Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ category

Can Obama plug the hole?

May 31, 2010

The Gulf oil spill is producing two crises. The obvious one is the disaster with coastal fisheries, but it poses an ideological crisis as well. For liberals, government is supposed to be the solution to all problems. The oil spill is a big problem. So if the government is impotent in solving it, what does that say about the possibilities of government? If the oil spill is a problem that government cannot solve, might there be other such problems? That thought is too horrible to contemplate.

It is boldly apparent that government cannot plug the hole. The government does not have the technology, the expertise, or the equipment. If government did have the technology, expertise, and equipment that would mean that those resources had been diverted out of the productive private sector into the non-productive government sector. That’s not a good idea. People who know how to drill for oil ought to be left to do that, not put behind desks in faceless bureaucracies.

Every time government fails, the outcome can be spun as (a) poor leadership in government, (b) not enough regulation, or (c) regulators tied being too lax because of industry ties. Katrina was a disaster, the Left would have us believe, not because it was a large hurricane striking New Orleans, but because George Bush provided poor leadership. The bust in the housing market was supposedly due to not having enough regulatory laws, so Congress passed new laws regulating largely-unrelated activities — as if the weight of the paper the laws are printed on suppresses underlying problems, never mind the relevance. Airline crashes are supposedly due to cozy relationships between the airlines and government regulators.

In a pinch, there are two more options: (d) increase the number of regulators, and (e) ban the activity altogether. Increasing the number of regulators is surprisingly unpopular. That is because the notion on the Left is that not only is government all-knowing and good, it accomplishes its work cleanly and efficiently. That’s nonsense, but it is part of the ideological package. There is a final method of preserving the good name of government. What happened as a consequence of the Bernie Madoff scandal? There were plenty of laws and plenty of regulators; the regulators looked at Bernie’s operation. He simply scammed them, with surprising ease. So were the regulators all fired? Was there a call for a private rating agency to be set up, like the bond rating companies? No, as a lesson in government, it was ignored. The final refuge is to ignore the lessons of failed government.

Now here comes the oil spill. It was the consequence of chance events accumulating, typical of the scenario behind many air crashes or auto accidents. The oil companies suffer tens of billions of dollars of financial loss when such events occur. The financial penalty is so great, it is unrealistic to suppose that adding some additional regulatory hoop to jump through will make much difference. If a ten billion dollar penalty doesn’t work, would ten billion plus an official reprimand turn the trick? the situation is different if it involves companies that cannot cover the risks they take. Big oil covers their bets.

Obama cannot plug the hole and he has, correctly, said so. That is not a satisfactory answer for the Left, because it is contrary to the ideological principle that government ought to have the solution to every problem. Insofar as the reality penetrates that government cannot prevent oil spills, the leftist alternative is option (e), ban drilling. In this particular case, decreasing domestic oil production means that much more will be imported by tanker. Oil well blowouts are rare. Oil tankers are probably no safer.

I am all in favor of technology as a way to solve problems. Whatever the causes of the BP spill, they ought to be investigated and a solution put in effect. It is virtually impossible to stop a solution from being found, government or not. Oil companies are no more fond of losing tens of billions than anyone else — well anyone else in the private sector. My objection is to demands for complete safety, guaranteed by government as a sure thing. We should minimize risks and then get on with living. In that respect, it is like airline crashes or auto accidents. Auto crashes take over 30,000 lives a year in the U.S., and despite seat belt laws and all else, government cannot completely solve the problem.

I think there is a role for government in cleaning up the mess, though it would be better if it were accomplished through an industry consortium. Oil spills are so uncommon that it is inefficient to demand that each company be independently prepared to handle every contingency. Obama can be held accountable for management of the clean up, but, hey, we are dealing with government and government is inherently inefficient.

We should accept that life involves risk, and not expect government to remove the risks. So find a way to prevent blowouts like the BP one, and get on with drilling.

Press coverage of the Tea Parties is unfair

April 9, 2010

Calls to kill President Bush were common in the war protests a few years ago, but they were rarely featured by the broadcast television networks or big-city newspapers. One collections of Bush death threats is on the blog Bin’s Corner. I searched the New York Times website and could not find a single archived article about leftists protesters making death threats against Bush. Searching for “tea party racism” on The Time site provided 4760 references in just the past thirty days. Let’s just say the reporting is uneven.

A protest march in San Francisco in 2003 was led by an infamous banner proclaiming “We support out troops when they shoot their officers.” The New York Times apparently missed that story, as their archive returns nothing. Leftist professor Ward Churchill called for the murder of American military officers.

Protest rallies as large as the Tea Party are sure to attract some nut cases. The Huffington Post did a round up of the most offensive protest signs at the tea party rallies. There were no n-word signs. They found a few signs of the “Obama = Hitler” sort. Those few are inexcusable, but what is astounding is how few they could find, and by comparison to the Bush death threats, how relatively mild. The Huffington Post ended up with proclaiming as deeply offensive pictures of children holding signs saying things like: “Got Liberty?” and “How will I pay for this?” That’s deeply offensive only to the far far left.

The market for “Kill Bush” merchandise has been thriving for years So hows the market doing for “Kill Obama” merchandise? There isn’t any. Instead, liberals have to invent threats to react to. Pundit Brent Budowsky cited Right Wing Death Threats: “When Rush Limbaugh uses language about wiping out political opponents, and language that could well incite acts of physical and criminal violence, he is taking this campaign to a whole new and darker level.” Sarah Palin was attacked for using the metaphor of Democratic congressional seats “in the cross hairs.” They have stooped to using metaphors!

It is reminiscent of a Monty Python skit. Notorious criminal brothers Doug and Dinsdale Piranha are recalled by the locals. “It’s true that Dinsdale nailed heads to the floor, but he was fair. It was Doug that people really feared. He used… sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and… satire. He was vicious.” That summarizes the press coverage of the anti-Bush rallies versus the Tea Party rallies. The anti-Bush protests called explicitly for killing Bush and treason. But the press and the Left apparently viewed that as “fair,” so no big deal. But using metaphors against Democrats? That crosses the line.

I think a political science department at some university ought to provide us with metrics. There are videos of both the anti-war rallies and the tea party protests. What percentage of signs at each called for assassination of the President or administration officials? What percentage made Hitler comparisons? It shouldn’t be difficult to categorize protest signs and statements according to not only advocating violence, but various levels of expression of hatred short of advocating violence. Even metaphors can be counted, if one thinks that important.

With objective data on what occurred, a good political scientist could go on to objectively analyze the press coverage. Which media organizations overlooked calls for assassination of the President? How many swooned over metaphors?

The reason that an objective study would be useful is that it would counter the argument that “there are nut cases on both sides.” That’s sometimes said to dismiss the Leftist death threats as no more than parity. Yes, there are nut cases on both sides, but the numbers are not equal and they do not do the same things. Nancy Pelosi received death threats from some loon, and the guy was, quite properly, found and arrested. How many Bush death threats by protesters were prosecuted? Let’s keep score.

Obama’s election was about process

March 29, 2010

Democrats are fond of reminding us that Obama made no secret of his radical leftist agenda when he ran for President. Conservatives are fond of replying that they saw it coming. What this exchange misses is the role that promises of transparency and bipartisanship played in the election. Independent voters did not react to the leftist agenda because Obama promised that whatever he did would be tempered by a process that exposed all of the political dealings and by the need to get Republicans to agree. He might or might not want to nationalize everything in sight, it was no matter because he would have to get many Republicans to agree. The claims of transparency and bipartisanship effectively moved Obama from the left to near the center of American politics.

The claim of bipartisanship was not outrageous on the face of it. We saw it work for a while when President Clinton worked with House Speaker Newt Gingrich to craft the major legislative achievements of the Clinton Administration, including welfare reform and NAFTA. Reagan worked with House Speaker Tip O’Neal to achieve Social Security reform. So it is not as if Obama’s promise should have been dismissed out of hand as impossible. Moreover, it could have been achieved. For example, Republicans were eager to support a ban on exclusion of pre-existing conditions from health insurance, and there were many other points of agreement that seemingly could have been developed into bipartisan legislation.

On transparency, nothing prevented Obama from opening legislative process substantially. I don’t think that backroom strategizing would ever be made entirely public, but the meeting with Republicans at the White House that Obama called late in the game showed promise. Obama, of course, was not really seeking Republican input to legislation. He was posturing to justify slamming through the legislation under reconciliation by hoping to show how Republicans just wouldn’t play ball. For some Americans, the event was the first that they became aware that Republicans even had health care proposals of their own. Such events were shown to be potentially disastrous for Democrats.

The C-SPAN broadcasts of Congressional hearing don’t do the job because Democrats control the agenda. Democrats want to protect the heavy contributions they receive from trial lawyers, so tort reform legislation is killed before it is up for serious debate. The advantage of a “summit” forum is that all the ideas are presented uncensored. It is clear why Obama didn’t want that.

Right after the election, Charlie Rose interviewed Tom Brokaw on television. The question they discussed was what exactly we had gotten with Barrack Obama. Neither claimed to know what was really behind the generic claims of hope and change, transparency and bipartisanship. The accurate prediction would have been, “Brutal strictly-partisan Chicago-style politics to advance the most left-wing agenda we’ve seen since at least Jimmy Carter, and maybe ever.” Rose and Brokaw are astute observers. If they missed it, we cannot blame middle America. Obama pulled off the biggest lie of modern political history.

Can you like the parts but not the whole?

February 28, 2010

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the solution might be to change the party’s message by focusing on individual reforms in the massive healthcare bill. … Van Hollen noted to reporters that polls show voters support the individual reforms of the Democrats’ healthcare package1

In the health care debate, liberals are fond of citing polls that show, they say, that voters like individual aspects of Obamacare, but do not like the package as a whole2. They conclude that voters are behaving irrationally, because if all the parts are good than obviously the whole must be good. From this line of reasoning, they deduce that if Congress passes Obamacare, then people will realize they really liked it all along. Alas, the logical premise is false. There are valid reasons why one might like the parts, but not like the whole.

Suppose a family is looking for a pet. Would they like a kitten? Yes. Would they like a puppy? Yes. How about a hamster? Yes. Or maybe tropical fish, a rabbit, a gerbil, or a parakeet? Sure, those are all good choices. So can we make the family very happy by giving them a kitten, a puppy, a hamster, tropical fish, a gerbil, and a parakeet. If they liked each one independently, aren’t they logically obligated to like them all when presented as a group? Clearly not.

Do you like macaroni, spaghetti, potatoes, and rice? Do you want them all in the same meal? How about having a couple of speculative stocks in your retirement portfolio? How about owning nothing but speculative stocks? How about taking a vacation in Florida, Hawaii, the Grand Canyon, Alaska, or the Greek Isles this year? How about going to all of them?

In each each example is that there is something that accumulates beyond an acceptable threshold. There were the work of caring for pets, the blandness of starchy food, the risk of speculative stocks, and the cost of vacations. Among the things that accumulate with health care proposals are the cost, the risk of unintended consequences, and the potentially unacceptable accumulation of power in the hands of government bureaucrats. A total overhaul of the health care system poses risks not presented by any single modification. An incremental approach is inherently less risky because it is then possible to undo a wrong move without so great a risk of system failure.

While one can logically like each part while not liking the whole, it is not true that voters like every element of the health care legislation. When liberals claim that polls show approval of elements of Obamacare, are they claiming approval of the special privileges for certain states, the cuts to Medicare with costs transferred to the insured, the unions’ exemptions from high taxes on “Cadillac plans,” and the new taxes on medical devices and drugs? Those elements are not mentioned by advocates who claim agreement, but the implication is that those features are not important compared to what liberals consider to be the important parts of the legislation.

The norm is that voters would like all manner of new benefits, so long as they don’t have to pay for them. Would you like A, B, C, D, E, and F? Yes! Would you like to pay for A, B. C, D, E, and F? No! A, B, C, D, E, and F are polled separately, so the score is six yeses and one no.

In the past, the game has been to sell new benefits while pretending that someone else will pay for them. Obamacare claims that only the rich will pay for everyone. This time around, voters are not so willing to accept that claim. There may be agreement on a very long list of items. The poison pill is the single item of paying for it. It does not follow that if 90% is favored, that it’s unfair to reject the whole based upon the 10%. The 10% can be fatal.

Actually, Obamacare has several poison pills. Besides cost, there is the risk of imposed rationing and associated deterioration of the overall quality of care. Individuals may find other poison pills. Representative Dennis Kucinich says he won’t vote for any thing without a government option, and other House Democrats have trouble with the risk of government-funded abortions.

The White House position is that many Republican ideas have been incorporated into pending legislation3. The implication is that Republicans ought to accept the “compromise.” The hundreds of Republican amendments that were accepted into the legislation where technical amendments, staff corrections of typographical errors and such. Substantial changes proposed as amendments were uniformly rejected.

There are indeed some substantial Republican ideas in the legislation, but Democrats got to choose the ones they found acceptable. It’s also true that there are elements of the legislation that voters favor. But it is wrong to suppose that the legislation as a whole ought to be therefore considered acceptable. Accumulated cost and risk to the health care system, and poisonous individual included features make the package unacceptable.


1. Alexander Bolton, White House signals new way on health, The Hill
2. CNN Poll: Health care provisions popular but overall bills unpopular
3., Republican Ideas Included in the President’s Proposal

Is it enough to be “The Party of No”?

February 21, 2010

Republicans are warming up to the possibility of winning back Congress in this year’s elections. The advice from nearly every pundit and political leader is that it is not enough to just be anti-Obama. To win, all say, Republicans must put forth a plan to solve the country’s problems. This wisdom ignores the success of Democrats in the last election, who ran entirely on blaming Bush for everything and offering very little beyond amorphous “hope and change.” Elections are indeed won based upon little more than not being the last guy. The problem arises when it is time to govern.

Obama supporters may counter that there was a great deal more than “hope and change” offered by the Democrats in the last election. Every campaign puts forth white papers and policy statements. Consider the following examples of three levels of policy statements:

1. We will reform health care to lower costs and extend coverage to all Americans.

2. We will achieve health care reform through greater efficiency, increased competition, and preventive care that saves money in the long run.

3. We will provide coverage to 30 million more people through government benefits using money saved by transferring $500 billion in Medicare costs to increased private insurance premiums.

These are examples of the depths of policy proposals, which we will generalize as Levels 1, 2, and 3. There is a totally noncommittal Level 0, I suppose, that of “hope and change,” but nothing useful flows from that. It’s a slogan, not a policy.

Level 1 sets a goal without saying how it will be achieved. It is in the general category of “motherhood and apple pie.” They are things with which few would disagree as being generically good. Those whose disagree at this level may be reading into it what they believe will follow. The thought may be, “That’s a cover for extension of government.”

It’s a mistake to argue against generic goodness on the grounds that you know the real intent. Better to say, “Of course that’s wonderful. Tell me exactly how you propose to achieve that goal.” One might also take up the banner of the good cause which, “Yes, and the way to do that is to allow interstate competition through legislation that …”

Announced goals do speak to the candidate’s agenda. If he talks more about issue A than issue B, we may conclude that A is more important to the candidate than B. It would have been important to know that Obama would make health care a higher priority than fixing the economy or fighting terrorism. Saying that everything is important is a cop out. There must be priorities.

Level 2 seems to provide policy details, but actually does not. It subdivides generic wonderfulness into subcategories of wonderfulness, still avoiding the specific plans for implementation. The questions of how the goals will be achieved are left unanswered. This is the level at which campaign white papers are usually written, with more specifics in some areas where the campaign chooses to be bold.

This level of information further defines priorities. If there is a lot of talk about regulation and little talk of competition, we get the overall message that the candidate believes in the power of government as paramount. Campaigns are most often waged on the level of political philosophy as expressed through the second level of goal setting. That’s useful and important, but it is still removed from the business of actually governing.

The third level of policy outlines how the goals are to be accomplished. It is unrealistic to suppose that a candidate of Party will offer draft legislation. There are to many considerations to work out all the details. But short of that, it is reasonable to ask the mechanisms by which goals will be accomplished. If health care coverage is to be paid for by “efficiencies,” then it is reasonable to ask for the types of efficiencies and how much each is expected to yield. If GITMO is to be closed, it is reasonable to ask what will be done with the terrorists currently housed there. If solar and wind energy are to be subsidized, it is reasonable to ask the costs of backing up the solar for power at night and the wind energy when it is calm.

Journalists very rarely ask questions that probe beyond Level 2. Perhaps they are not smart enough to ask those questions, perhaps they think voters will not care about such details, and perhaps they think the job of journalism ends with sound bites. So far voters have not cared.

Republicans can get by in the next election by being the Party of No. It worked for Obama and the Democrats, and it can work for Republicans. Republicans must state a set of principles that they propose to bring to policy matters, and they must craft a list of priorities that well-matches the voters’ priorities. Voters care about jobs and deficits the most. They care somewhat about terrorism and national security. They care much less about health care or global warming or, for that matter, about abortion or gay marriage or any of a number of hot-button ideological issues.

Climategate shows a Need for Full disclosure by Scientists

December 23, 2009

Climategate is the popular name given to the revelation of e-mail and software from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia in Britain.… It’s not known whether the material posted on the web was obtained by a hacker or by a whistleblower inside the organization. The bottom line on the scandal is that scientists sponsored by governments should be required to make their work public so it can be checked by other scientists.

Peer review is the process by which scientists check the work of other scientists. The process is imperfect, but it helps ensure the accuracy of published scientific papers. The Climategate revelations showed that CRU scientists did not want their work checked by climatologists skeptical of their theory that CO2 is causing a climate crisis. The revelations include a great deal of trash-talking about dissenting climatologists at other organizations, promises to subvert the peer review process by which scientific articles are qualified for publication, and a long narrative of attempts to reconstruct software used to compute published temperature data. CRU scientists had failed to keep records of how they had come up with the results they had published, so not could no one else verify their results, they could not do it themselves.

There is a remedy for the problems. Governments should impose a condition on climate research grants and aid related to climate research that source data collected or analyzed under the grant, and all software developed under the government support shall be posted on the Internet within one month of publication or announcement of the results by any means.

The revealed documents includes a README file of a scientist, “Harry,” trying to reproduce the climate data published by CRU, documenting enormous difficulty doing so. The file is posted at…. CRU’s mission is to obtain temperature data from various sources around the world, validate and correct the data, and convert it into a gridded format useful for scientific and practical purposes. The validation and correction steps are important because the raw data includes clerical errors, instrument errors, and errors due to the heat effects of new construction near the individual collection stations. Gridding converts the temperature data from the randomly located collection stations to regular increments of latitude and longitude using interpolation techniques. CRU performs all of the processing functions.

Small errors are important because the total amount of global warming examined is on the order of only a degree per century. Moreover, scientists look for natural experiments in which local conditions may have local climate effects. For example, rapid growth of a city many increase local pollutants or local CO2 levels, and scientists like to examine the possible local effects on temperature.

Britain has a Freedom of Information Act (FIA) similar to that in the United States. FIA requests can be filed to obtain certain documents and other data developed at government expense. In Britain, someone filed a request for the data used to support claims of CO2 global warming. CRU had great difficulty complying, Climategate revealed, because the software and data files were such a mess that they could not reconstruct the results they had published. he tale of woe begins with a guy copying 11,000 files and trying, unsuccessfully, to make something of them. He discovers, for example, that there are alternate files with the same name and no identification of which file is the one that should be used, or why.

NASA has similar responsibilities for climate data in the United States, and a similar FIA request was filed for supporting climate data. After nearly three years, NASA has still not complied with the request, and a lawsuit is now threatened to attempt to force compliance.…

I suspect that most of the problems of compliance at CRU and NASA are due to professional incompetence, not a conspiracy to cover up errors they know to have been made. What has been revealed at CRU clearly shows incompetence. There is nothing novel about poorly written software. A product of human nature and schedule pressures is the method of hacking at software until it appears to work, then calling it done. In the commercial world, demands from users limit incompetence through calls for bug fixes, and ultimately user abandonment of one vendor in favor of another. Those mechanisms do not apply to climate data.

In the case of climate research, the tendency will be to hack at the software until it meets the expectations of developers, in this case the global warming believers at CRU. They could be innocently making a dozen small errors that tend to inflate temperatures in recent times, and no one would question the results, because their expectations are met.

The remedy lies in immediate public disclosure. If the software must be posted regularly, which it will have to be because new results are released regularly, then peer pressure will greatly encourage sound software engineering practices like the use of software configuration control systems. Moreover, the details of the methodologies employed for processing and analysis will be subject to peer review.

CRU deals mainly with data rather than climate models, however disclosure applies to climate modeling software as well. The basic physics of carbon dioxide only accounts for about a third of the global warming that it is claimed to cause, and that’s not enough to cause a climate crisis. The models contain multiplying factors that are not verified by experimental measurement. All of the mechanisms should be subject to peer review and public scrutiny. A few institutions have made their climate model code public, but only a very few.

Aside from the concerns for good science and good professional practice, the public has a right to access what it paid for, for no reason beyond the fact that they paid for it. There are exemptions allowed in FIA legislation. The exemptions are for national security, independent proprietary data, and information sealed in lawsuits. None of the exemption apply to climate research. The requests to CRU and NASA were not denied under exemptions, they just not fulfilled. Requiring disclosure before publication or within a month after publication will guarantee that the public gets what it has a right to.

Climate research strongly affects public policy, so while good professional practices are important in all areas, disclosure of the details of climate research is especially important.

The 9/11 Truther Laws of Nature

November 21, 2009

9/11 Truthers do not tire. They diligently maintain their own laws of nature independent of those known to scientists and engineers. Rather than try to make a conspiracy theory that agrees with the established laws of nature, Truthers maintain natural laws that fit their theories. Much of Truther lore is built around claimed properties of steel and thermite that contradict established knowledge.

Thermite is a mixture of aluminum powder with a metal oxide, typically iron oxide. It burns very hot and the iron in the iron oxide is freed as molten iron, so it is useful for welding iron and steel. It’s possible to use thermite to cut a steel beam, but it is not known to have ever been used in a controlled demolition. Because it is difficult to ignite reliably and burns relatively slowly, it’s not suitable to the precise timing requirements of a controlled demolition. Also, the liquid metal flows downhill, so at best it would be extremely difficult to cut any but a horizontal member.

Truthers claim the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by explosives. They say that explains explosive sounds, puffs of smoke or dust from floors below the WTC 1 & 2 collapse, and the supposed extra energy needed to pulverize concrete. They claim the explosive used was thermite, because the beams in the wreckage were cut cleanly, there were pools of molten metal in the wreckage that lasted for weeks after the collapse, and various components of thermite were discovered in the dust from the collapse.

A fundamental problem with that theory is that thermite is not an explosive. Truthers show a video of a small amount of thermite being set off. It takes a noticeable fraction of a second to burn which they proclaim to be an explosion. Explosives actually operate in milliseconds and always produce a shock wave, the sound of the explosion. Truther thermite, as with all thermite, does not explode and does not produce a shock wave.

Steel used in construction is tempered to increase its strength. Tempering involves heating the steel and than rapidly cooling it by, for example, quenching it in oil. This increases the strenght of the steel by up to a factor of ten, but it also makes it brittle. adding trace elements and controlling the quench rate allows materials specialists to adjust the properties of the steel.

A problem with tempered steel is that relatively low heat can take out the temper and thus make the steel lose its extra strength. Safety standards adopted long before 9/11 require that the steel be insulated so that it will not reach 1000 F in two hours of heating by a fire. Overseas, the standard is 700 F. Two hours is figured to be enough time for the fire department to arrive and put out the fire, or for the building’s sprinkler system to do the job.

Steel was traditionally insulated by embedding it in concrete, but in modern buildings an insulating material is used to coat the steel. In the Twin Towers attacks, the airplane impacts removed much of the applied insulation, allowing the steel to heat quickly.

Truthers invariably claim that steel only loses its strength when it melts. If that were true, then the long-established safety standards would be ridiculous. Because steel doesn’t melt until 2500 F, there would be no reason to try to keep the steel below 1000 F. Truthers could attempt to overthrow existing knowledge by experimentally demonstrating that steel does not lose strength short of melting, but they make no attempt to do so, nor do they cite any supporting evidence for their new theory.

Tempered steel is brittle, so when it is overstressed, say by a collapsing building, it snaps in sharp breaks. Truthers are enamored of the idea of “twisted wreckage” so they cannot understand how sharp breaks could occur except by cutting with thermite. Since thermite melts the steel, it actually wouldn’t make a very sharp break, especially not on a vertical member where the liquid metal flows downhill.

The brittle nature of tempered steel is also consistent with the structures collapsing quickly. Truthers have an image of steel being ductile and springy, so the metal would bend rather slowly and absorb energy in the process. Brittle materials don’t do that. Glass is brittle, so windows break quickly, not slowly.

Finally, Truthers point to pools of liquid metal that lasted up to three weeks after the building collapse. They claim this proves that thermite was involved, because only thermite can melt steel. Let’s suppose for a moment that metal was steel and that thermite melted it. So how did it stay melted for three weeks? When thermite is used for welding, the liquid iron solidifies quickly. The hotter the material relative to its surroundings, the faster it cools. This true for hot soup or hot steel.

The only way to keep something hot is to keep adding heat. Truther thermite, however, it claimed to have the property of melting steel in such a way that it stays melted, a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Whatever the molten metal was, it had to be kept liquid by heat generated from the combustible materials in the rubble. The likely explanation is a natural furnace effect.

How about thermite components in the dust and debris? Thermite is aluminum with some metal oxide. Sometimes Truthers point to iron oxide as proof of thermite, other times it is manganese or any of a shelf of compounds that might be in thermite. The buildings contained tons of iron, but also tons of aluminum and other metals. It would be odd if there were not a wide assortment of materials in the dust and debris. Much of it is indeed unexplained in terms of its exact origins and means of generation in the disaster. No one other than Truthers particularly cares about such details.

Truthers especially point to claimed larger quantities of unburned thermite in the dust. That’s inconsistent with the separate claim that a way was found to reliably ignite thermite and to get it to explode. Try to imagine, say, an explosion caused by dynamite in which there were large quantities of unexploded dynamite left in the debris. That’s not going to happen.

How do Truthers deal with all the conventional knowledge about thermite, steel, and the rest? One way would be to attack the basis of the knowledge. They could try to show or argue that steel does not lose its strength at anything below the melting point, that thermite can produce and explosive shock wave, and so forth. That’s the route used by legitimate scientific dissent. Einstein proposed experiments that ultimately confirmed his theory over classical physics. Those opposed to CO2 global warming theory point to specific deficiencies in the theory, like the earth not warming for the past decade despite increasing CO2. That’s how the game of scientific dissent is properly played.

Truthers don’t attempt to square theory with observation. They say that since no building had ever collapsed like the World Trade Center buildings, conspiracy must be the answer. The fact that their theory doesn’t agree with established laws of nature doesn’t matter, because they _know_ it must have been a conspiracy. Explanations using the established laws of nature must be false, because those explanations do not lead to the conclusion that they _know_ to be correct.

Aside from being Dark Ages mentality, such thinking means that the new investigation that Truthers demand would be pointless. Investigations attempt to explain events in terms of an established base of knowledge. Explanations that involve magical elements contrary to laws of nature are not explanations at all. They already have magical explanations, so it would be pointless to seek new magic.