Maunakea TMT Protests (Read 273004 times)

Kuleana

Re: Maunakea TMT Protests
« Reply #380 on: August 02, 2019, 05:00:29 PM »
The "legal status" or the "purported legal status"?

The quoted comment is totally "on topic with TMT".That's Lyin' Harry's prefatory comment laying the groundwork and framework upon which he will be having "discussions" with the criminals currently blocking a public road.

I believe it was you.  Your statement above made it an issue, when in my post right before yours above, I commented how the thread should stay on the topic of TMT.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2019, 05:17:09 PM by Kuleana »

punaperson

Re: Maunakea TMT Protests
« Reply #381 on: August 02, 2019, 05:04:27 PM »
All graphics referenced are at the original article as linked.

Fact-Checking Environmental Concerns About The Thirty Meter Telescope

https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/08/fact-checking-environmental-concerns-about-the-thirty-meter-telescope/

TMT officials say the world’s largest telescope will be a zero-waste facility, while the state has determined  it doesn’t pose a risk to the Big Island’s water supply.

Emotions have been running high about the plan to build another telescope on Mauna Kea, a mountain on the Big Island that’s already home to a thriving astronomy industry. Hundreds of activists remain at the base of Mauna Kea Access Road and plan to stay to prevent construction trucks from heading up the mountain.

Some who consider the mountain sacred believe adding another structure to be desecration, no matter what that structure is. But many opponents also have concerns about the environmental impact of what would be the world’s largest visible-light telescope.

Some of the environmental claims raised on social media, like rumors about the TMT being fueled by nuclear power, are false. Other facts are more nuanced or complex than they initially appear.

It doesn’t help that the University of Hawaii has a poor history of managing the mountain. A 1998 state audit found that observatories left trash and old equipment and damaged historical sites and endangered species habitat. The mountain facilities also have a history of chemical and waste spills that include up to 1,000 gallons of sewage overflowing in 2008.

But the university has improved its management of the mountain over the past two decades and the TMT International Observatory, the nonprofit organization behind the TMT, says this project will be a zero-waste facility with minimal impact on the mountain.

Civil Beat examined some of the key environmental questions about the project:

How big will the TMT be?

Civil Beat recently received this question from a reader: “How much more land is intended to be used for the new telescope or are they removing one or two of the old telescopes and using the same pads for the new one? I’ve been told they are taking thousands of more acres? Is this true?”

The TMT is going to be built on a new site, not on top of decommissioned telescopes. The entire project area is expected to take up 5 acres, including the telescope dome, support building and parking lot. The building itself will be 180 feet high and 14 feet below ground level.

This rendering of the Thirty Meter Telescope shows that the observatory is smaller than Aloha Stadium. The TIO created this rendering after hearing rumors that the TMT would be comparable in size to Aloha Stadium.

Gordon Squires, vice president for external relations for the TMT International Observatory, says the project site is less visible than the mountain peak would be and isn’t home to any endangered species. The project construction won’t involve dynamite.

The organization’s environmental impact statement acknowledges that the TMT’s construction will disturb some habitat of the wekiu bug, a formerly endangered species. The analysis includes plans to mitigate the impact.

Squires says the TIO also has a plan to decommission the telescope after its lifetime, which is estimated to be 50 years of use.

Currently the state is planning to decommission five telescopes on the mountain. Two have been sitting unused for several years and are in the process of being decommissioned. The remaining 11 observatories are in use and continue to produce scientific data.

What impact — if any — will the TMT have on the Big Island’s aquifer and water supply?

The TMT’s potential effect on the water supply is one of the most commonly voiced environmental concerns by activists.

The state has concluded that the telescope doesn’t pose a risk to the aquifer or Hawaii island’s water supply. This is based on scientists who testified at public hearings and contributed to the environmental analysis of the project.


Here’s Part 1 of a list of chemical spills on Mauna Kea and how they’ve been addressed historically. The state has concluded that it’s extremely unlikely any spills would affect groundwater.

The closest groundwater wells are 12 miles away and because the project site is thousands of feet above sea level, it’s expected to have no significant impact on natural resources. Here’s Judge Riki May Amano’s description in her ruling approving the TMT’s 2017 permit:

“The groundwater beneath the summit of Mauna Kea is impounded and compartmentalized by subsurface geologic structures. Because the TMT Observatory will use a zero-discharge wastewater system, wastewater will not be released from the TMT Project so no percolation of wastewater will reach the aquifer.

“Moreover, Mauna Kea is comprised of very porous lavas that naturally treat and filter water percolating downward. A discharge on the summit area would be naturally treated and filtered through thousands of feet of the porous lavas, which would remove any contamination from that discharge before reaching any groundwater.

“Contamination of groundwater is extremely remote and very unlikely from the TMT Project. There is no reasonable prospect of an adverse impact on either drinking or coastal waters from the TMT Project.”

Here’s why some opponents still have concerns about the impact on drinking water despite the judge’s ruling.

Kealoha Pisciotta, a longtime opponent of the TMT, says that she doesn’t believe scientists know enough about the mountain’s geology to be certain that any potential chemical spills wouldn’t reach the groundwater. She noted that scientists are still discovering new information about where water is located on Hawaii island. The TMT’s environmental impact statement was conducted in 2009 and she thinks there should be a newer analysis done with better experts.

What about chemical spills and hazardous waste?

As far as buildings go, the TMT is taking lots of steps to prevent any emission of waste. Solid waste and hazardous waste produced by existing observatories are already routinely removed from Mauna Kea. The nonprofit behind the TMT has a multi-step plan to ensure the telescope doesn’t pollute the mountain.

“All of our containment vessels are double-walled, all of our waste is removed from the mountain,” says Squires of the telescope. “None of it is discharged up there.”

Unlike previous observatories, the TMT will not use mercury.

Here’s Part 2 of a list of chemical spills on Mauna Kea and how they’ve been addressed historically.

Opponents’ concerns about pollution stem from past spills of hydraulic fluid and other chemicals. Some observatories’ generators use diesel fuel, waste oil and coolant such as ethylene glycol.

“In the past, there have been instances in which the cinder was contaminated and then excavated to contain the potential effects of the spill,” the TMT’s environmental statement acknowledges.

But not all spills occurred outdoors. The analysis also says: “The best available information suggests that while mercury spills have occurred, spilled amounts occurred inside during mirror handling activities and were small.”

At Hale Pohaku, where facilities for astronomers and other observatory staff exist, there are three underground storage tanks that hold diesel fuel and gasoline. These exist whether or not the TMT is built, and the project’s environmental analysis says there have never been leaks at these underground storage tanks.

Will the TMT use nuclear power?

No. This is an unfounded claim that’s occasionally floating on social media.

The TMT will rely on Hawaii County’s electric grid, similar to other observatories. There won’t be any nuclear power used on the site at all, and there is no nuclear energy currently used by other telescopes on Mauna Kea.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Maunakea TMT Protests
« Reply #382 on: August 02, 2019, 05:15:31 PM »
Your opinion.

Please review the US Constitution and show me where the annexation of Hawaii in 1898 by the US is legal.


Consider yourself "shown" -- again.

The arguments supporting the annexation being legal make more sense than anything I've seen posted on here calling it illegal.

https://www.civilbeat.org/2015/07/the-myth-of-hawaiis-illegal-annexation/
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

punaperson

Re: Maunakea TMT Protests
« Reply #383 on: August 02, 2019, 06:27:56 PM »
Consider yourself "shown" -- again.

The arguments supporting the annexation being legal make more sense than anything I've seen posted on here calling it illegal.

https://www.civilbeat.org/2015/07/the-myth-of-hawaiis-illegal-annexation/
Hey, that can't be real! The person here who is all-knowing has told us that there "is no dispute" that the "annexation" of Hawaii is illegal. That settled it. After he made that pronouncement he told us to get back on topic and not question his profound elite knowledge. Whasa mattah wit you? There is no reasoning possible with these puppet Sai-bots who are under the lying influence of the scam artist Sai. They know it all, there is "no dispute", this state is illegally occupied. Now, hand over your stuff and get out. Oh, yeah, and don't forget to read the Constitution on your way out.

Kuleana

Re: Maunakea TMT Protests
« Reply #384 on: August 02, 2019, 09:48:26 PM »
Consider yourself "shown" -- again.

The arguments supporting the annexation being legal make more sense than anything I've seen posted on here calling it illegal.

https://www.civilbeat.org/2015/07/the-myth-of-hawaiis-illegal-annexation/

Really Flapp?

You're basing your rebuttal of the illegal annexation of Hawaii by the US in 1898 on an article written by a graduate student, not in law, political science, or history, but in social work?

I am very familiar with that article and found it amusing when I read it long ago to see how this graduate student, who is not a subject matter expert in any of the content areas I listed, think he has the credentials to criticize a senior Professor of Law at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, Williamson Chang, and his position reaffirming how Hawaii is not legally part of the US, but illegally occupied by them.

I am well aware of your attention to detail and relentlessness in getting the last say in things, but you have do better that get a graduate student to do your dirty work.

In the words of the editor of that article you cited:

Editor’s Note: "The writer is a graduate student in social work. He notes that part of his curriculum requires that he self-identify as a social work professional. He stresses, though, that he has not been licensed and is not yet a professional social worker in the State of Hawaii."




RSN172

Re: Maunakea TMT Protests
« Reply #385 on: August 02, 2019, 10:00:10 PM »
Happily living in Puna

eyeeatingfish

Re: Maunakea TMT Protests
« Reply #386 on: August 02, 2019, 10:28:25 PM »
The Democratic Party would not exist in the restored Hawaiian nation.  Thank God!  It would be safe to presume new political parties would begin given the new political landscape and not just TWO PARTIES!  That's the best part.

It would still exist just with new names.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Maunakea TMT Protests
« Reply #387 on: August 02, 2019, 11:44:34 PM »
Really Flapp?

You're basing your rebuttal of the illegal annexation of Hawaii by the US in 1898 on an article written by a graduate student, not in law, political science, or history, but in social work?

I am very familiar with that article and found it amusing when I read it long ago to see how this graduate student, who is not a subject matter expert in any of the content areas I listed, think he has the credentials to criticize a senior Professor of Law at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, Williamson Chang, and his position reaffirming how Hawaii is not legally part of the US, but illegally occupied by them.

I am well aware of your attention to detail and relentlessness in getting the last say in things, but you have do better that get a graduate student to do your dirty work.

In the words of the editor of that article you cited:

Editor’s Note: "The writer is a graduate student in social work. He notes that part of his curriculum requires that he self-identify as a social work professional. He stresses, though, that he has not been licensed and is not yet a professional social worker in the State of Hawaii."


What I am WELL AWARE OF is you spent several lines of text attacking the voracity and credentials of the author while giving an opinion of the article as "amusing."

I am also WELL AWARE you failed to list a single point he made that was incorrect along with evidence as to why you think so.

Typical.  Nobody can have a discussion with someone who prefers denial over facts.

Dismiss the article all you want.  It's proof that not everyone is buying into the "illegal annexation" BS.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

omnigun

Re: Maunakea TMT Protests
« Reply #388 on: August 03, 2019, 12:09:37 AM »
Hawaii lost the "war" with the US  and was annexed/taken over / whatever wording makes you happy.  Illegal, legal, who cares.  That's in the past and is part of the past of every single country in the entire world.  Long story short,  just focus on the future.  Science offers the best future. 

punaperson

Re: Maunakea TMT Protests
« Reply #389 on: August 03, 2019, 07:05:05 AM »
Really Flapp?

You're basing your rebuttal of the illegal annexation of Hawaii by the US in 1898 on an article written by a graduate student, not in law, political science, or history, but in social work?

I am very familiar with that article and found it amusing when I read it long ago to see how this graduate student, who is not a subject matter expert in any of the content areas I listed, think he has the credentials to criticize a senior Professor of Law at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, Williamson Chang, and his position reaffirming how Hawaii is not legally part of the US, but illegally occupied by them.

I am well aware of your attention to detail and relentlessness in getting the last say in things, but you have do better that get a graduate student to do your dirty work.

In the words of the editor of that article you cited:

Editor’s Note: "The writer is a graduate student in social work. He notes that part of his curriculum requires that he self-identify as a social work professional. He stresses, though, that he has not been licensed and is not yet a professional social worker in the State of Hawaii."
Really Kuleana?

You're asserting that the validity of an argument or of the claimed facts is based upon some status or position held by the writer? That's your argument? You really want to claim that because someone is a lawyer (of all things) they can't be wrong or a liar? That's patently laughable. But no doubt what you believe because that's what you just wrote. You don't make any other argument, such as actually disputing the factual claims of the article itself (which you wouldn't do, of course, because you, in whatever high official status you have, unknown to us, is that there "is no dispute"). Preposterous.

Here's a link to all the documents, including the treaty of annexation: http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/TreatyOfAnnexationHawaiiUS.html

Here is a link to a website having almost 500 (five hundred) articles disputing the very thing that our resident genius qualified-in-the-field (apparently, otherwise s/he wouldn't say anything because s/he claims that anything said by anyone not "qualified" in the appropriate field is worthless garbage, and we know that wouldn't apply to him/her/zir) claims "there is no dispute" about.

http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/

This includes exchanges with the above mentioned Chang in what for all appearances seems to be a "dispute", which doesn't exist according the the expert Kuleana. I guess it's just a figment of anyone who reads it's imagination..

Kuleana

Re: Maunakea TMT Protests
« Reply #390 on: August 03, 2019, 09:54:20 AM »
What I am WELL AWARE OF is you spent several lines of text attacking the voracity and credentials of the author while giving an opinion of the article as "amusing."

I am also WELL AWARE you failed to list a single point he made that was incorrect along with evidence as to why you think so.

Typical.  Nobody can have a discussion with someone who prefers denial over facts.

Dismiss the article all you want.  It's proof that not everyone is buying into the "illegal annexation" BS.

The credentials of someone offering an analysis of a particular subject matter is paramount when arguing an issue of that same subject matter.

Both Law Professor Chang and the Graduate Student who authored your chosen article to refute the illegal annexation of Hawaii by the US in 1898 was privy to the same evidence and documents that led them to their conclusions.  However, whose analysis carries more weight?  A law professor or a graduate student?  THAT'S THE QUESTION.

In the Court of Flapp_Jackson, it appears an opinion from a graduate student, who has no legal, political, or historical background, outweighs a law professor.

However, in a court of law, I believe everyone would agree a law professor's analysis would be more credible.

ARE YOU DENYING THIS?

Kuleana

Re: Maunakea TMT Protests
« Reply #391 on: August 03, 2019, 10:21:32 AM »
Really Kuleana?

You're asserting that the validity of an argument or of the claimed facts is based upon some status or position held by the writer? That's your argument? You really want to claim that because someone is a lawyer (of all things) they can't be wrong or a liar? That's patently laughable. But no doubt what you believe because that's what you just wrote. You don't make any other argument, such as actually disputing the factual claims of the article itself (which you wouldn't do, of course, because you, in whatever high official status you have, unknown to us, is that there "is no dispute"). Preposterous.

Here's a link to all the documents, including the treaty of annexation: http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/TreatyOfAnnexationHawaiiUS.html

Here is a link to a website having almost 500 (five hundred) articles disputing the very thing that our resident genius qualified-in-the-field (apparently, otherwise s/he wouldn't say anything because s/he claims that anything said by anyone not "qualified" in the appropriate field is worthless garbage, and we know that wouldn't apply to him/her/zir) claims "there is no dispute" about.

http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/

This includes exchanges with the above mentioned Chang in what for all appearances seems to be a "dispute", which doesn't exist according the the expert Kuleana. I guess it's just a figment of anyone who reads it's imagination..


Similarly in the case of Flapp using a person with no background in law, political science, or history; the credentials of Kenneth Conklin, a person whose background is mathematics and education, is the authority and personal blog you choose to cite to refute the illegal annexation of Hawaii by the US in 1898?

Do you think a person with a mathematics and education background can offer an analysis of a legal matter that carries more weight than a law professor in a court of law?

Maybe in the Court of Flapp_Jackson, but not in a Court of Law.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Maunakea TMT Protests
« Reply #392 on: August 03, 2019, 10:25:56 AM »
The credentials of someone offering an analysis of a particular subject matter is paramount when arguing an issue of that same subject matter.

Both Law Professor Chang and the Graduate Student who authored your chosen article to refute the illegal annexation of Hawaii by the US in 1898 was privy to the same evidence and documents that led them to their conclusions.  However, whose analysis carries more weight?  A law professor or a graduate student?  THAT'S THE QUESTION.

In the Court of Flapp_Jackson, it appears an opinion from a graduate student, who has no legal, political, or historical background, outweighs a law professor.

However, in a court of law, I believe everyone would agree a law professor's analysis would be more credible.

ARE YOU DENYING THIS?


You seem to be in denial if you still believe people with credentialed and experienced pasts aren't going to intentionally or unintentionally push stories that just aren't true.

Lawyers are trained to look at a fact pattern and argue BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE -- and win.

The Kealoha's were credentialed, experienced experts in the law.  Doesn't look like they'll be publishing academic papers in law enforcement or legal journals anytime soon.  But you go ahead and worship at the alter of subject matter experts if that makes you feel better.


WHAT I AM STILL WELL AWARE OF is you haven't bothered to address the content of the article.  You only attack the messenger -- as if that's an argument.

Transparent denial.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

Kuleana

Re: Maunakea TMT Protests
« Reply #393 on: August 03, 2019, 10:40:36 AM »
You seem to be in denial if you still believe people with credentialed and experienced pasts aren't going to intentionally or unintentionally push stories that just aren't true.

Lawyers are trained to look at a fact pattern and argue BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE -- and win.

The Kealoha's were credentialed, experienced experts in the law.  Doesn't look like they'll be publishing academic papers in law enforcement or legal journals anytime soon.  But you go ahead and worship at the alter of subject matter experts if that makes you feel better.


WHAT I AM STILL WELL AWARE OF is you haven't bothered to address the content of the article.  You only attack the messenger -- as if that's an argument.

Transparent denial.

You pose the position that Respected University of Hawaii Law Professor Williamson Chang, who is NOT HAWAIIAN by-the-way, is biased because he is an attorney.

By the same token, you don't think the graduate student that wrote his opinion to the same available evidence that Professor Chang has already looked at in his own analysis is not biased as well?

So according to Flapp-Jackson's kangaroo court, Law Professor Chang's reaffirmation of the illegal occupation of Hawaii by the US in 1898 is biased and factually incorrect, while a graduate student's analysis of the situation with no background in law, political science, or history is totally accurate and has no bias at all.

Excuse me, while I leave the Court of Flapp_Jackson.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Maunakea TMT Protests
« Reply #394 on: August 03, 2019, 10:51:57 AM »
You pose the position that Respected University of Hawaii Law Professor Williamson Chang, who is NOT HAWAIIAN by-the-way, is biased because he is an attorney.

By the same token, you don't think the graduate student that wrote his opinion to the same available evidence that Professor Chang has already looked at in his own analysis is not biased as well?

So according to Flapp-Jackson's kangaroo court, Law Professor Chang's reaffirmation of the illegal occupation of Hawaii by the US in 1898 is biased and factually incorrect, while a graduate student's analysis of the situation with no background in law, political science, or history is totally accurate and has no bias at all.

Excuse me, while I leave the Court of Flapp_Jackson.


Learn to read.  I posed (posited) the position that you can't trust a lawyer to argue a position without critically looking at the FACTS they offer -- which you apparently refuse to do.  Afraid of what you'll find?

Conclusions are not facts. They are opinions supposedly derived from analysis.  The facts can be analyzed and interpreted sometimes in more than one way.  That's how lawyers make their living.  "My client did not mean to grab the reporter's genitals. She merely brushed up against him, and the comments she made about grabbing him were mere rhetoric."  Never mind the video proved otherwise. **actual case that just ended involving a woman sexually assaulting a Trump supporter/reporter **

Yeah, lawyers have such a sterling reputation.

You seem angry.  Is that always your reaction when your beliefs are challenged?  Triggered much?   :rofl: :rofl:
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

Kuleana

Re: Maunakea TMT Protests
« Reply #395 on: August 03, 2019, 10:54:58 AM »
Learn to read.  I posed (posited) the position that you can't trust a lawyer to argue a position without critically looking at the FACTS they offer -- which you apparently refuse to do.  Afraid of what you'll find?

Conclusions are not facts. They are opinions supposedly derived from analysis.  The facts can be analyzed and interpreted sometimes in more than one way.  That's how lawyers make their living.  "My client did not mean to grab the reporter's genitals. She merely brushed up against him, and the comments she made about grabbing him were mere rhetoric."  Never mind the video proved otherwise. **actual case that just ended involving a woman sexually assaulting a Trump supporter/reporter **

Yeah, lawyers have such a sterling reputation.

You seem angry.  Is that always your reaction when your beliefs are challenged?  Triggered much?   :rofl: :rofl:


No facts are in dispute; only the interpretation of them.

In the case of Law Professor Chang vs social work graduate student, I believe it is clear who has the more accurate interpretation of them.

punaperson

Re: Maunakea TMT Protests
« Reply #396 on: August 03, 2019, 11:24:25 AM »

No facts are in dispute; only the interpretation of them.

In the case of Law Professor Chang vs social work graduate student, I believe it is clear who has the more accurate interpretation of them.
You know what? No one cares what you "believe", as at least some of your beliefs are clearly either blatant lies of blatant ignorance (e.g. your quote that "there is no dispute" regarding the legality of Hawaii "annexation"/statehood, etc.).

Do you still claim, as you previously wrote in this thread, that "There is no dispute that the USA has no legal authority over Hawaii and that Hawaii is illegally being occupied by the USA."? A simple yes or no will do. But of course we all know you won't give the simple answer because the simple answer is that you are a liar, I suppose it is possible that your are that stupid... yeah, you could be.No matter the condition generating it, that statement is FALSE. So much for your "beliefs" and truth values.

Of course facts are in dispute. You lie again. Just read some of the responses to Sai and Chang and you will see that Sai and Chang either lie (by commission or omission) or deliberately distort facts. That is the only way they can make their absurd arguments... if they included all the real facts their case disappears in a puff of absurdity.

Likewise absurd is your claim that "lawyers" should be given more weight than a non-lawyer is arguing a case of facts. A lawyer has no more credibility simply be being a lawyer. None. Your argument it false. FALSE. If being a lawyer makes that person more likely to be telling truth, including in court, how is that in every case in court one side's lawyer(s) lose? Someone, the judge or jury, gave that lawyer less credibility, using common sense to analyze the arguments and facts they present, and conclude that that sides lawyer(s) was either lying or distorting the facts or the (interpretation of the) law.. Same here. Being a lawyer by profession lends zero credibility their claims. Zero. I know you will repeat your argument again and again, but it will still be false then too.

macsak

Re: Maunakea TMT Protests
« Reply #397 on: August 03, 2019, 11:33:55 AM »
guys, stop it already
"no dispute" = "settled science"

ren

Re: Maunakea TMT Protests
« Reply #398 on: August 03, 2019, 12:24:02 PM »
The credentials of someone offering an analysis of a particular subject matter is paramount when arguing an issue of that same subject matter.

What are your credentials?
Deeds Not Words

macsak

Re: Maunakea TMT Protests
« Reply #399 on: August 03, 2019, 12:43:41 PM »
What are your credentials?

oh no you didn't...