Having grown up in Hawai'i, I know both people who worked in the observatories (or who reserve time on its telescopes for academic work), as well as people who have opposed the continued growth of facilities on the mountain.
While this became a salient topic in the media during the proposed TMNT telescope construction, there's an angle to all this that has been lost in the national media. Some of the voices quoted as opposed to development tended to be the loudest, and in my opinion least reasonable, ones. These arguments tended to hinge on Native Hawaiian identity politics and cultural grievances - while there might be something there, such statements could come across as close-minded, and I think they mischaracterized the debate as about science and progress versus NIMBYism and indigenous rights.
The more legitimate concern has been the State of Hawai'i's general mismanagement of development on the mountain, and the failure of its relevant Board of Trustees to fulfill their contractual obligations. Many private/public construction projects in Hawai'i have the unfortunate tendency to turn into haphazard federal cash grabs: the exploding costs and years-behind-schedule rail system in Honolulu is a good example, and there's a fair argument to be made that the thirteen telescopes on Mauna Loa have followed a similar pattern. Some of these were legally supposed to have been cleaned up years ago.
As mentioned, I know people who've used some of the telescopes for research and I don't think many people in the islands question the value or substance of their work. I also personally prefer it to local government's addiction to developing tourism. At the same time, I think there's a fair debate that's less "we don't like scientists," and more "please clean up your old messes like you promised."
This is all tangential to TFA, and I doubt the current federal administration cares about it. I'll still be curious to see how this plays out. Pulling funding could hurt efforts to responsibly steward the site, which would be bad. At the same time, it could discourage the Board of Trustees from continuing to chase the next federal money hose opportunity in a questionably sustainable way.
In an ideal case, those involved will find a way to continue pursuing research, while those managing the site will pursue a more organized, transparent, and responsible development plan for the land in question.
We are witnessing gradual destruction of the United States. Unfortunately, nothing will change before the country is in ruins, much like Germany and Japan in 1945.
Ironically, much of the ascent of America after WWII had to do with being the only intact industrial power, which we then plowed into science and technology research. It’s a pity we don’t recognize that in our historical narratives - rather than just “we did the right thing during World War II”.
Not really, most Republicans now realize we should have stayed out of WWII in Europe. Hitler would have crushed the USSR and hundreds of millions of lives would have been saved.
Staying out would not have been sufficient to ensure the defeat of Stalin, but it would definitely have meant someone besides the USA got the first nuke, and also meant that the USA wasn't defending its interests in the Pacific.
After the war, the British Empire (under either the British or the Axis depending on how that fight went) may well have been turned against you directly as a way to recoup losses, and regardless of which of Axis or USSR (or the British) won, someone would have gotten the magnetron and the rockets and the nuclear explosives, and it wouldn't have been the USA.
I think a gradual decline looks more like the Rust Belt expanding to cover the whole country, than like Germany and Japan in 1945.
But there's a few different ways that it could all come like that, and not just Trump or his team making a huge mistake: Despite how long it has been known that solar flares and HAEMPs could damage the power grid in a way that kills 60-90% of the population before it can be fixed, I have no reason to think the USA has actually hardened its infrastructure against such risks.
There already is one. The idea there's anything special about Mauna Loa is wrong; CO2 sensors can be found around the world. I looked at them once. They show the same general slope but very different absolute levels (which is odd, because the usual claim is that CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere). They also vary enormously in reading stability, because CO2 levels are dominated by nearby vegetation growth and the seasons.
Here's a "climate pledge" for you, Jeff: undo some of the damage you did by supporting Trump by endowing a trust to keep this facility operational and collecting data for another 65+ years.
Nobody can talk about climate change if you intentionally bury the science.
Having grown up in Hawai'i, I know both people who worked in the observatories (or who reserve time on its telescopes for academic work), as well as people who have opposed the continued growth of facilities on the mountain.
While this became a salient topic in the media during the proposed TMNT telescope construction, there's an angle to all this that has been lost in the national media. Some of the voices quoted as opposed to development tended to be the loudest, and in my opinion least reasonable, ones. These arguments tended to hinge on Native Hawaiian identity politics and cultural grievances - while there might be something there, such statements could come across as close-minded, and I think they mischaracterized the debate as about science and progress versus NIMBYism and indigenous rights.
The more legitimate concern has been the State of Hawai'i's general mismanagement of development on the mountain, and the failure of its relevant Board of Trustees to fulfill their contractual obligations. Many private/public construction projects in Hawai'i have the unfortunate tendency to turn into haphazard federal cash grabs: the exploding costs and years-behind-schedule rail system in Honolulu is a good example, and there's a fair argument to be made that the thirteen telescopes on Mauna Loa have followed a similar pattern. Some of these were legally supposed to have been cleaned up years ago.
As mentioned, I know people who've used some of the telescopes for research and I don't think many people in the islands question the value or substance of their work. I also personally prefer it to local government's addiction to developing tourism. At the same time, I think there's a fair debate that's less "we don't like scientists," and more "please clean up your old messes like you promised."
This is all tangential to TFA, and I doubt the current federal administration cares about it. I'll still be curious to see how this plays out. Pulling funding could hurt efforts to responsibly steward the site, which would be bad. At the same time, it could discourage the Board of Trustees from continuing to chase the next federal money hose opportunity in a questionably sustainable way.
In an ideal case, those involved will find a way to continue pursuing research, while those managing the site will pursue a more organized, transparent, and responsible development plan for the land in question.
We are witnessing gradual destruction of the United States. Unfortunately, nothing will change before the country is in ruins, much like Germany and Japan in 1945.
Ironically, much of the ascent of America after WWII had to do with being the only intact industrial power, which we then plowed into science and technology research. It’s a pity we don’t recognize that in our historical narratives - rather than just “we did the right thing during World War II”.
> rather than just “we did the right thing during World War II”
This is now a debated point in MAGA!
Not really, most Republicans now realize we should have stayed out of WWII in Europe. Hitler would have crushed the USSR and hundreds of millions of lives would have been saved.
Staying out would not have been sufficient to ensure the defeat of Stalin, but it would definitely have meant someone besides the USA got the first nuke, and also meant that the USA wasn't defending its interests in the Pacific.
After the war, the British Empire (under either the British or the Axis depending on how that fight went) may well have been turned against you directly as a way to recoup losses, and regardless of which of Axis or USSR (or the British) won, someone would have gotten the magnetron and the rockets and the nuclear explosives, and it wouldn't have been the USA.
Right, this nonsense. Whitewashing Holocaust apologist with hypotheticals about Hitler’s Europe about as credible as their budget projections.
I think a gradual decline looks more like the Rust Belt expanding to cover the whole country, than like Germany and Japan in 1945.
But there's a few different ways that it could all come like that, and not just Trump or his team making a huge mistake: Despite how long it has been known that solar flares and HAEMPs could damage the power grid in a way that kills 60-90% of the population before it can be fixed, I have no reason to think the USA has actually hardened its infrastructure against such risks.
The people of Hawaii will Be happy - a positive move.
I can guess why but to be sure what do you mean?
It's not a positive move for anyone, whether for anyone in Hawaii or otherwise. Hawaii is not immune to climate change.
I think we should ideally have a global CO2 sensor network that anyone can feed into. It could even store data on a blockchain if that helps.
There already is one. The idea there's anything special about Mauna Loa is wrong; CO2 sensors can be found around the world. I looked at them once. They show the same general slope but very different absolute levels (which is odd, because the usual claim is that CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere). They also vary enormously in reading stability, because CO2 levels are dominated by nearby vegetation growth and the seasons.
There has to be a way to stop these people.
Here's a "climate pledge" for you, Jeff: undo some of the damage you did by supporting Trump by endowing a trust to keep this facility operational and collecting data for another 65+ years.
Midterms!! Or hope those cheeseburgers will do their magic sooner rather than later.
Lets see if they don't get delayed to deal with some crisis or another first.