There's a bunch of people claiming that the science isn't settled, that the models aren't good enough, blah blah.

For some reason that is never fully explained they have knowledge enough to confidently dismiss the science, but aren't capabe of doing the science itself. So other people have to do that science for them. People who (quite rightly) are paid for their efforts.

So we'll have to keep pouring money into more research. Unless you think those concerns are not legitimate.

Are you oafishly trying to say that AGW is unfalsiable? If that is your assertion, then state that clearly - and then prove it.

Having models able correlate to observed temperature is certainly advantageous. Because if what you say is true and models can't be made to correlate to the observed temperature, then we have no mechanism to describe the impact our emissions will have on the climate, and are forced to mitigate against the worst possible case: violent swings, snowball earth, runaway venus type scenarios. This would be far more costly than merely mitigating to the timeframe suggested by our models.

Actually it's the politicians who don't want it.

I've never met anyone who can argue successfully against action on climate in an open debate. The whole denialist movement is merely a desperate papering over of the fact that a small number of people don't want to do anything about climate change.

Why?

Well, generally they can't even articulate that.

Very few people actually fall into this category, fewer still sincerely believe that rhetoric, the problem with dissonance is that it is hard to keep straight in your mind. So in an open debate, denialism always loses.

Not that this is a problem for politicians, they are well versed in the art of not engaging in open debate, and lie sufficiently well that they can pretend to take action, and at the same time make sure that the short term interests of their fossil fuel industry patrons are protected.

Not to poor rain on your parade, but 100 million years ago, Antarctica will still breaking off from Gondwana. Can you briefly outline your strategy for engineering some speedy continental drift to rebuild the super continent (and thus, properly replicate the climatic conditions of the time)? What are the legal ramifications of ramming several continents together? Any engineering challenges to overcome?

Also, with reference to your proposal to grow (and then presumably eat) lush rainforests, I stand to be corrected here, but the bark of the antarctic beech, whilst undoubtedly quite tasty, is probably not nutritious enough to feed 10 billion people and thus, won't really be a good replacement for our current cereal crops (wheat, rice, barley). Crop specifically adapted to growing in temperate regions with their stubborn declination. Crops that tend not to grow on the rock that lies under the (fast melting) antarctic ice sheet.

Aguable. Presuming that more samples of moon material was required, then a probe could be sent to get it, no? So what is missing is rather the reason to make the moon a target, rather than somewhere notionally more interesting as a starting point.

Arguable. What about Cassini? Voyager? The Mars Rovers?

I'm going to assume that until someone clearly describes what those "things" are, that they are probably things better done by robots, given the otherwise clear and demonstrated advantage to robots.

No.

Non sequitur (per above)

I guess there is no real objective measure of what constitutes the peak of human achievement in space. But this has to be up there with the best of them. Go you good thing!

This is merely empty.

I put it to you that a Mars colony, to be justifiable, must be justifiable on objective grounds. There are lot's of goofy ideas. Hence the popsicle skyscraper. "Because we want to", "because it's there" justify all goofy ideas equally.

So in essence, a simple tear in your suit on Mars means you have 60 seconds to live. Sounds like a life we can all aspire to.

If you are outside, there will be a brief, desperate struggle to apply a patch to the tear, if it is small enough and you can reach it (unlikely), and you haven't fallen down a hole and lying stunned or unconscious.

Consequently few, if any, excursions would occur outside of the pressurised habitat on Mars.

Honestly speaking: These proposals for a Mars colony *are* goofy. They *are* extreme.

Rather than address my assertions, you attempt a burden of proof fallacy. If you think my assertion: The gravity on Mars is such that a stay there of any duration (say, 12 earth months) will mean returning to earth will kill you. There won't be any return trips. is incorrect, then say so. Don't wave your hands over it.

Learn to read.

By which you mean, the one person. By my reckoning, there are 200000 people with enough belief in a mars colony to put money on it. That is a vanishingly small group. You won't get there without convincing the other 8 000 000 000 of us that such an idea has merit. So convince us.

The fact that you engage with this discussion emotionally and respond with a long, rambling and self-contradictory screed should signal to you that your view of mars colonisation is based on emotion rather than reason. I have no reason to respect the subjective demands of your emotions above the objective concerns that arise from reason. It's up to you to make a convincing argument. If you are not prepared for the rigours associated with other people questioning your beliefs, then you should not publically express them until you ARE ready to debate calmly.

I put it to you that YOU are making that mistake. There is nothing on Mars. Therefore, by your own admittance, Mars is unsuitable for colonisation. By your own admittance, we've never successfully implemented the strategy you advocate, even on earth, with it's comparative wealth of resources and freedom of movement. Why should I believe that such a plan could be successful on Mars?

It follows then, that we could also create such a colony on earth.

As bad as things are for us in the west at the moment, things are far worse for others.Therefore when considering the need to establish a refuge for those seeking political asylum our minds turn to those who currently seek political asylum with us and under our (certainly flawed) democratic system. How do these people seek asylum on Mars? How do the Karen, the Tamil, the Hazara, the Uighur people get passage to Mars?

If you understand the means to create a fair and just society then by all means express those principles. I think you don't. I think you want to merely repeat the mistakes of the past, where people fled oppression with a view to creating a fair and just society, and inevitably ended in oppression once more.

And what happens after 90 seconds?

Maybe you could use this as an ad for a future mars colony: "Mars: Live Painfully for a minute and a half!"