Not sure why you decided to quote half a sentence, instead of the whole sentence, unless you wanted to burn a strawman by quoting me out of context to change the meaning of what I said. If you have some other intent, then I'm all ears.

What I said was:

To suggest that we, ill adapted to space as we are, ought to go physically into space instead of sending a machine is absurd - like saying that a field is only plowed if dug by hand, or the only correct calculation is done without the aid of a computer, calculator or abacus.

This is in response to the OP's assertion that the boundaries of our push into space are actually defined by how far our physical bodies have travelled - which is an absurdity. To suggest that the discoveries of Voyager, Pioneer, Spirit and Opportunity, Cassini/Huygens are somehow trivial because they didn't happen to contain any meat is deeply insulting: insulting to us as humans. The presence of meat, or lack thereof is an arbitrary scale for judging achievement. If you don't think this scale is arbitrary, if you don't think the O.P's comment was absurd, then explain why. Don't burn strawman.

That's what I said.

That's what I said. Just because our physical limitations prevent us from bodily travelling any significant distance through space, doesn't mean that we should not go further than those physical limitations practically allow. We just need to accept that, like ploughing is best performed by machines, so travelling in space is best done by machines. Thus: the term "we travelled to Jupiter" or "we landed on Titan" does not imply that our physical bodies are located near Jupiter nor on Titan, anymore than saying "I ploughed my field" implies that I did so with your hands, or saying "I flew to New York" requires me to have flown there using my arms.

You didn't need to explain it at all. I have a clear memory of what I said.

Except for the OP whose views you irrationally decided to defend, despite (apparently) not agreeing with them. Here the OP said (quote) The next manned lunar landing will not be so much for scientific exploration there as much as to start laying the foundations for stepping further into space. implying that our efforts stepping further into space: New Horizons, Voyager, Cassini Huygens, travelling to Pluto, Mercury, Jupiter, Titan - even to the edges of the solar system itself somehow don't count as "stepping into space". What an absurdity.

Thanks again for burning the strawman.

But who is suggesting that? Sounds to me like a subtle strawman. The distinction between a robot landing on Titan and a robot which contains a human is arbitrary.

Rather than focus on arbitrary distinctions, we ought to focus on non-arbitrary distinctions i.e. the gap in capability between human bodies and robots. In space, robots are far more capable than human bodies - to the extent that humans rely entirely on machines to survive.

I don't see why it's embarrassing or unsatisfactory to apply a machine to achieve a particular purpose e.g.

I need to plow my field,

I would like to fly to New York,

I need to write an essay

We use machines all the time. Therefore, why did we decide we needed to arbitrarily send human bodies into space, rather than use a machine to explore, unburdened by lumps of flesh? How would carting a lump of flesh to Titan, for example, have enabled Huygens to explore it more?

Well, thanks for the history lesson, but the fact of the matter is, the use of "he" as the gender neutral pronoun fell out of common usage some time ago. Using it in a modern context or to refer to future events, creates a confusion : are you referring to a known male astronaut? Are you assuming that the astronaut will be male? Or are you (for whatever reason) using a language convention from prior the 1960's? English has always had a gender neutral pronoun (Churchyard et. al.) and therefore the use of the male pronoun to describe a person of undetermined gender was merely the convention for a number of years, until it became common practice and convention to use "they" in the singular, or other constructs.

Get over it.

English is evolving, it always has. That's the nature of it, and indeed, one of the primary reasons why it has been so successful. If I read Shakespeare I see many conventions, words and artifacts which initially cause confusion until I read it in the context of the time - the same applies to Austen or Salinger. It has always been this way. Pronouns fall in and out of use: use of 'he' as the gender neutral pronoun is in the latter category.

One could argue that, but not logically. The use of "they" as a singular, or "the astronaut" avoids confusion and doesn't require us to assign gender to someone who is not of that gender. It's not too hard: I notice you yourself in your reply referred to a person of undetermined gender (the offended/perceiving party above) in gender neutral terms without any loss of meaning or the need to adopt an awkward structure.

I'm arguing that we are always going to send a machine. The machine(s) will always be the larger part of what we send, whether it be a spacecraft designed to sustain humans for as long as possible in the vacuum of space, landing craft, spacesuits. So the choice is whether we send a human as well as the machine(s). Of this technology stack, the least reliable part is the human. So if we are going to be concerned about repairs, our first thought is - how repairable and reliable is the human? The answer is: Not very. Human bodies degenerate if left in low gravity for any period of time. They react badly to changes in pressure and have a narrow range of operating temperature. They need very specific fuels, which are bulky and cumbersome, and easily contaminated. Humans are social, and perform suboptimally outside of a social setting. They tend to change priorities based on feedback from the amygdala, leading to a lack of mission determinism.

Comparatively speaking, robots are simple, designed for the target environment and therefore very reliable.

On average: in a realistic scenario involving a human and a robot in space it's the human that will need repair, not the robot.

Now i think you are being faintly ridiculous. Space related conditions:

Vacuum: will kill me almost instantly, unless some kind of machine forms a protective vessel around me.

Lack of water: Will kill me within about 5 (earth) days, unless a machine supplies me with water

Lack of food: WIll kill me in under a month, unless a machine supplies it to me, processing. refrigerating and heating it for my consumption

Radiation: Will kill me in 12 months, unless a machine deflects that radiation

Lack of gravity: will kill me in 24 months, no known solution at this stage.

If machines are so unreliable and can't handle the stresses of space how do we get to space at all?

Alternatively, you could just clarify what you meant: maybe you didn't consider the possibility that the astronaut could be female or transgender. Or possibly you were using 'he' as the gender neutral pronoun - which hasn't been the convention in most english speaking countries for many years.

Or send a machine which avoids the need to choose which rock get's "poked".

Given the human body is notoriously unreliable and can only self repair minor injuries, I don't think the 'self repair' option is really viable either.

He or she, I assume you mean.

In any case, I don't see why the brain would pose any advantage. Much of the geologists brain is taken up with irrelevant information - recipes, techniques for identifying a ripe rockmelon, political views, emotions concerning her family connections, etc. The learned geology is mostly useless and likely to be a liability: minerals on an asteroid haven't been through the same processes as minerals on earth so they aren't likely to be in a familiar pattern - even assuming the geologist can identify any familiar pattern with the sun casting deep contrast on the surface of the asteroid, or by the faint light of a headlight that fails to pierce the fogs of Titans deadly atmosphere. And then there is the amygdala - telling the geologist to run, when running on the surface of the asteroid would lead to certain death, or the image processing failing to pick up an obvious (but not visible) danger due to over-reliance on signals in the visible wavelength.

No, the brain is likely to be a liability in many circumstances. It is very good at what it does on earth - identifying dangers, abstracting things, feeling emotion, recalling and composing stories. But those earthly experiences will mostly not apply in the vacuum of space, making them a liability.

Meanwhile, sending humans requires us to also send the same number of robots - robots to scrub the atmosphere, robots to store and heat food, recycle human waste, coddle them and make sure they stay alive. The only really useless thing in the whole circus is the human.

Well, that explains why robots are in space right now doing geology and humans have never left the gravity well of earth. Oh wait, no: it doesn't explain that at all.

I'm not ure taking ones helmet off to lick a rock is a good strategy in the vacuum of space.

Hate to be the one to tell you, but no matter how hard you flap your arms, you won't leave the ground. Machines can fly - humans can't. To suggest that we ought not take flight because of the physical limitations of our bodies is, indeed, absurd.

Will the robots become unreliable *before* reaching the (theoretically) superior autonomy of a human?

After all, what level of autonomy is actually optimal? We would not want the human to be moving about too much and possibly missing important details that would show up when using a more patient and obedient robot. Neither would we want the human to lie down and die because she/he feels sick or tired or depressed and overtaken by ennui. A level of limited autonomy seems the most practical.

Robots would exhibit limited autonomy have certainly been built on earth, suggesting they could well be developed for space, be more reliable than the (notoriously unreliable) human and transported to space for far less money.

A geologist would die within seconds in space -were it not for attendant machines keeping them alive. This is supposing we could identify the circumstance in which a geologist would indeed be "more capable" than a machine.

Asteroids, for example, have very low gravity due to their low mass. Humans tend to propel themselves by walking or otherwise pushing against the ground - this form of transportation would be sub-optimal to impossible on an asteroid. Secondly, the primary (only) method of scanning available for a human would be examining the surface by means of the eye. This, too is suboptimal for determining much at all about the composition of an asteroid. A machine which can move by other means and with multiple useful scanning devices built in would be much more capable of thoroughly exploring the asteroid. Same applies to the other interesting places in the solar system e.g. Europa or Titan. Neither have sufficient light or gravity for the native features of a human to outshine specially designed robots.

Except that it isn't. The moon is so close that none of the actual problems assoicated with human space travel even come into focus. And of course, it is not 'pushing further into space'. We've been to the edge of the solar system, we've visited comets, plunged into the icy atmosphere of Titan.

By us, of course I mean our machines, not physical humans - the distinction between abstracting 'our' presence via a machine or by the physical presence of a bunch of humans we've never met and are not related to us is purely arbitrary. What makes humans distinct from other creatures is that we can abstract our intent into machines that fulfill that intent: ploughs, swords, trains, coaches, treaties, man pages, computers, space probes. We are not limited by the limitations of our physical bodies.

To suggest that we, ill adapted to space as we are, ought to go physically into space instead of sending a machine is absurd - like saying that a field is only plowed if dug by hand, or the only correct calculation is done without the aid of a computer, calculator or abacus.

Provide the citation as agreed.

Provide the response as specified

Provide the response as specified

Provide the explanation to this inconsistency.

Provide a yes or no answer

I note that you did not provide the link. If you lack the intellectual honesty necessary to do as you agreed and suffer the consequences of making assertions that you can't prove (and are in fact, trivially disproved) - if you lack that intellectual honesty, then further discussion is likely to be unproductive.

A "yes" (please test my assertion) or "no" (don't test my assertion, I withdraw it) will suffice. There isn't any negotiation. You have nothing I want.

Do you agree with this remark from your cited source, or not (i.e you repudiate your source)?

This is the paper you cited. This is the paper you cited, directly contradicting your claim that there has been no warming for 17 years. It is not trying to explain the pause, it debunks the notion of a 17 year pause. *facepalm*

This is the link you are referring to, correct?

Now: my time is important. I also have a particular dislike for people who aren't honest, and people who attempt to manipulate scientific data and methodologies to deceive or misrepresent the facts, and people who blythely repeat those lies - well, to be truthful, they get my hackles up. And that is something that I wouldn't wish on anybody. So you should listen to what I'm about to say, and take heed.

If I test your selection of data, method and date range and find that in any way you have manipulated the result to create the impression of a zero trend when no zero trend exists, then you agree to (a) Offer a personal apology to me (b) Never post here again. Never. Not under this account, not under your old one, not under a new one. Never.

Are you prepared for me to test your methodology and selection of data ? Yes or No.