Gooch

Bicycle Blunders and Smarter Solutions

There is some excellent info on that link. Thank you for posting it.

I disagree. Especially outside the loop on roads like Westheimer or Richmond, sidewalks are the way to go for biking (regardless of that silly 300ft ordinance). The city should repeal that ordinance and work on improving the sidewalks all over the city so cyclists and walkers have a good alternative to walking/biking in the street.

I sortof disagree. No cyclists should be on Westheimer. Better alternates exist. However... Two factors to consider. First, motorists aren't looking for cyclists on sidewalks when turning right. Right hooks are one of the most dangerous threats between cars and motorists. They are (understandably!) looking left for crossing traffic. This makes it necessary to stop at every single intersection to look for turning motorists. Second... depends on your average speed. When I'm out training, I'm averaging between 20-25+mph. Far too fast to mix it up with pedestrians walking along the side walk. Those closing speeds are far too high to be safe for ped or cyclist, especially when adjacent to roads where the automotive traffic is (supposedly) limited to 35mph. I can't even begin to tell you of the close calls, dirty looks, and curses thrown my way in Memorial Villages, where bikes are forced upon the sidewalks. Sidewalks in the long run can provide a false sense of security.

BikeHouston Annual Meeting - Tues 1/26/10, 6:30p CST

As the theory goes, warming causes the loss of ice and snow pack, which reflect solar energy/heat. This increasingly open surface area (land/water) absorb solar energy/heat rather than reflect, thus speeding the polar warming process.

Not entirely unreasonable... but 'runaway' temperatures did not happen during the Mideival Warming Period when Greenland was green and temperatures were warmer than they are predicted to become in the next 100 years.

I think the greatest danger from GW is that it takes focus away from much more threatening problems. We're taking research resources and diverting public attention from far more hazardous things like smoking, waterway pollution, polluted drinking water, particulates, and volatiles in the air. Threats that stand to kill us dead from cancer, lung disease, and lack of clean water. Threats we know can be quantified, mitigated, and elimated as risk to our well being. Instead... we get an attempt at global taxation on a minor problem that may, or may not, be a significant threat. Something seems out of whack with that.

I am a believer in the truth. There needs to be an investigation. Any manipulated data, any conclusions based on that data, needs to be thrown out. Period.

If it were only that simple. There's a ton of derivative work based on EAU-CRU. For example, we learned this week that NASA and Univ. of Alabama Huntsville sattelite-based temperature measurements for the last 20-ish years have been calibrated against EAU-CRU's "processed" historic database. So now those measurements are suspect. Unfortunately EAU-CRU disposed of the raw data used to create their "processed" data series. We can't reconstruct it sans "processing".

Plus we do not know how many contrarian papers were barred from publishing. I know of a remote-sensing paper that was shunned (because?) it concluded temperatures have not risen significantly over the last 25-years. The reason cited... it wasn't calibrated against NASA or CRU's data series...

Eventually, the Earth will do more damage to itself than humans ever could - but we may be the catalyst that sets off the whole dangerous sequence of destruction. The Earth warms due to excessive human CO2 emissions... then permafrost melts, releasing the Earth's methane gas that is 30x more heat trapping than CO2. And then its just hell in hand basket from there...

We need to be careful with doomsday scenarios. Remember in the early 70s we were doomed to an ice age. In the late 70s we were going to run out of oil in less than 25 years. Then in the 80s it was ozone hole. In the 90s it was Y2k. Then it was "global warming". Now we're hearing about the 2012 Mayan calandar thing. It seems there's always something going cause our immediate demise.

Besides...There are enough thermodynamic holes in the AGW theory to not fear it. You inadvertantly pointed one out. Why would we supposedly see GW effects in the polar regions first? GW is powered by one single thing - sunlight. CO2 cannot create, store, or transfer a single watt of heat. None. GW effects should be obsereved first -and greatest- where the sun has the greatest energy. At the mid-lattitudes.

So everyone knows, the way science works is this: 1) Make an observation. 2) Form a hypothesis about that observation. 3) Devise tests to test your hypothesis. 4) Test your hypothesis. 5) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 6) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 7) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 8) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 9) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 10) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 11) Continue with this process until you've consistently gotten the same results time after time. 12) Submit your conclusions to a peer reviewed publication (ie not Mad Magazine). 13) Peer test. 14) Peer retest. 15) Peer retest. 16) Peer retest. 17) Peer retest. 18) Peer retest. 19) Peer retest. If the same conclusions can't be reached consistently, then the whole conclusion is discarded. The entire thing. And then, you start over, "fresh" as you say. Trust me, had CRU's numbers been anomalies that were impossible to replicate, they would hold no merit.

Thats a great summary! Unfortunately... these guys actively tried to subvert Step 12 by stacking the review boards. There were so many examples I don't know how to whittle them down to quote them here. These are two famous ones...

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this.

Blah. That's not so bothersome. It happens all. the. time. in peer reviews. Bothersome is subverting Steps 13...?? Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have for years been trying unsuccessfully to duplicate the published results coming from the UEA-Hadley and Mann. They are referred to as "the two MMs" and "M&M" in many of the hacked emails. They asked for help, because they could not reproduce the results and were stonewalled by UEA-CRU. They asked for input data and were told No! After filing FOI requests they were told the data had been accidently deleted. Then suddenly it was located, but they still couldn't have it, because it was too dangerous that the data would be used "incorrectly".

Phil Jones said:

I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

This was all reported by BBC earlier this year. Jones refusal to disclose set off alarm bells in the scientific community. Perhaps that inspired the hacker/whistleblower? Finally they said they didn't have permission to disclose. That's where it stands today. Behind the scene; the emails tell a different story....

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,

I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it!

The CRU station data is believed to be the the data on the graphs I posted above.

From: Phil Jones

To: Gavin Schmidt

Subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper

Date: Wed Aug 20 09:32:52 2008

Cc: Michael Mann

Gavin,

Almost all have gone in. Have sent an email to Janice re the regional freshening. On the boreholes I've used mostly Mike's revised text, with bits of yours making it read a little better. Thinking about the final bit for the Appendix. Keith should be in later, so I'll check with him - and look at that vineyard book. I did rephrase the bit about the 'evidence' as Lamb refers to it. I wanted to use his phrasing—he used this word several times in these various papers. What he means is his mind and its inherent bias(es).

Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don't want to give them something clearly tangible. Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond —advice they got from the Information Commissioner. As an aside and just between us, it seems that Brian Hoskins has withdrawn himself from the WG1 Lead nominations. It seems he doesn't want to have to deal with this hassle.

The FOI line we're all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on.

Cheers

Phil

From Ben Santer:

We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; [...] I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues.

We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully. I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre.

They didn't like publications that required data submission for review very much either... (For context: RMS=Royal Meterological Society)

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Subject: Re: See the link below

Date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:53 2009

Ben,

I don't know whether they even had a meeting yet - but I did say I would

send something to their Chief Exec.

In my 2 slides worth at Bethesda I will be showing London's UHI

and the effect that it hasn't got any bigger since 1900. It's easy

to do with 3 long time series. It is only one urban site (St James Park),

but that is where the measurements are from. Heathrow has a bit

of a UHI and it has go bigger.

I'm having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I've complained

about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don't get him to back down, I won't

be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I'll be resigning from the RMS.

The paper is about London and its UHI!

Cheers

Phil

At 16:48 19/03/2009, you wrote:

Thanks, Phil. The stuff on the website is awful. I'm really sorry you have to deal with that kind of crap.

If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.

Cheers,

Ben

More info on the "40's Blip"...

Here's what Phil Jones had to say about it

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Subject: 1940s

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600

Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>

Phil,

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly

explain the 1940s warming blip.

If you look at the attached plot you will see that the

land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,

then this would be significant for the global mean -- but

we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately.

[...]

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,

but we are still left with "why the blip".

Keep in mind they are discussing how to remove actual measured temperatures. As a modeler, measured data is your best friend, not something to impeach.

The raw data is in this ...PDF File... UEA-CRU fought against releasing this data for years, including evading FOI requests. The reason's pretty obvious. It looks nothing like a hockey-stick curves included in the IPCC and Al Gore's movie. While some stations show spikes in the 2000's, many stations show hotter decades in the '40's than the '00. IOW the temperature rise we've seen over the last decade could very likely be an anomoly rather than a trend. There's observed climatic precendent for it. This is a direct contradiction of the IPCC conclusions that the present warming is unusual, and will continue going forward.

Or, after reviewing both the emails Gooch gave a link for and reviewing the IPCC's most recent publications, I see nothing of any real value about the emails, nothing implicating anyone of professional misconduct ...

I did.

From: GIORGI FILIPPO <giorgi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: Chapter 10 LAs -- Congbin Fu <fcb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, GIORGI FILIPPO <giorgi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bruce Hewitson <hewitson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jens Christensen <jhc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Linda Mearns <lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Jones <rgjones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hans von Storch <storch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Peter Whetton <phw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Subject: On "what to do?"

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:58:02 +0200 (MET DST)

Dear All

we heard the opinions of most LAs, namely Jens, Richard, Linda, Peter,

and Hans as well as some interesting interpretations of my email (Linda says:

" You seem to be assuming that the most desirable result is

if the SRES results have no contrasts with the IS92a results.

I don't understand your reasoning on this."

[...]

Given this, I would like to add my own opinion developed through the weekend.

First let me say that in general, as my own opinion, I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions).

I realize that chapter 9 is including SRES stuff, and thus we can and need to do that too, but the fact is that in doing so the rules of IPCC have been softened to the point that in this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results. The softened condition that the models themself have to be published does not even apply because the Japanese model for example is very different from the published one which gave results not even close to the actual outlier version (in the old dataset the CCC model was the outlier). Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit unconfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this.

Anyways, this is only my opinion for what it is worth.

[...]

Cheers, Filippo

################################################## ##############

# Filippo Giorgi, Senior Scientist and Head, #

# Physics of Weather and Climate Section #

# The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics #

# P.O. BOX 586, (Strada Costiera 11 for courier mail) #

# 34100 Trieste, ITALY #

# Phone: + 39 040 2240 425 #

# Fax: + 39 040 2240 449 (or + 39 040 224 163) #

# email: giorgi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx #

################################################## ##############

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Subject: Re: quick note on TAR

Date: Sun Apr 29 19:53:16 2007

Mike

your words are a real boost to me at the moment. I found myself questioning the whole process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done - oftenwasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these kind words . I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties . Much had to be removed and I was particularly unhappy...

[...]

I feel I have basically produced nothing original or substantive of my own since this whole process started. I am at this moment , having to work on the ENV submission to the forthcoming UK Research Assessment exercise , again instead of actually doing some useful research ! Anyway thanks again Mike.... really appreciated when it comes from you very best wishes

Keith

Remenber the IPCC "consensus"?

From: Joseph Alcamo

To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rob.Swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100

Reply-to: alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Mike, Rob,

Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

I would like to weigh in on two important questions --

Distribution for Endorsements --

I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500 signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.

Some background, they want to stick with a post '61 time period to avoid the "40's Blip". This was a time period for which many temperature stations reported temps hotter than present. Thus debunking the "hottest decade on record" and "hockey stick" curves. IOW, the current warming we're seeing this last decade have occured (and abated) this century. The raw data was hacked, confirming this.

From: Phil Jones

To: “Parker, David (Met Office)”>, Neil Plummer

Subject: RE: Fwd: Monthly CLIMATbulletins

Date: Thu Jan 6 08:54:58 2005

Cc: “Thomas C Peterson”

Neil,

Just to reiterate David’s points, I’m hoping that IPCC will stick with 1961-90.

The issue of confusing users/media with new anomalies from a different base period is the key one in my mind.

…

Personally I don’t want to change the base period till after I retire !

Cheers

Phil

At 09:22 05/01/2005, Parker, David (Met Office) wrote:

Neil

There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface temperature.

Regards

David

No doubt, and we're all better off knowing this. But with that said, and has been said numerous times before, this one incident doesn't make a rule.

Accept the premise, but the emails and data don't cover a single incident. They reach back to 1996 and included cooking the books for the landmark IPCC reports. Mike Mann (Al Gore's personal climatologist) is busted in these emails. Not the first time. He comes across like a complete crybaby twit (not that it matters). Everything at EAU-CRU's questionable from the hacking. At this point any derivative works based on these guys need to be reexamined. Hansen's work (NASA) had been discredited previously. The amount of "validated" work is shrinking rapidly.

It is possible that the same conclusions could be reached if the flaws were "fixed". But it begs the question... why cook the books in the first place? It's kinda like the OJ trial when Furhman got caught giving false statements. As a juror.. what parts of a liar's work is truthful, and how do you determine?

Someone needs to start from fresh. With an open approach. The groundwater modeling community took that approach years ago. And today there are numerous fully documented (incl. flaws), well validated, widely accepted modeling tools available. Until the climate community does... this their validity will always be called into question.

That's not surprising. If I were Exxon or one of the many other corporations who supported global warming skeptics, I would do my due diligence and study the science behind global warming, meet with the Climatic Research Unit, etc. It's like Philip Morris conducting research on the addictiveness and side effects of cigarette smoking. It's in their best interests to understand the science in order to raise doubts about it, defend their position in court, etc.

The larger point is that if relying on the ad hominem argument... that if funding sources invalidate the skeptics, they would also invalidate those promoting global warming. It's mutually assured destruction of science... Actually, it's not not a scientific technique at all -it's a political technique.

As a numerical modeler... It isn't important who pays for it! What matters are the input data>method>calibration>results. Until this hacking... UEA-CRU were hiding their input data and method. Now it's coming to light and there are significant scientific questions in all four areas.

Let's take ExxonMobil as an example. As a purveyor of fossil fuels, they stand to lose some of their tens of billions of profits each year if climate regulations are put into effect. So, ExxonMobil has spent years funding discredited climate skeptics working for groups like the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The fact that science is not on their side wasn't a problem; they simply misrepresented the facts using some of those unethical scientists you mentioned to work the system.

Tha's funny. Because the UEA-CRU guys were working with Exxon too. From one of the hacked emails...

From: John Shepherd <j.g.shepherd@sxxxxxxxx.uk>

To: t.d.davies@uxxxxx.uk

Subject: Re: ESSO

Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:00:43 +0100

Cc: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@uxxxxxx.uk>

Trevor

I gather you're going to collect the free lunch(?) with Esso ! I agree witrh Mike's analysis : i.e. there's room for some constructive dialogue...

See you on the 1014 from Ipswich (0940 from Norwich), for a kick-off at 12 noon ??

John

They were also taking funding from Siemens and some other corps who have large interests in alternative energy business. This would be the same conflict-of-interest the skeptics have, just the other direction. You can read ALL of the emails at this link: http://www.eastangli...s.com/index.php Some pretty egregious stuff in there. I'll work up some exerpts this evening and let y'all decide for yourselves...

And plastic is made from oil, and the Saudis control lots of oil, and most of the hijackers were Saudi. And this guy, Osama Bin Laden, he was also a Saudi...and his family owns a huge construction company. OH MY GOD, IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!

NICE!! Actually, plastic doesn't refer to the material substance. In engineering terms plastic is any material that when bent, stretched, etc. doesn't return ( 'spring back' elastically) to it's original shape. At those temps if you bend steel... it won't bend back... thus it has no substantive strength...

Steel generally loses its strength at 1100 degrees F.

Unfortunately, that's misleading to some folks that can't (or won't) read a table. Steel doesn't suddenly lose its strength at this magic temperature. It's strength slowly degrades with increasing temperature starting as low as 250F (4% loss) By 800F it's lost 40% and by 1100F it has no practical elastic strength. It's plastic.

Note the Windsor building in Madrid that burned for 28 hours without collapsing the frame.

Something else I thought about... the Windsor didn't have two massive collapsing buildings adjacent to it. We think of buildings as static and immovable. They are not. The WTC1 and WTC2 collapse no doubt shook the crraapp out of WTC7. Given that earthquakes are not common in NYC, the building likely wasn't designed for this type of motion.

FTR, paper, wood and fuel burn at temps from 250 to 650 degrees, while steel generally fails at around 110 degrees, depending on carbon content.

I'm sure 110 degrees is a typo. Two samples of temperature de-rating tables regularly in use. They are for tubulars, but the stress formula are based on tensile strength of the material.

1) http://www.controlan...4200TS-0604.pdf Scroll to Page 3, Table 8. Steel loses roughly 30% of its design strength by 650F. By 800F it's lost 40%, and it falls offf a cliff after that so fast as to be unrecommended.

2) You can go to http://www.cycla.com...s_GRI000076.pdf Scroll to Page 33, Table 4.3. Roughly same values in the ASME code.

If my somelady wasn't calling me to spoon duty I could come up with more... It's not like it's a big secret.

You simply can't say steel generally fails around any specific temperature. Failure temperature will depend on how it's loaded. And every beam is loaded differently. If the beam is strong enough to sacrifice 20% of its load it would fail somwhere around 700F. If the beam were designed with 30% extra capacity it could endure to about 1000F.

Typically in my industry, we designed for ~50% safety margin. But if a beam were distorted by... say... an aircraft or debris impact... the remaining neighboring beams would be carrying the failed beam's load with no safety margin. Meaning you could see heat induced failure as low as 2-300F.

Perhaps someone can confirm, do building structural engineers typically analyse for damaged columns, beams and trusses? I suspect they don't...

I found out earlier this year as I watched a 40-foot I-beam bow at either end when lifted from the middle. I'd figured that it'd be more rigid.

Yes! And the steel gets much more flexy starting as low as 200F. You don't have to melt steel to weaken it tremendously.

Two types- tensioned members and compression members hold the building 'up' vertically. You only need very small distortions in compressed members and singular failue of a tension member to cause incipit collapse. Think of it this way for compressed members... you can stand on a soda can. But the minor distortion caused by plucking causes a complete instantaneous collapse. Building columns are similar. The structure relies on columns being both vertical and straight. Add some heat, and they are not only weakened but distorted by warping. Collapse requires little damage.

Think of tensioned members like a piece of fabric. Tension members are make up a lattice just like fibers in a fabric. Pull on a piece of fabric with a solid edge and it's very strong. Cut a small slit in the edge and pull again, and it rips easily. The WTC Tower collapses and they followed this ripping pattern, starting at the top and continuing until reaching the bottom. Floor-by-floor, lattice-by-lattice. Ripping down from the original small damage locus, pulling away to the sides slightly. Rember the mushroom-top shape of debris as they fell?

Collapse can occur quite slowly too. This it makes it look 'controled' and progressive. First one colum fails, which overloads its two neighbors. Those two neighbors hold for the moment, because we always design building "too" strong. But, eventually they fail because they are carrying the load of the first failed column. This overloads the 4 surrounding members which overloads 8, then 16, then 32, etc.. This is why it's an implosion, and the building doesn't fall over like a Jenga.

Note the Windsor building in Madrid that burned for 28 hours without collapsing the frame.

That's a far too simple comparison. Right off the top, the Windsor did not have parts of it's truss structure compromised by impact. (Remember the fabric & can examples) We don't know what factor-of-safety was used in the steel design loads; or how heavily the members were loaded. Lightly loaded beams would have more excess strength to lose due to heat before failing. We don't know what alloy of steel was used. Diffrent alloys = different heat effects. We also don't know what the truss/column structure design pattern was. The are certainly different. And different load paths will tolerate weakening/warping better than others. Tension members would survive heat better than compressed members for example. Were the colums O-shaped or I-shaped? That too would make a difference on how much distortion they could tolerate before failure. Gussets would also make a huge difference. Did either builing include them? Donno.

IOW there's a lot more to consider than they both had a fire and are both steel framed.

I think this thread alone has proven how near impossible it is to get people to think critically. Thinking ain't exactly a popular American pasttime.

Why do you say that? Perhaps, because not everyone agrees? It's tempting to label dissenters stupid or non-thinking. It's course and debasing. I *do* hear a lot of that in this thread. Labeling the opposition stupid doesn't make it so.

Agreed that it's dangerous for government to filter news, but that's not what they're doing, not even close.

By legislation or regulation? No. By initmidation? Yes.

It’s really not news, it’s pushing a point of view and the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours, ought not to treat them that way. And we’re not going to treat them that way...

First he publically calls out ABC to stop co-op with FOX news. (Co-op is a huge deal in WH coverage). This was followed with an attempt to bar FOX news from a pool interview- amounting to censure. That's an overreach, and the other networks called the Administration out on it. The attempt is offensive, and *perhaps* telling of this Administration's mindset. To dismiss the attempt would be... er... not critically examining the Administration's actions. :-)

They don't like the FOX coverage (understandibly). They made an run at shushing them. And failed. That may be bad for Obama's agenda, but in the long run, good for the nation.

What is the WH is so scared of? It's a question worth asking. If FOX is so unbalanced... and their commentators absurdly out of whack... people *will* figure that out. They did when Dan Rather forged documents -in less than 24hours! Does the WH believe the American people are too stupid to think ciritcally? How insulting and elitist. One can only wonder why they feel so threatened.

As for the Fairness Doctrine, who would enforce it? How could you guarantee that one party holding office would not be able to later pass legislation to control the "fairness" all in one direction - their direction?

Regardless of intent... It's incredibly dangerous to let government filter news though intimidation, much less cheer for it. Manipulation of the press is something all totalitarian governments have in common. There's a reason the press' freedom is secured in the *First* Amendment. We should trust the American people to figure out the truth from an open set of sources, more than we trust government to tell us the truth about their own actions and failures.

More than you ever wanted to know about business NBER's cycle timing: http://wwwdev.nber.o...recessions.html

From CalculatedRisk:

NBER will not call the end of the recession until some time after real GDP is above the pre-recession levels (and other indicators too). That would take at least four more quarters of growth at 3%, so the end of the official recession will not be announced until late in 2010 at the earliest.

Also keep in mind NBER doesn't make cycle declarations until some time after they've occurred. They always operate in hindsight, which makes things a lot easier.

Work on the trestle bridge continues. . .

....proving that xenophobia trumps fiscal conservatism every time.

Nice smear. Opposition to illegal immigration is not in most cases founded in xenophobia. It's the rule of law, national security, and Constitutional responsibility of the Federal government. Selectively enforcing law is a dangerous practice. If the border and existing immigration laws were enforced this wouldn't even be an issue.

I'd like to see specifics on how the administration hopes to fix this issue, which is much more complicated than "they won't be covered under this plan".

http://washingtontim..._cube_position1

President Obama said this week that his health care plan won't cover illegal immigrants, but argued that's all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.

[...]

"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken," Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. "That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.

Mr. Obama added, "If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."

I'm not sure his words lead to the conclusion in the slug paragraph and headline. But he is taking a pretty vague position in the pull quotes. It's also significant to recognize who the audience was. Pragmatically, I don't see how we can start turing away illegal aliens from health benefits at this point. We don't do it now. And it's moral bankruptcy to create an underclass that are 2nd class human beings. Yet another reason to enforce the border and existing immigration law.

So, I should ignore a poll of 2,130 doctors by the New England Journal of Medicine, and instead place all of my faith in an article in the Investors Business Daily that is written like a hit piece, and does not give the number of doctors polled or any other information about their poll. I'm not saying the NEJM poll is infallible, but next to IBD's alleged findings, this is not a hard choice...but I'm sure IBD's reader's love it.

You're putting a lot of words into my mouth. I didn't say any of that. It's just another data point. Take it for what it is. I'm not interested in arguing over it. "The time for bickering is over".

http://www.investors....aspx?id=506199

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors' own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.

Major findings included:

• Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration's claims that doctors are part of an "unprecedented coalition" supporting a medical overhaul.

• Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.

• More than seven in 10 doctors, or 71% — the most lopsided response in the poll — answered "no" when asked if they believed "the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better."

"It's like giving everyone free bus passes, but there are only two buses," Dr. Ted Epperly, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, told the Associated Press.

And to be fair, the vast majority of the people who currently overuse the system right now are going to be the ones who overuse it when the government eventually steps in anyhow, and they've already got the government healthcare option. Let's take a moment and consider that realistically it's the elderly who abuse the system, and since they're already reaping the benefits of free insurance, the effect to healthcare supply will be minimal at best under the different system. All the others, the current uninsured will likely seek medical assistance to the same degree they do now, though moreso with preventive care and less with catastrophic emergencies, and their effect on cost will either be reduced or at least at a break even point. Their indirect costs cause the greatest increase in my premiums, as even if they never pay for their treatment, someone still does, and that someone is the insured.

I've long stated that we already have socialized medicine, veiled as "insurance" and "medicaid". Much of the failings we're seeing now are symptomatic of socialized systems -not free market failures.

It's a radical idea, but I wish we could go back to the days of paying for our own healthcare. Everyone says "but I can't afford it". Incomes always grow to meet the necessity level. Or we'd see rising costs subside. There's no greater power for reducing costs that if customers refuse to pay the industry-inflated rates we see today. Does a Tylenol really need to cost (or worth even) $13?

Overall, we could probably, as a society, survive just fine with a lot less healthcare. Or grandparents certainly did. Everyone talks of the shambles of the "system". But I can't name a single hospital that doesn't have an ongoing or recent expansion project. Business seems to be booming, and there's no shortage of capex in the industry.