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

more at msnbc.com, December 19, 2009

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• christina
• bellantoni
• tpm
• talking
• points
• memo
• msnbc
• climate
• change
• copenhagen
• deal
• obama
• health
• care
• reform
• debate
• senate
• bill
• legislation
• washington
• d.c.
• snow

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Aspartame69]

...is a god given right.

[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....