http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/nervous_norvus/transfusion.html

My opinion is that these climate risks are greatly overstated as is, but that doesn't mean that I don't recognize the potential moral hazard in geoengineering approaches.

Well I'm in no position to assess the accuracy of any stated risks, however I think risks should always be overstated. Which is a cheeky way of saying the worst-case scenario has proper place in risk assessment. After all, it is "better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions ..." Whatever the accuracy of your assessment of the risks, the above statement does not seem unreasonable per se.

I'm sorry that I misunderstood you point about moral hazard, you were quite right. I should have been on stronger ground to challenge the Straw Man that the "assumption" that humanity's sole purpose is "to keep the climate the same as it was in 1850" is seriously entertained (by serious people). ;)

Nonsense ... pointlessly trying to convince me ... [t]he brainless child ... suffering the same illogical symptoms ... a moron ... you should get out of your realm of intellectual dishonesty and join the real world more often ... the church of global warming ... if you made an attempt at cognitive dissonance, you could achieve a mental state ... your beliefs ...

Yup, just logic, facts and reasoned debate.

I see, you have no logic or facts capable of countering the post

Your post reveals you to be impervious to facts (I'm not sure about logic). Why would anyone waste their time trying responding to someone with an obvious allergy to reality by giving them facts? Seriously? If you want facts go read the IPCC WG1 report.

I am not surprised as this is what "scientific debate" devolves to

Scientific debate takes place within the serious scientific literature. Slashdot is not it. You are not in a scientific debate, you are literaly some dumass with a massive sense of entitlement, ideologically devoted to deny science. AC's reply to you was spot on.

That It is simply impossible to have any serious conversation on this subject is your choice alone.

I'm sure you won't read this rebuttal because it's from the Cato Institute.

Who in the right mind would? The Cato Institute, not even taking into consideration its obvious ideological motivation, is no position to rebut science, duh!

There's a moral hazard to anything that makes a risk less harmful.

Or more explicitly moral hazard describes a situation in which a risk taker is insulated from the consequences of taking that risk. Thus, one would think that a terrestrial geo-engineer taking risks with the viability of the planet was in no position of moral hazard (hence the dig about extra-terrestrial engineers who would not bear the consequences of the risky proposition of geo-engineering).

But I misunderstood what it was you were getting at. You are saying that the moral hazard is that we continue to construct coal-fired power stations (in place of nuclear or other green energy ;p), on the basis that geo-engineering solutions are believed to be practicable, yes?

Then? The Banking vampire elite will need to generate new, ethnically-rationalized hate-conflict to keep us all at each other's throats - instead of removing their boot from our collective face.

Transfusion, transfusion
My red corpsuckles are in mass confusion
Never, never, never gonna speed again...
Pass the crimson to me, Jimson!

Now, to drop it off a bridge, into the East River!

The PPACA has pretty much eliminated the issue of not being able to pay for medical care in the US, at least in the 27 states that have expanded medicaid.

Don't be daft. You are paying for your medical care in your tax bill and in all the other goods and services you buy that have taxes embedded in their prices.

There is no free lunch (2nd law of thermodynamics).

All the medical service providers I use now require I show photo ID which they then scan.

This theft has no particular utility when it comes to stealing medical services.

You mean any studies that will never get published ...

No, I'm pretty sure he meant studies of sufficient methodological rigour to survive peer review and actually get published. You know, that sciency stuff?

How does this have anything to do with Obama? Or are you a bot or human acting as a proxy for a bot?

While the moral hazard of geoengineering is rather obvious ...

There is a moral hazard to geo-engineering?! And it's obvious? Really?

What do you have in mind, putting a tender out to extra-terrestrial engineering companies in near-by star systems?