You've engaged in fallacy. Nobody cares about your feelings. If you can post proof of your numerous assertions, then post it, otherwise your assertions remain in the realm of paranoid delusion. e.g:

So essentially you are saying that in fact, the situation could be MUCH WORSE than what is predicted by current models. And this would motivate us to not take action on climate change why?

Well, you'll never know unless you or one of your buddies actually post some proof, some day.

Apologies.

In my defence I've actually had people use that argument in all seriousness. Satire becomes reality.

I'm using fairly standard criteria - said criteria being based your ability to provide verifiable proof of your assertions. What did you think? That mere rhetoric would convince us?

Thanks. I'm familiar with the geographical location of antarctica during the cretaceous. You will of course be aware that climate conditions in the southern hemisphere below the mid temperate region is mostly driven by the strength of winds circulating around antarctica, but also that this was not the case during the cretaceous because antarctica was not surrounded by open sea at the time. So your remarks are alluding to climatic conditions that we will not see again unless you push another continent into antarctica and disrupt that pattern. Again, what is your plan to do so?

Also please address the rest of my post.

Perhaps you don't. Ignorance on your part doesn't imply the rest of us are ignorant. In any way.

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!