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?

What you welcome is unlawful. Sorry, but no.

Just because you would like some privacy due to rudeness doesn't mean it's anywhere near legal.

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?

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?

Please fund a study to test the effects of piracy versus global warming.

It's a no-brainer. It is clear that the rise in mean global temperatures is positively correlated both with increasing numbers of pirates and with the transition from wind-power to fossil-fuel powered vessels used by those pirates. However since correlation isn't causation this tells us little. Ergo it would be a waste of money to fund the study you suggest.

Try harder next time ... for trolling! x^D

I really like PHP. It is however not a bloody programming language, it's a scripting language.

I really hate PHP, but what I hate even more is being confronted with this mysterious distinction between "scripting" and "programming" languages.

A language might be strongly or weakly, dynamically or statically typed. A particular implementation might employ a compiler, a virtual machine or interpreter. These are meaningful distinctions. But what (with the possible exception of a hardware specific control language) does it even mean for a language (as distinct from its implementation) to be a "scripting" language?

Would PHP cease to be a scripting language if an object code compiler were available for it? Is 'C' a "scripting language" just because it's interpreted? And what about a language which has never actually been implemented, what in the language specification determines unequivocally if that language is 'scripting' or a a 'programming' language?

If a woman says that holding the door for them is the same as rape, thats militant feminism

I would call it 'self-parodic' rather than 'militant' feminism, but whatever we call it, it is some distance removed from a SCUM-like gendercide.

Yet for some reason like in everything else, the fringe become the spokesmen ...er..spokes people? I dont know whats not offensive anymore

The usual gender-neutral term would be 'spokesperson' in singular and 'spokespeople' in plural, correct! If you are referring to a particular woman or man, honouring their individuality by using 'spokeswoman' and 'spokesman' respectively, would also be acceptable usage (and in IMHO preferable, though I'm in a minority there).

The interesting question is who decides to elevate the fringe (here "like in everything else") to this role. It's a little like selecting the most out-there young Earth creationist as a foil for one's attacks on Christianity in general.

you are conflating feminism with militant feminism, I was very clear in my argument about who i was talking about

It was indeed very clear whom you were talking about. However conflating the "near 100% of _real_ feminists" with "the militant kind," --of a variety which have hardly existed since some mythical 70s --was rather central the central theme of your reply. Valerie Solanas is dead dude, relax.

mmmm... no. That is a no true scotsman fallacy

And your exclusive focus on the "the militant kind" is a strawman fallacy. Welcome to the club.

I have yet to know any woman who would eliminate, reduce or otherwise alter the proportion of men (already the minority); not my mother, my current or any previous partners or any other feminist I've known. None, zero, zilch. Where are all these women who frighten you so?

Today, [the militant kind of feminist who wanted "men reduced in population, made subservient to women, or just outright used as slaves or eliminated"] express that same misandry by pushing policies supporting that mentality in education, media programming, civil law, criminal law, and, are now making/funding their presence in subcultures, like technology and gaming.

Yup that's it, girls who want to write games or watch three dimensional female characters on TV are just exactly that kind of militant misandric feminists. Mary Daly eat your heart out!. Your insecurity, and that of the many other boys here, borders on the paranoid. Just grow a pair mate!