The SpaceShipTwo design already is cheap access to space for researchers who want to run experiments above 100 km. And for the thrill ride. Don't need new technology development beyond what's already been done (except it sounds like they might need a more reliable rocket).

I think you ought to learn more about what the market is for suborbital before telling us about all the magic that needs to be done.

Sure, they'll need to greatly modify the design in order to get an orbital vehicle with viable thermal protection system for return to Earth. But so what? As I've noted before, Scaled Composites has demonstrated that they can design and build such things,

No, I'm comparing the cost of electricity in Denmark with the cost of electricity in other countries.

It's communication 101. In order to convince someone to your point of view, you appeal to their interests not your own. The auto repair person doesn't convince you to get your brakes replaced by telling you he needs more spending money. Here, the accusation was true. It was a tax on all those wood burner stoves.

This is straightforward politics. A party doesn't like a policy, allies with politically powerful constituents who have the same common interest, and gets the policy reversed.

A "relatively young industry" that has been kicking around since the 60s.

The actual quote was:

You keep claiming that such a quarantine is against the US Constitution even though both state and federal governments have the necessary authority. It's worth noting that quarantine actually is defined as isolation of people who are exposed to disease but aren't yet sick:

while

And at the federal level authority for this is derived from the Commerce Clause which actually is a valid use of the Commerce Clause. States have even broader legal justification for use of quarantines. Note that at the above link, "viral hemorrhagic fevers" such as Ebola are explicitly one of the diseases that has been authorized for quarantine.

Moving on, not only do we have a valid legal and medical basis for quarantining medical workers who return from treating Ebola patients, we have the US Government quarantining US soldiers even though they could have done the same thing that was alleged to have been done for the nurses (and may well have), namely, test for the presence of Ebola and note the absence of symptoms.

I don't remember reading that in any discussions either.

Why do you think Denmark will be able to achieve that target? They're already paying double for electricity compared to most of the rest of Europe. 30 years of that won't look pretty IMHO.

Where are they going to get enough biomass? Farms aren't going to grow low value biomass instead of high value food.

Sorry. I don't buy it. The quarantine is not onerous and Ebola is extremely dangerous.

No, it's not. Quarantine for disease is a well known case where rights can be legally violated.

I routinely misplace my watch for more than a day at a time. Having a battery life of several years means I never have to set the time.except in the rare situations when I move time zones or the battery runs out. And it has an alarm function as well.

You have to show first that it was quoted out of context.

Stop wasting my time. The whole email was quoted in full in one of the links I gave.

It's not high drama, he's just sending over some data per request. But "Mike's trick" involves replacing or averaging near past temperature proxy data with temperature data. In particular, Jones states he's applying it to problematic tree ring data ("Keith's" series which moves counter to temperature after 1960). That means losing data and hence, why I called it "scientifically dubious".

Also keep in mind that for purposes of evaluating the ability of these various series to approximate global mean temperature is solely dependent on the narrow spread of time where we have overlapping both the recent past paleoclimate data and modern instrument and satellite data. Taking twenty years off such a series removes almost all of its correlation with satellite data. Similarly, losing 40 years (at the time) of tree ring data chops a significant amount off of the 150 or so years of instrument data as well as the entire satellite record.

Ok, so you disagree, It's still a breech of contract to systematically use terms of the contract to delay or avoid honoring terms of the contract. Proving it in court is a different matter and I gather that is just as hard to do today as it has ever been.

I see that you don't bother to argue scientifically either. In those Climategate emails, Phil Jones, the former head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, admits to two crimes, obstructing a legitimate FOIA request and tax evasion for a payment to a colleague in Russia (though that would only be a crime in Russia not in the UK where Phil Jones resides). That's two more crimes than you'll find rummaging around in my emails.

Then there's the "Hiding the decline" remark and "Mike's Nature trick". While there's a lot of spin claiming the two aren't related, it remains that Jones reused a scientifically dubious method pioneered by his associate, Mann, and not only did this hide divergent tree ring data (which drops sharply downward after 1960), it also found its way into the next IPCC report.

Of which, a few dozen at a few government-funded research institutes are the only ones who need be corrupted.

Your post is kind of like claiming that NSA spying couldn't have happened because it would require a conspiracy of billions of people, including the people being spied upon, while ignoring that the spying need only be done by a few NSA contractors - the rest of the participants need not even know that it exists.

And when one looks at the blatant politicization of climate research even to the point of using propaganda terms like "climate change" or "climate disruption" in scientific communication and media reports, one has to ask, why wouldn't the politicians who control funding for climate research and who benefit so greatly from public hysteria generated by climate research claims, not buy the research they want?