You are drawing a picture for me, because your refusal to answer a simple question paints the picture as clearly as an essay on the subject would do.

Well, firstly, nothing you do or say is going to make me shut up. No amount of hand gesticulation will halt the growing wave of tsunami of community anger and frustration at denial. You imagine that our patience is infinite. It is not.

Secondly you seem to be confused about exactly what your assertion was. You said that the cost of mitigation is more expensive than the cost of not mitigating and adapting (thus contradicting Stern et al). To put it into slow words for the slow among us, this has nothing to do with the choice or lack of choice.

Now cite a paper or article that proves your assertion ( the cost of mitigation is more expensive than the cost of not mitigating and adapting), or do so yourself.

You need to be more specific. Narrow your description of your proof down from "something, somewhere" proves your assertion, to an actual, verifiable and believable reason. Otherwise, your proof has all the credibility of a guy screaming "A Wizard did it!"

I see. Then what is the actual rate of climate sensitivity to CO2? Demonstrate your estimate of sensitivity with reference to the climate record and allowing for differences in feedbacks.

So in fact the impacts of climate change could be far worse than current predictions?

If you can't prove your assertion, it has all the credibility of screaming "A Wizard did it!"

Which is your claim: that they are mysteriously right but nobody can explain why, and nobody can demonstrate the truth of what they are saying empirically or even summarise it, using, you know, words, and we should just believe them. In other words, a wizard did it. IF there is some proof that the theory of AGW is wrong, provide this proof (as published in a reputable journal) along with working. We're waiting.

Well, thanks for letting us know that a wizard did it.

You can't subtract 30 from 2014?

Yes, you probably remember waking up on Christmas night and meeting santa claus under the tree as well. You'll have to excuse my skepticism, but I'm disinclined to accept you lurid fantasies as a substitute for actual proof.

Something something sunspots something something. Well, I'm convinced.

Is it, or isn't it? If they ARE saying something else, this qualifies as a theory, which contradicts your claim that they are mysteriously right but nobody can explain why, and nobody can demonstrate the truth of what they are saying empirically or even summarise it, using, you know, words, and we shoudl just believe them. In other words, a wizard did it.

Exactly like that claim.

Nope. Don't care about your ridiculous fantasies.

empiracle?

Cite a paper that backs this assertion

Yes. In what sense is that not blindingly obvious from the sentence: waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory (that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different).?

No idea. Do conspiracy theorists and wiccans get published? Perhaps if they would if they, I dunno, did science.

What debate is that?

Besides, if anything I think we've been far TOO consultative through this process. We spent what? 30 years listening to denialists and waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory (that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different). This is probably 25 years too long compromising to an alternate hypothesis with all the scientific credentials of a guy screaming "A witch did it!".

So the warming could in fact be much worse than what the models predict? Talk about your doom and gloom.

So you can't articulate a reason why we should send humans to Mars (as opposed to, say bandicoots). Didn't think so.

Strawman.

And what mostly doesn't make sense is the thought process that convinced you that this has anything to do with whether robots are superior to humans for space exploration.

Well, one of these things happened. I guess you can't count, in addition to not being able to remember your own statements -specifically this one:

You said, unequivocally, that people dying painfully of radiation sickness would make for a good TV show. Later, you called people who were keen going to Mars idiots who deserved to die for being stupid and ignorant.

So, let's be clear: in your mind, my motorcycle HAS a space gear? I can engage this gear and rocket into space?

And notably, my self funded travels (a) tend not to lead to my death (b) have an actual, stated purpose, that when asked, I can articulate clearly.

So the purpose of humans travelling to Mars is for humans to travel to mars? And therefore, the purpose of bandicoots travelling to Mars is for bandicoots to travel to mars. Oh. Hang on. Remind us again: Why is your plan better than the one with the bandicoots? I guess you forgot to tell us.

Oh, I didn't say that you and you cohorts were smart enough to land a human safely on Mars. You aren't even smart enough to be able to articulate why you would send a human (as opposed to, say a bandicoot) in the first place.