Branson may have ignored warnings about the safety of his cheezy rocket.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:43:12 -0500, Lord Vath
wrote:

I say that if some rich guy wants to pump a bunch of money into space
travel, why stop him?

Absolutely. And far better than pumping it into the political process.

On Friday, November 14, 2014 11:30:01 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 02:00:58 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

And what's wrong with developing a technology for rich paying
customers?

You tell us.

Nothing I can think of.

Then you believe that carbon emissions are not a problem?

Can we presume that any/all of the "rich paying customers" will become/remain quiet and non-political wrt "global warming?"

Why? There's nothing inherently wrong with using technologies that
produce carbon emissions.

Then you now firmly believe that carbon emissions are not a problem?

What's wrong is choosing to use more
polluting technologies when there's no reason to do so.

There is no reason for a celebrity or other well-heeled individual to take a sub-orbital tourist flight, not to mention a plane trip to get to and from the launch site.

On Friday, November 14, 2014 2:12:11 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:43:12 -0500, Lord Vath
wrote:

I say that if some rich guy wants to pump a bunch of money into space
travel, why stop him?

Absolutely.

You are NOT going to get away with using the word "absolutely" he

If, for example, said "rich guy" is also a faux-green "environmentalist" then his activities are open to question. There is no "absolutely."

And far better than pumping it into the political process.

Are you so naive as to think that it would an either/or situation?

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 03:20:52 -0800 (PST), wrote:

You are NOT going to get away with using the word "absolutely" he

If, for example, said "rich guy" is also a faux-green "environmentalist" then his activities are open to question. There is no "absolutely."

I said absolutely, and I meant it. I don't know what your obsession
about environmentalists has to do with anything.

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 03:13:02 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Then you believe that carbon emissions are not a problem?

Carbon emissions are obviously a problem. But the fix isn't to stop
them arbitrarily, across the board. Every situation needs to be
considered from a harm versus benefit standpoint.

There is no reason for a celebrity or other well-heeled individual to take a sub-orbital tourist flight, not to mention a plane trip to get to and from the launch site.

Yes, there is. Because wanting to do something is the best reason
there is to do anything.

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 08:18:16 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 03:13:02 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Then you believe that carbon emissions are not a problem?

Carbon emissions are obviously a problem. But the fix isn't to stop
them arbitrarily, across the board. Every situation needs to be
considered from a harm versus benefit standpoint.

There's been carbon emissions for billions of years.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 13:49:01 -0500, Lord Vath
wrote:

There's been carbon emissions for billions of years.

True, but it's anthropogenic emissions that are currently driving the
climate system out of balance, and producing undesirable and expensive
side effects.

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:21:59 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 13:49:01 -0500, Lord Vath
wrote:

There's been carbon emissions for billions of years.

True, but it's anthropogenic emissions that are currently driving the
climate system out of balance, and producing undesirable and expensive
side effects.

That hasn't been proven.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Saturday, November 15, 2014 1:29:11 PM UTC-8, Lord Vath wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:21:59 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

True, but it's anthropogenic emissions that are currently driving the
climate system out of balance, and producing undesirable and expensive
side effects.

That hasn't been proven.

Time to get your head out of the sand...

https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/...e0&oe=54F77985

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 13:59:02 -0800 (PST), palsing
wrote this crap:

On Saturday, November 15, 2014 1:29:11 PM UTC-8, Lord Vath wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:21:59 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

True, but it's anthropogenic emissions that are currently driving the
climate system out of balance, and producing undesirable and expensive
side effects.

That hasn't been proven.

Time to get your head out of the sand...

https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/1590985

That link didn't work for me, it's too long. And I don't bother to
read left-wing propaganda anyway.

Using the scientific method, the only way to prove that CO2 harms the
planet is to build an exact copy of the planet and experiment on it.
That is quite beyond our technology. Actually, you'd need two
duplicates, one for a control.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe