seem to forget that IF we are having an effect, then we will continue to have an effect indefinitely.

Maybe your plan will yield no problems during your lifetime, but dude, surely you can see how shortsighted that is? This planet is going to be humanities home for far longer than 400 years, unless you think theres a rapture coming.

[Visfen]

98% is the security on the spread from actual measurements.

100% is pure logic.

Speaking of measuremtnes though, life time in atmosphere for co2 is 5-10 years.,

So now, it is not a good idea to do something about it now. Not when we can save more lives doing other things. We can spend the money on research and development for the future, so that when it does become a problem, and if, we can do something about it with better technology.

The planet doesn't come before humans...

[Aspartame69]

100% is pure logic???

Its logic to accept that there is a chance that we are contributing to climate change, but its not cost effective to do anything about it, even though that climate change might lead to entire ecosystems failing and the nature of sustaining life on earth being an open ended question. I think losing the planet, even accepting your retarded position that its unlikely caused by human activity, doing nothing cannot be considered logical by anyone unless they think that eath....

[Visfen]

Do you know what a cost benefit scenario is? If the goal here is to save lives, which is presumptious as it looks like the goal is rather to keep the poor countries down(as the former head of greenpeace has suggested).Then it is completely irrational to push these policies on anyone anywhere as they will cost more lives than we could save with the money

A reduction in one twenith, for only the US, in twenty years, will cost as much as food for all the starving people in the world for 400 years,

[Aspartame69]

...is a god given right.

[Visfen]

Unlike you I believe in science, not religious myths. Clearly you have not studied the science, you merely listen to the "clergymen" well, then you are no better than the funamentalists, you are no more enlightened and no brighter, then your church is that of fake science, and your religion is that of the state.

[Aspartame69]

seems to me that you are only thinking about short terms. You propose doing nothing, saying stupid things like carbon only lasts so long in the environment, which is divisive propaganda you have been fed to divert your attention from the accelerated input of carbon from industry. If you really knew your science you would know there is not an infinate capacity to process carbon in nature, in fact we are well beyond the capacity for nature to deal with the carbon we are releasing.

[Visfen]

Stupid things? That's the measured actual results, which goes against IPCC's statements year backs, as is the measured results of actual sensitivty much lower. So we know it is exaggerated.

See the economy as the engine, it is better to keep the engine going so we can produce better technology and wealth to deal with the problem in the future.

This is the long term solution, the short term is to believe we should change to inefficient technology without capacity today.

[Visfen]

The capacity to handle it in nature? What are you talking about?

If you really knew your science you would know that what the alarmists are scared about is the permafrost and an exponential warming as a result because of increased feedback. But there are again measured results here, measured - not modeled, that suggested the effects from CH4 have been exaggerated in the models.

As far as the capacity goes, lifetime in atmosphere by CO2 is infinite, it's just simple chemistry.

[Aspartame69]

So, you think you are coherent... but you just spew divergent talking points like;

Climate change is not man made.

Climate change might be man made but its good.

Climate change is too expensive to fix even though we might be able to make changes that effect it.

Climate change is logically better than no change because we can somehow save lots of lives if we ignore all the people who lose theirs.

[Visfen]

You're being too simplistic, I'm suggesting there's a chance that it is not man made, a small one, but larger than these "boards" say.

I've never suggested anythign about climate change being good or bad.

It is not that it is too expensive, it is that it is retarded to go over to altenrative fuels before they become cost efficient, as we are then attributing social costs to the emissions that are vastly exaggerated. Better to wait for better technology, otherwise we're just wasting resources.

[Aspartame69]

Dont get me wrong, theres no conclusive science. Im just saying its far more risky to experiment with nature than it is to try and maintain it.

To deny that is to belie your bias as there is no more logical stance than this.

[Visfen]

I'm saying it is stupid and risky to go over to alternative energy sources before we should, before they efficient, before the benefit is greater than the harm.

It is not rational to waste several million human lives to do a miniscule change in emission change.

When one twentith change in emissions only for the US result in cost that could save more lives than even the highest estimates of how many will die from climate change, then it is utterly inhumane to suggest such a "final solution"...

[Visfen]

...that C02 emissions are in such high sensititvity and that there would be huge consequences if we didn't do anything. Ther's even ig holes in theory of AGW alltogether because it is all based on the logical fallacy of false equivalance, where they suggeste trends (which don't even show a statistically significant warming over the past 20 years) and seperate causation constitues signifcant evidence. It's all bullocks, but the real bull is that we have so many bigger problems.Save lives instead

[kevmo99]

"A lot of people are saying that this is a lot of progress. It's a big step forward."

Who is saying this? That's irresponsible to suggest the agreement was a lot of progress without attributing names.

It annoys me that they bring on talking heads that obviously know nothing about the climate change summit to comment on its outcome.

Whether its a victory for Obama is an irrelevant question and shouldn't have even have been dignified with a response.