The OP didn't mention climate models nor provide any basis for doubting climate models.

Besides which most people who cast aspersions on the accuracy of climate models fail to recognise the consequences of that argument. If climate models are inaccurate than there can be no basis for the denialist claim that changing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere won't impact the climate. Denialists need models, and they need those models to agree with them.

Maybe we should send a comatose guy and a woman in an iron lung up there. For the challenge.

And we could eat a bag of pine cones as well.

"Post Apollo"?

I'd rate landing on Mars and then driving about for 10 years to be a higher achievement than landing on the Moon and staying for a few hours.

What moth?

Not sure who you mean by "alarmists" unless you mean those people who erroneously claim that we don't know what has caused the recent warm spike (and we are therefore doomed). I just lump those deniers in with the rest of the gibbering mass of deniers.

You aren't in a position to proffer challenges. Your only role is to prove either (a) that the laws of physics can be defied or (b) that a vast time travelling zombie conspiracy rages across the planet, and the invisible ghost of Tyndall has tricked us into believing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

The zombie Tyndall version is slightly more entertaining, but I'm sure the magical explanation will amuse as well. I leave the choice up to you. Now hop to it.

Denying Climate Change requires you to lie, to perpetuate lies, to frame lies in such a way that the truth is obscured, to slander others and bear false witness. This is incompatible with Protestant theology.

That's right.

Claims by denialists: be they celebrities, shock jocks, politicians, random guys on the internet, make not one speck of difference to the actual science, since the laws of physics can't be defied, no matter the the strength of opinion otherwise.

It turns out that facts are, in fact, factual.

Point of order, Brandis in NO SENSE the ACT Attorney General. The ACT Government does a lot of strange things (think "monorail! monorail! monorail!") but neither party in the ACT would field Brandis or anyone resembling Brandis as a candidate let alone give him a position of authority.

I love the framing of this issue: as if only a fringe of people think global warming is an issue, whilst 'we' sit skeptically waiting for a presentation on how 'we' benefit from taking action.

Grow up, and learn how the world really works.

Nobody is going to come back with a half way narrative, a compromised view of global warming for you to sign up to. Nobody is going to say: "Oh I see you won't agree that 5 degrees of warming is too much - let's say 7.5 degrees is the acceptable limit, deal?" Neither is the issue just going to quietly go away if you ignore it for long enough. It's a simple, brutal fact - the warming just keeps getting more and more obvious.

Grow up, get over it, and get on with it.

Otherwise, you can wait for us to get angry enough to sue you for the damage you've caused, take your stuff, and use the funds to make the necessary changes.

How bout them apples?

Including you own, of course. Good luck with your war on thoughtcrime.

That's not true. It's not that we can't. We just don't want to.

We stopped sending humans to space because technology progressed and humans are no longer needed.

How can you say that technology has receded? That is so far from the facts that I cannot believe that you said that deliberately.

Did you forget that last year we landed on a Comet? Did you forgot the Titan Landing, the minor issue of our presence on Mars for what - 15 continuous years now? Did you forget Cassin, Voyager, MESSENGER? Did you forget that even at this moment we are on the brink of our first good look at Pluto?

You live in a bizarre world.

What does that have to do with it? We can mine far better using robots than humans. That's kinda my point

It seems like you couldn't argue my point, so chose to quibble about nonsense. No prize for you.

Why is that? We don't consider the passing of other outdated technology as a failure. For example, "It would be a terrible failure of humanity if one day no one was ale to make a buggy whip"