It's hardly non sequitur to observe that the proposals actually being put, --which, as you put it, amount to limiting warming to ca. 3C above an 1850 baseline (which, given inter-annual variation, I read, in your favour, as the decade(s) surrounding that date), --do not amount to an "assumption" that humanity's sole purpose is "to keep the climate the same as it was in 1850." Rather the proposal is not to allow warming, which in the opinion of recognised experts in the field, would seriously begin to impact upon the habitability of the planet. With all due respect, allow me the conservatism to defer to orthodox opinion in preference to your (or indeed my) own.
Obviously, I disagree.
Now "modest" is a slippery as any relative term, but that the climate as it was in the decade(s) surrounding 1850 included a mean global temperature some 3C above the global mean temperature in the decade(s) surrounding 1850 does not seem a matter about which it is possible reasonably to disagree.
Yes, because actual scientists have no ideological motivations.
Of course individuals have ideological positions. Scientists are no exception. That is why the methods of modern science, which is to say publication of results under strict conditions of peer review, replication, exposure to critical scrutiny --and there can scarcely be any field of science in history exposed to a greater degree of critical scrutiny --are designed to eliminate the personality of scientists from science. The Cato Institute OTOH is explicitly and unapologetically an ideologically motivated think tank (which is fine). What distinguishes their methods is that they are designed to produce a result which accords with that ideological position. Again we should expect no less of a lobby group.
Now if their critique had any scientific merit (as opposed to the rhetorical merit it no doubt possesses, after all you yourself have been taken in), it should have appeared in the actual scientific literature. It hasn't and thus forms no part of the scientific debate.
You need to learn to exercise some scepticism. And that starts with a rational assessment of your sources. Really if you were interested in the science of climate, what possible failure of intellect would lead you read anything from the Cato Institute?! [I'm being disingenuous here, I know the failure of intellect that leads into that error: tribalism. I even had some dickhead American liberal presume I was one because I don't deny science just last week. As though that should even be relevant.]
And science is defined by the majority of other scientists.
The science is defined by the ensemble of published papers in the literature.
We can't start letting statisticians and people who understand math start analyzing science!
You can not seriously believe there is no maths or statistics in climate science?! Wow. In fact some climate scientists, most notably perhaps Gavin Schmidt were mathematicians first and became climate scientists because of the overwhelming demand for mathematical expertise in that field. If you think the sum of stats and maths smarts at the Cato Institute approaches anything near that to be found in the climate science community you need institutionalisation. Srsly!
And if you take your science from ideological think tanks, (who don't even make any secret that they are) rather than from the bona fide science literature it is little wonder that you are so wildly disinformed. Don't be a sucker your entire life.
We went from discussing global warming
You went from discussing global warming the moment you posted the clause "although there has yet to be any empiracle [sic] evidence of such"
After that the rest of your post was rendered illegible and only response you deserved was mockery. AC's put down showed a lot more class than your thrashing about accusing everyone of being "morons" and "imbeciles." More class than even my telling you that you are literally some dumass with "a massive sense of entitlement" I have to admit. But then don't suffer fools so gladly.
That's only roughly 3 C over the 1850 climate baseline
Now you are being unreasonable. A 3C average increase is neither "modest" nor would it be "to keep the climate the same as it was in 1850."
And even chess has chance.....what move do you make when you can't calculate far enough to know which move is good?
Good point, chance arises by virtue of the complexity of choices made both by you and your opponent, instead, for instance, of the incomprehensible complexity of the physics which determines how a die will roll. And games such as Go, which are also touted as not having the element of luck, being even more complex involve even more chance. I believe OP was looking for Noughts and Crosses.
Sub specie aeternitatis Chess, Go or the roll of dice are as predictable as Tic-Tac-Toe. Chance is merely the horizon of human anticipation.
Chess players pray to the godess Cassia.
The goddess Caïssa of course.
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
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).
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
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