So how would we go about donating directly? I'd be unable to make the workout, but would like to help out. Any info would be appreciated.

I second that - direct donations would be great.

Coach - can you take them online?

Murph

Lauren's on it, gent's. Give her a few minutes.

Thanks.

I've subscribed to Reason magazine for years. A great magazine for those who believed the Republican party stood for the government being small, strong and leaving us alone. Now we know both parties are the same (or as Larry Elders says "maybe a dime's worth of difference). Reason also has, as you can see, great science articles from time to time.

Very educating article. I ride my bike downhill from Mt. Wilson regularly. Downhill mountain biking is a great workout!

#4 andy - As small as they are, there's always the libertarians still.

The article gives us something to ponder regarding global warming and an explanation that makes sense.
The sun did it!
Makes sense to me anyway.

Dan W, Comment #6

The libertarians are small because they go too far and postulate a government which would not have been able to respond to 9-11. Would that we could get some genetic material from Regan's corpse and clone him... in a privately funded facility of course.

Coach,

For which team did Joe play? The gentlemen of the Jackson Rugby Football Club would be interested.

I LIVE FOR THESE WORKOUTS!!!!! Actually my wife is posting this for me, but we have no cross fit around us except for the workouts online... North Carolina would be a great place to start a cross fit.. please tell me how to start!!! tamiebo@hotmail.com

I've been reading the WOD posts for about a month now; I never thought my first post would be on a rest day! (I'm still doing the beginner's workout.) But I'm an astronomer, and I've studied this sub-field (though it's no longer my field), so I couldn't resist...

The vast majority of scientists concur that global warming is a real phenomenon, and its causes are likely far more complex than just fossil fuel burning or solar activity.

Certainly the Sun influences our climate, but I would submit that just how much it does so is not actually very well determined. The bread and butter of climate-solar variability correlations is past observations, as Baliunas mentioned; however, what she didn't mention is just how fickle these are. Sunspots were rarely measured in any uniform fashion, so correlations between past temperature and number of sunspots are highly suspect. The relationship between C14 abundance in tree rings and solar activity is also more tenuous than she suggests. Certainly the tree ring measurements do correlate with temperature changes, but whether the tree ring changes were caused by the Sun is another story entirely. Doing science by proxy is usually very uncertain, and variability-climate studies use proxies of proxies. Showing that a proxy for a proxy for quantity A is related to a proxy for a proxy for quantity B doesn't necessarily mean that A and B are directly related to each other, nor does it mean that one caused the other.

The field isn't entirely unfounded -- certainly the correlations between the Maunder Minimum and the "little ice age" are likely real. It's just that the relationship between climate change and relatively small differences in the solar cycle (such as the current higher maximum Baliunas mentions) are not nearly as well-determined. The change in the solar maximum is not nearly the same extreme as that experienced during the Maunder Minimum, and the changes in temperature most scientists agree that we're experiencing now are fairly severe. So even if the activity is affecting our climate, it doesn't mean that nothing else is.

I definitely agree that Mt. Wilson Observatory is a historical gem that still has significant scientific value (especially with adaptive optics). There are several astronomy groups out there now that use telescopes that many astronomers regard as out-of-date to do great science. And it's a good thing that Baliunas is good at getting private funding, since NASA is now so under-funded (and misguided, but don't get me started on the "Mission to Mars" idiocy) that it won't even fund the major missions in the "high-priority" Origins project that the article mentions.

I promise, promise, promise that I won't get up on my soapbox again anytime soon. Forgive me for the lecture -- but as I said, I'm an astronomer (a grad student), and I couldn't help it!

please e mail me on how to start a cross fit workout circuit here... I have all the people I need to start, i JUST NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO IT!!!!
Tamie Bovais
My husband and all the people he works with do
your work out everyday...please let me know how to start a crossfit work out in our area!!!!!
Thank you so much for your support1!!
Tamie Bovais
55 Ivy way
Pinehurst NC. 28374

I googled the interviewee, Baliunas and found this in Wickipedia:

In 2003, Baliunas and Soon published a paper which reviewed a number of previous scientific papers and came to the conclusion that the climate hasn't changed in the last 2000 years. However, 13 of the authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her interpretation of their work, and several editors of "Climate Research", the journal which published the paper, resigned in protest at a flawed peer review process which allowed the publication. Correctly analysed, the paper by Baliunas and Soon shows that their observations in respect of MWP and LIA could be explained by the random variation of the individual proxies and that their observations in respect of global warming are in favour of the global warming. This is in contradiction to the conclusion.

Baliunas' extra-academic positions at several think tanks funded by energy industry organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute are often cited by her opponents as a source of bias on her part.

The anti globalization movement is a baseless movement propogated by those that stand to loose from carbon reduction. Please don't blindly fall for these articles. 99% of the scientific community agrees that global warming is real, and we need to do something. Coach please don't hurt our chances by spreading this filth. More soldiers don't need to die to support our addiction to oil.

Thank you Brooke for your comments. I felt like I learned something from your post. I value the knowledge that you have to share and that is why I bother reading these rest day comments. That and Chuck Norris.

scott,

I couldn't find the paragraph you quoted above in Wickipedia, I found a link to it at a website called 'Exxon Secrets.' Personally I'm more concerned about the eco-terrorist approach of organizations of their ilk than I am of brilliant women scientists who devote their lives to furthering the pursuit of my understanding of the universe.

Somehow I'm not surprised that you provided no link to Exxon Secrets, http://www.exxonsecrets.org/ (don't imagine they have an agenda to promote, do you?) nor that the link to your 'valid email address' as required by this site links to www.artfv.com/animation/anime/titles/d/dragon_ball_series/

You're not driving one of those filthy automobiles yourself, are you scott?

Always follow the money or atleast try to look at the big picture. I wonder who has funded the studies that Sallie Ballunas has worked on.
In fact who funds the studies for drugs passing FDA approval. Just the tip of an immence iceburg. What you see on the surface is not all that there is to be seen. We all can conform if we are told how to think.
Thinking is the Crossfit of the mind. Crossfitters keep free thinking alive.

"Coach please don't hurt our chances by spreading this filth."

Scott,

Please don't try to do stop what Coach does best on the rest days... He finds shills (in this case, the one scientist out of a hundred who thinks all this global warming is hooey) who support his right-damaged predetermined positions!

It's very...YAWN...interesting...and has much to do with fitness!

It makes you PROUD to be a Crossfitter, doesn't it?

What's next? An article supporting Intelligent Design?

RossB,
You apparently didn't bother looking at Wikipedia or googling Dr. Baliunas at all. You'll find multiple articles detailing her funding and association with conservative organizations and think tanks, including her position as the Environment-Science host of James Glassman's Tech Central Station, funded by ExxonMobil, General Motors, and McDonalds, among others. Tech Central Station has also published articles promoting Intelligent Design if that gives you any idea of the absurdity of the views they promote.
But really, good job furthering your own understanding of the universe.

There is no such thing as global warming. There are places where the temperate is falling and places where it is rising. SAme as always. Earth changes all the time kids. Let's get back to talking about fitness and stop trying to spread your eco-nonsense and propaganda.

Ok, was gone to Florida since last Wednesday. Did not have access to computer and WOD, so Thursday, Friday, Saturday did Chelsea, Linda and Murph (BW of #215) plus my running 3-5 miles daily. Got back and saw the Filthy 50's (DAMN!). Anyhow, just got done doing Sunday/Monday back to back (0230 Tues, working 3rd shift/Cop in NC on lunch). 22.5 minutes of hell! If you puke in your mouth, but it doesn't 'catch air' does that count as FULL pukie?

Pull ups (kipping, 1st 2 sets straight, rest broken): 21/17/14/11/11/9/10/10/9/8/9/8/7/8/8= 160,
Thrusters: 9/8/8/8/7/7/7/5/6/6/6/6/7/7/10=161

Going to do "50's" 2nite, i'll post the time later. Great stuff this sight, picked up when training w/Special Forces about 2 months ago. 41 years old and THOUGHT i was in decent shape. This sight is teaching me different, and correcting the problem. JT

Ok, was gone to Florida since last Wednesday. Did not have access to computer and WOD, so Thursday, Friday, Saturday did Chelsea, Linda and Murph (BW of #215) plus my running 3-5 miles daily. Got back and saw the Filthy 50's (DAMN!). Anyhow, just got done doing Sunday/Monday back to back (0230 Tues, working 3rd shift/Cop in NC on lunch). 22.5 minutes of hell! If you puke in your mouth, but it doesn't 'catch air' does that count as FULL pukie?

Pull ups (kipping, 1st 2 sets straight, rest broken): 21/17/14/11/11/9/10/10/9/8/9/8/7/8/8= 160,
Thrusters: 9/8/8/8/7/7/7/5/6/6/6/6/7/7/10=161

Going to do "50's" 2nite, i'll post the time later. Great stuff this sight, picked up when training w/Special Forces about 2 months ago. 41 years old and THOUGHT i was in decent shape. This sight is teaching me different, and correcting the problem. JT

Ok, was gone to Florida since last Wednesday. Did not have access to computer and WOD, so Thursday, Friday, Saturday did Chelsea, Linda and Murph (BW of #215) plus my running 3-5 miles daily. Got back and saw the Filthy 50's (DAMN!). Anyhow, just got done doing Sunday/Monday back to back (0230 Tues, working 3rd shift/Cop in NC on lunch). 22.5 minutes of hell! If you puke in your mouth, but it doesn't 'catch air' does that count as FULL pukie?

Pull ups (kipping, 1st 2 sets straight, rest broken): 21/17/14/11/11/9/10/10/9/8/9/8/7/8/8= 160,
Thrusters: 9/8/8/8/7/7/7/5/6/6/6/6/7/7/10=161

Going to do "50's" 2nite, i'll post the time later. Great stuff this sight, picked up when training w/Special Forces about 2 months ago. 41 years old and THOUGHT i was in decent shape. This sight is teaching me different, and correcting the problem. JT

(Rant)
Scott, Tristam, Charlie, and others:

When did Coach say that this or any other rest day topic was his personal position on a particular issue? These articles are meant for intelligent discussion, not postulating what Coach's political leanings are. For all you know, he might disagree wholeheartedly with the claims made in this article. If you have a point to make about the issue at hand, you should make it... otherwise you should avoid posting on rest days.

(/Rant)

Great stuff, science. Now check it and use it!

JT, we all have the same problem, we think we are in shape but coach teaches us otherwise. Have fun.

That's a fair point Chuck.

I've actually learned a fair bit from these rest days: reading material that I would otherwise have no exposure to.

I would just counsel people to focus on the substance of the articles and responses rather responding by attacking the author of the posts.

On today's article, I am not a scientist, but I don't think you need a PhD in astronomy to realise that the earth in which we live is sick, and getting sicker by the day.

And yes, I have a car. In fact I have two.

I just don't have a problem with Exxon, or Intel, or General Electric providing funding dollars for scientific research. I also don't have a problem with an organization that promotes Intelligent Design, even if it's the antithesis of what I personally believe, providing funding dollars. Personally, I'm a Flying Spaghetti Monsterist.

At some point in history just about all of what we 'know' to be true scientifically now brought grave personal risks to she who proposed it. Without someone providing dollars for research, and someone willing to propose some absurd hypotheses, I'd know the earth was flat, that it lie at the center of the solar system, and that the moon was made of green cheese.

By all means do follow the money from provider to peer review journal publication, if you can. You may be surprised at the circuitous, protected, and blind root it takes.

And thank you Matt, you're right. I should stick to opining on the articles themselves.

Please STOP WHINING! If the earth gets warm, wear shorts. There's nothing you can do to stop it.

Scott & Tristam, you and your fellow deep thinkers are so right. It is utterly ridiculous to believe for a moment that variations in the sun's output could have any effect on the earth's climate.

come to Oz - its fakin hot all the time - we 'just' had 40 days of 34+ degs straight in Albury - and a week of 40+ just after X-mas

we could do with a beach here (about 340ks from the sea at the moment) - be great to go for an early wave before work, then I wouldnt need to CF as much - the local railway station would make a fantastic reef break, and my backhand attack needs some tweaking

nuke the ice caps and send up some solid rights

Keep complaining and God might turn off the sun. Be grateful for what you have and stop whining. The earth will end some day. Is your soul saved? Praise Jesus.

The only downside to our days off? It brings the asshats out of the woodwork. I'm always floored by the fact that morons who don't have the sack to post up their WOD results...assuming they're doing to WOD at all...are so loud on off days. And to go along with that charming quality, it seems that those that shout the loudest or most insistently also don't have the juice to post an actual email address.

Bravo dickheads...your credibility is sky-high.

Coach, I have the solution. Since, as I observed earlier, these clowns (for the most part) don't post on "work" days...we should go to an always-on, never-off format. Apparently hard work scares off some people.

lol - thats it dude - i still have to get one of those god phones - its nice to know he/she/it reads the wod posts, particularly on rest days

I agree. The ass hat environmental wackos complaining about a baby deer getting a little oil on its hoof. Whining because the sun is too bright. Put some sun glasses on and pour yourself a nice strong cup of STFU.

My comment was not aimed solely at environmentalists. For example: anyone posting as "God Warrior" with the email address of "jesus@saves.souls.com" goes right into the same bin as the rest of them.

I don't remember the last time I saw "God Warrior"'s time for Helen (or Jesus' for that matter).

I guess I'm just naive enough to think that if you're going to be lipping off on a rest day, you'd better be contributing on work days. Another example: I'm not an astrophysicist, and I don't work at NASA. So I don't stroll into the Johnson Space Center every 4th day to espouse my views on black holes and faster-than-light travel, periodically interjecting bits about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard...claiming the entire time that my name is John Travolta.

Helen as Rx'd: DNF. Couldn't hold onto the bell or the pullup bar. My grip is shot.

After the WOD I did some water walks. Wait... Waiter Walks, with the 1.5 pd KB. Then did some sled drags with my homemade sled, made from two old rail ties.

Just kidding folks. Have a good day all.

Matt G, there is a God and you're not it! Praise Jesus.

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth," reads Genesis 1:28 in the King James translation of the Bible.

Harris - "You know, you might think about accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour instead of fooling around with all this stuff."

Cerrano - "Ah, Jesus...I like him very much. But he no help with curveball."

Harris - "Are you trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?"

This is spectacular.....
I am a huge fan of threads like this. Thanks Coach, it's nice to see someone instigate a decent debate. But, I would like to point out some retorts and arguments need to be a little more thoroughly researched. I succumb to the fact that the planet may be getting a little warmer. I, however, do not succumb to the fact that it's all our fault, nor the fault of our sun. You can't blame this on one thing, I'm no eco-hippie, but if you're going to argue your point, research it a little more. Look back through the history of the planet as we know it, and not just as long as "man" has populated the planet...the Earth is constantly in change. The environment is alway in flux, temperatures change, ice melts, water levels rise and fall. While we may not have recorded all there is to record about the Earth's ecological history, there is always going to be one constant.....change. To get to the point....before you post a retort, or bash someone for their view, research a little beforehand, you may make yourself look like less of an "asshat".....good one Matt. Oh, and scott, don't propegate your view on the war in Iraq here, dude....a lot CrossFtitters are soldiers, myself included. We do what we do because we are told to, regardless of our political stance. If you don't like what's going on in the world, change it. Grab your boots and a weapon and stand the wall, if you haven't the intestinal fortitude, follow Charlie's advice : sit back and pour yourself a nice strong cup of STFU. Otherwise, don't be a douchebag. Douchebag.

Helen as rx'd...17:35

Boy I'm really dragging. I need to stop the partying and get my diet straightened out.

Tried the water/waiter walks with Jesus after the WOD, oddly enough could only see one set of footprints in the sand. Still trying to figure that one out...

Hey, I'm new here. Need to lose about 200lbs., can anyone point me in the right direction?

Hey,
God Warrior......put on some shorts, grab some gear and go work out! Just get out of here, dude. go post on some other website. This wasn't a topic on Jesus, or the existence of God, let's not open that can o' worms. This was about a SCIENTIFIC article....douche.

I've never seen so many people flip out over hearing someone else's different opinion or belief. I hope you all can recover from it by the next workout.

I have a theory on global warming, this is just a way that god is gradually getting us used to going to hell. Hey thanks god. See now I do believe that he is all forgiving. If any of you want to get a jump start move down here to Yuma, AZ

Keep me posted on the donations, okay?
Thanks

Kent is no Eva.

Hi!

Today's a rest day, so I'm going to take the opportunity to post a question without risking that it get's lost between hundreds of posts with repetition numbers and stuff :)

I'm from Germany and I came across this site like ten days ago and I've been doing the WODs ever since. Love it! I'm going to the army at the beginning of July and I wanna increase my level of fitness before boot camp. So I guess the WODs will be a good way to build up strength/muscle endurance. But what about about cardio? I want to start with running again these days, but how should I combine it, how often etc. I need some help on this!

I thought I could to the WODs, run 3 days a week and maybe add some extra pushups here an there - any improvements/suggestions?

Climate is not static and our units of observation are an insufficient measurement against the backdrop of time that changes in our planet occur at.

However, what do get when you burn a billion years of stored carbon in a century?

I don't know...

Perhaps, some of you virgin-lunged CFers should go out this week-end and chain-smoke smoke 6 packs of cigs then come back and post how you feel.

Environment = No problem:
The forests are fine! Go ahead clear-cut everything. We can gown them back based on our own "Intelligent" design.
Destroy species on a whim. Biodiversity is over-rated anyway.
Genetically manipulate with God-like zest. We can always deal with Pandora later.
What can nature do to us? We'll find your answers in a bottle.
Base everything on $. Thats what really matters.

We've got the whole thing figured out.

Envronmentalists eh?
All a bunch of granola muching, tree-huging Wackos!
Whats the environment got to do with me?

Everything.

Chris

ps
This has nothing do do with Solidiers, whom I have the greatest admiration and respect for.

-> #47 FITNESS RELATED QUESTION

Come on, you can't be serious!

I mean 4 posts on global warming in 10 minutes, but no one willing to answer a fitness related question!?

rupert (#47 and #49)...drop the indignant act. Perhaps the reason no one has answered your question is the fact that it's been answered about 20 times in the past.

The Message Board and search function are your friends rupert...learn to use them.

I don't mean to be rude, but you're the very cool nihilistic guy around here, who shits on everybody and everything as long as he can workout and point on individual responsibility whenever possible, right? Already learned that as a matter of fact...

And just for your interest, I really _have_ looked into the message board, and I used the search function (using words like military and army) to find a similar request - but either I ain't able to use it properly or there simply is no such topic.

This was a cool article that presents a different theory of global warming and climate change, just like CrossFit is a different theory of exercise and nutrition.
The most important point of this article to me, was the fact that we do not know enough about our world to have any accurate models predicting climate change. Whether based upon sun cycles, greenhouse gasses, the effects of forests, blue/green algae growth, or anything else, all models are inherently incaccurate because there is too much that we just do not know yet.
Brooke, (Comment 11) thank you for presenting some problems with and confirmations of her facts. It was nice to see an informed opinion present a well thought out reply.

I had my first experience this morning running in the snow in Indianapolis. 30 minutes.

Oh, I have to excuse for the first paragraph of my last comment, I thought it was you, who said sth. like "shit on the environment" etc.

Sorry then...

But still I didn't find sth. proper with the search function, so I thougt before signing up for a single post I could ask my question here. Never mind.

Rupert -

Check this out: http://www.crossfit.com/discus/messages/24/14260.html

be sure to increase the number of days setting on the search function - it defaults to 3 days.

Good luck!

Rupert - quick search for 'cardio' in the forums will give you plenty of hits, such as:

http://www.crossfit.com/discus/messages/21/20799.html

Just a thought, are theories on the origins of the universe provaable? Hmmm, that's why we call them theories. 'Global warming', if it is really occuring (btw, just because 99 percent of scientists think that something is true doesn't mean it is, reference galileo), could be happening for any number of reasons, or more likely, a combination of a number of them. People who want to prove that something is always true have to be able to say I have seen the entire universe and never has this been proven false. Think about the amount of knowledge that we have scientifically, and compare that to the possible amount of knowledge in the entire universe. We have acquired an astounding amount of data on the Universe and our Earth, but it is only a tiny fraction of a percent of everything that's out there. For those people who say they believe in something to be true, it is just that, a belief, that may be supported by the facts, but it all comes down to a worldview. I, as a Christian, see God's hand everywhere I look in the universe. Another man, who believes there is no god, will of course not see God's hand in the universe, and will look for ways to explain it. I'll probably get flamed for my intolerant views on this, but all I'm saying is everyone incorporates facts into their viewpoint.

So I also don't get flamed for not being a cf-er, I have done a total of one real cf workout (060316), and am just starting on many of the exercises offered here.

Last night:
Overhead squats- 10 @ 65,75, 6@85, 10@ 75
Deadlifts-10 @ 115, 135, 185, 3@225, 10@135
Front squats, 10@105, 6@115, 10@105
5k run at a leisurely under-8 minute/mile pace

Bring on the flame!

Thank you guys, this helped me a lot. So I will stick to the WODs, add some extra pushups/situps when possible and just do my running as usual. I just didn't know how it would fit together, but obviously there shouldn't be any problems...

So thanks a lot! And once again:

Matt, I didn't mean to be offensive and made a mistake, so I apologize for that ;)

Rupert,

"What about cardio?" is a bit of a joke around here. Do the WOD, with proper intensity, and the cardio is taken care of. You can add other exercises related to your sport or interest as desired to the level your abilities dictate.

Chris

Chris,

since I just did seven WODs until now I don't really have experience with that, plus I am not going for max intensity yet. I have been doing many different sports, I have been trying bodybuilding/weightlifting and thanks to the last I have lost most of my endurance I built up when I was boxing. At the moment I feel like xfit is very much focused on strength, so I don't know if it's going to prepare me for 10km of running just in the next 3 months?

I am new to Cross Fit and am going to begin "doing through the motions" as is suggested in this site. One question: should I be doing anything other than that what is posted on the WOD? For example, Sunday's WOD was

Sunday 060319
20 seconds on/ 10 second off 65-pound thrusters for 15 intervals

Does this mean that my workout should be 7.5 minutes?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Josiah #57:

Theories on the origins of the universe (e.g., the Big Bang) are provable insofar as anything in science is. The Big Bang Theory is one of the strongest theories in science.

"that's why we call them theories."

This is a common misconception about scientific "theories." The word theory in science has a very specific meaning, and if something is called a theory in science, it cannot be easily dismissed. The sort of thing that you're talking about is what a scientist would call a hypothesis.

There's a reasonable description of the difference in jargon between a scientist and a non-scientist here: http://wilstar.com/theories.htm (I don't know that the whole site is reliable, but this page is essentially correct). Every time I teach an intro science class, I spend the first class making sure everyone understands this point.

"all I'm saying is everyone incorporates facts into their viewpoint."

I would write it the other way around, and I agree with you.

Ok
I missed Sat, Sun, Mon
so today I did
30 sec Pull Ups, 30 sec thrusters 65#, 30 sec off
1-7/11
2-7/14
3-6-12
4-5/10
5-5-10
6-4/8
7-4/8
8-0/6
I think the legs could have gone 1-2 more rounds but the hands and forearms were screaming

All this climate and temperature change stuff got me thinking of the night I watched Dennis Miller Raw. He made the comment that they claim it's changed 2 degrees in temp on the planet. Yet after spending all night fiddling with his hotel room's thermostat he couldn't tell the difference.

Hmmmm, maybe he has a point.

Someone wanted the link to the wikipedia entry for the author of the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas

They also said my e-mail didn't work and lead to some nonsense, not sure why, but if you want to e-mail me my e-mail is scott_cambio@hotmail.com

I am not trying to hide anything. I think an article printed in 1998 by a scientist funded by those that gain the most from her point of view, and whose findings have been criticized for lack of peer review is wrong. Is it any more wrong than posting an article from the 70's advising a snickers bar as good exercise nutrition?

And I mean no insult to any soldier. I admire you all for your dedication. It is the choice of our scoiety to put so many of you in harms way for a false cause that I am ashamed of. My thoughts and wishes go out to all our servicemen and women. I apologize if you thought otherwise.

Good thing he's not wearing a kilt like the guy yesterday--that's an image we don't need!

Didn't post in the last 2 days any WOD stuf. Replaced Sat and Sunday's with trail work. both day's 5 hours of shoveling, digging, lifting.

Had to put some work back into the trails that work me when I ride.

Arno #66, When I wore a Kilt as part of my unit never was stupid enough to do a handstand. Usually to intoxicated to do it. Went for the more direct approach.

Brooke # 62
I am not a scientist, but am not unfamiliar with the jargon, my father being a science teacher. Scientific theories (such as evolution) being taught as the only credible theory with my tax dollars is something I have a pet peeve with tho. I am not particularly a fan of teaching Intelligent design with my tax dollars, as I don't think that taxing for education is provided for within the constitution of the United States. Off soapbox. The thing I get concerned with is people who ridicule others for differing beliefs, esp. when they understand very little about the way that their own worldview shapes how they think. There can only be one way that the universe and the world began. There can only be one right answer. I BELIEVE I have it. I will not ridicule others who do not hold to the same viewpoint. I BELIEVE firmly that they are wrong. Intellectually, I can say that there is a possibility I am wrong. But I do not believe that is the case. Those beliefs are what I integrate most facts into. And Brooke, btw, thank you for responding in a civil and logical manner.

Interesting article.

It is pretty clear to me the globe is warming, whether the upper layers of the atmosphere are or not. Glaciers and ice caps provide excellent evidence, as they are good "canaries in a coal mine". That in and of itself is not surprising. Climatological records show that it has always been varying, ergo ice ages.

It is also pretty clear that we've been dumping huge reams of carbon into the atmosphere, and will continue to do so at an ever increasing pace. I'd be very surprised if that didn't have some kind of effect. It wouldn't make sense that we could remove huge tracts of rain forest, pave huge blocks of land, burn vast amounts of material and dump the gases into the atmosphere, and not have an effect. Duh.

It is certainly an open question how much effect that would be. Would it stand out, or would it be buried in the noise from solar max, volcanoes, etc.? It'd be nice not to make things worse while we figure it out for sure.

Coach, can you keep us posted as to how much more Joe Matthews needs after today?
thanks,

Hi all,
Workout as follows
Pull-up (rings attached to the same rapid link; moderate kip)x5x20 supersetted w/ Press (75#'s)x10x20.
Duration 18:53. A good engorgement indeed...
Until later...

The Earth is a dog..and we are the fleas...at some point when we piss the dog off enough it will shake us loose and start it's day over again. I really dont think we can detroy the Earth, it's smarter than we are..but rather it will take care of the problem ("Us") to keep on existing as a living entity. I guess it all just depends on how badly we want to hang out on the planet.

Hmmm, must of watched "The Day After Tommorow" too much.

-> #64

"Yet after spending all night fiddling with his hotel room's thermostat he couldn't tell the difference.

Hmmmm, maybe he has a point."

If the polar caps start melting (and they will, given a temperature raise of 2°C) the sea level rises. I am sure that those living in low altitude regions will be totally able to tell a difference as soon as their houses got flushed away...

#35 Matt G. wrote:
Another example: I'm not an astrophysicist, and I don't work at NASA. So I don't stroll into the Johnson Space Center every 4th day to espouse my views on black holes and faster-than-light travel, periodically interjecting bits about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard...
---

I think that some people feel this is what Coach is doing on Rest Days lately, except for the part about doing it in someone else's house. (Coach has explicitly stated that he doesn't post on other sites, at least in regards to fitness.) I don't think it is unreasonable to infer that he agrees for the most part with what he posts. Without knowledge to the contrary, one only can go on the evidence that is there, and that space on the frontpage has many times been occupied by his thoughts. Also, the few times he has posted regarding rest day topics, they have been supportive of the material on the frontpage, in my view.

I, for one, don't say that he is espousing the posted viewpoint as the correct one necessarily, even if I may think he believes it, and also don't think one would have to be a trained astrophysicist to have an informed view of current data. I read "Post thoughts to comments" as trying to encourage discussion of a topic sometimes starting from a position that is a minority view or perhaps a majority view where I'm in the minority. Yet I do see them as his "voice", telling me something that he feels strongly enough about to post it, and don't think it's unreasonable to feel that way about it.

If someone does feel this way, that Coach does agree with what he puts up for us to discuss, it seems reasonable that that person would start to build some idea of what Coach's belief system and world views are like. Which is not to say that the messenger should be debated instead of the message, just that buidling an idea of someone in this way is a very human thing to do because we're always processing incoming information and trying to assign it to its proper place so that the world makes some kind of sense to us.

And the article? Well, she seems to admit that there has been some warming of the Earth over the last century, but that that warming is not correlated with greenhouse gas increases. But then she discounts that warming, so I'm not sure what she really thinks about whether we're warmer now or not than say, 200 years ago. Her main point about climate seems to be that the models we have aren't accurate and don't adequately take the sun's changing influence into consideration. Until they do that, how can they be accurate?

She also talks about how the Arctic has actually cooled but doesn't address the data I've heard and seen published that the polar ice cap is melting and that Antarctic ice sheets are breaking up. Maybe that's more about ocean temperatures instead of air temperatures, I don't know. I wish Postrel had asked her about that.

Finally, I didn't see anything about how the sun might affect the oceans and whether that is any different than satellite air temperature data. I was hoping she might mention something about that and what changes in oceans, currents, and storms we might expect or not expect from changing sun cycles.

And lastly, why haven't I been posting WOD scores as much? I've been sick lately, often, (2 year old in day care plus stress and underrecovery are the reasons, I think), and I've been substituting ME days that I don't post.

This interview was a nice change of pace for a rest day thought piece. I'll admit that I didn't understand all the science, but she seems to be saying that global warming may be due to astrophysical causes rather than greenhouse gases. Whatever the cause may be, there's precious little any of us can do to alter the temperature of the planet. We can't have an international conference to change sunspot activity, nor can we realistically alter the energy consumption needs of humans. Oh, sure, we can turn the thermostat down a few degrees and put on a sweater, but if you have a 40 mile freeway drive to work, what can you do? Even if you switch to a more fuel efficient car, in the long run, what true impact will that have? Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of taking personal responsibility for our actions, but it may be a matter of personal morality instead of scientific necessity. Our true quandry is not what may or may not be the effect of burning fossil fuels, but what happens when global competition for dwindling supplies increases and sharpens. On another note, I was intrigued by the story of how the observatory was built and the difficulties encountered in getting the building supplies up the mountain. Sounds like they must have needed some early Crossfitters!

My own asshattery is noted. Folks are right, this was my first post and I haven't posted WOD times before.

I beleive the science MAY be accurate but almost certainly doesn't take into account the bigger picture (as much of the research into Greenhouse Warming doesn't, everything is too specifically focused on one aspect or another). Given what I take to be the target audience, (i.e. non science types who probably aren't up to date on the current research), lack of peer review, and dubious funding, articles such as this make it too easy for those who don't know better, or worse, just don't care, to beleive that what we do to our planet doesn't matter and we can go on doing whatever we want because "who cares, the world is in constant change anyway". Do we really want to leave our children or grandchildren with a legacy of bad air, polluted seas, and torn down forests? I don't think so but promoting views that negate the impact we're having on our planet makes it too easy for many to overlook our responsibility to our environmant and the protection of the few areas that we haven't already overrun in some fashion or other.

I understand that all the above is somewhat out of the scope of the article but I still beleive that posting such an outdated (and generally refuted) article is somewhat irresponsible and does everybody (except those of us who just like to argue here) a disservice.

So I don't get falmed too hard for this, I haven't done the previous couple of days WOD's. I did the "filthy fifty" yesterday but had to break it in two because I didn't give myself enough time to complete it before I had to go to work. I did 4 sets of the CFWU before the bottom half to punish myself for not completing it correctly. This morning, because we have too many fatbodies in Bahrain, I had to do a mock Navy PRT but added another lap to bring it to a two mile run, then some more pushups and pullups at the end. Should be able to have more fun tomorrow.

The risky thing is, *IF* it turns out that there is a global warming trend, and *IF* it turns out that it's exacerbated by human activity (fossil fuel burning, etc.), then, by the time we have conclusive proof of that, it may be entirely too late to change it.

And we're not talking about wearing shorts and sunshades . . . think "crop failures". (In the short run, however, having a couple of hurricanes / year come through and clean up the NJ shore wouldn't be an altogether bad thing . . .)

So, we sort of have a Pascal's wager . . . since the potential consequences of being wrong are pretty severe, and the necessary steps to reverse it would have other useful geopolitical implications, maybe we should try reducing our use of fossil fuels?

And, for the record, I rode my bike to work today. Freakin' cold, too.

"maybe we should try reducing our use of fossil fuels?"

Did you mean "maybe *I* should try reducing *my* use of fossil fuels?"

The problem with global warming is people use it to tell other people what to do. If you care, then you take action. When you're driving your lawnmower to work to save fuel, people will ask what you are doing and choose to follow or not.

Reminds me of one of my favorite Onion articles...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38644
********************

Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others

November 29, 2000 | Issue 36•43

WASHINGTON, DC–A study released Monday by the American Public Transportation Association reveals that 98 percent of Americans support the use of mass transit by others.

Traffic moves slowly near Seattle, WA, where a majority of drivers say they support other people using mass transit.

"With traffic congestion, pollution, and oil shortages all getting worse, now is the time to shift to affordable, efficient public transportation," APTA director Howard Collier said. "Fortunately, as this report shows, Americans have finally recognized the need for everyone else to do exactly that." ...

...Collier said he hopes the study serves as a wake-up call to Americans. In conjunction with its release, the APTA is kicking off a campaign to promote mass transit with the slogan, "Take The Bus... I'll Be Glad You Did."

The campaign is intended to de-emphasize the inconvenience and social stigma associated with using public transportation, focusing instead on the positives. Among these positives: the health benefits of getting fresh air while waiting at the bus stop, the chance to meet interesting people from a diverse array of low-paying service-sector jobs, and the opportunity to learn new languages by reading subway ads written in Spanish.

"People need to realize that public transportation isn't just for some poor sucker to take to work," Collier said. "He should also be taking it to the shopping mall, the supermarket, and the laundromat."

Rest day blah!! Have had a week off suffering with some miserable lurgy so just trying to get moving again.

- 5 * 5 weighted pull-ups, 10kg
- 5 * 2 + 1 *3 hspu's (nose to floor)
- 5 * 5 OHS, 35kg

Then 2 hours later

5 rounds for time of:

Row 250m; and
15 Push-press, 45kg

9mins 36s

Chest infections suck, thought I was gonna meet Pukie after this one even holding back on the rows.

Will hit the thruster supa-tabata tomorrow.

Cheers, kempie

Nice moves Kempie,

I too have been off a week due to unforseen stuff.

Dropped in today with this 'lil beaut:

5 rounds for time of;

50kg full clean and jerk, 5 reps
10kg weighted pullups, 5 reps

butt kicker for some reason!

time: 16.31

Good to see you back mate.

You too bud, catch you thursday!

Greg #46

Kent is no Chuck Norris

Chuck Norris is no Eva

20 sec 65lb thruster, 20 sec rest including bar racking time, 10,8,6,4,5,4,5,4,4,5,4,5,4,4,4
then
1 pullup 1 min, 2 pullups 2 min,... 15 rounds bw 255lb

Kempie, hope you feel better soon bro.

Every body hates extremists... even religious ones. I just find it funny how many people crack jokes until they need the almighty. Just the personnel opinion of a God fearing man.

Another one...
To all those who cry and post all day long on rest days w/out putting up scores on workout days... you make me sick. Almost as sick as those who don't have the BALLS to post your e-mail. Everyone has an opinion, but I don't believe that everyone has earned the right to share it. If you voice your opinion, don't be scared of some rebuttals sent to you. I've called people out on several occasions here(Tristrams' complaining ass for one), as have many others. The only difference is that we post an e-mail address where we're not hard to get a hold of. Either sack up and post scores w/rants and your real e-mail address or don't post at all. That'ld get rid of a lot of the spineless people here and thier cry sacking.

"Exxon" (whoever you are): Note my last line.

MikeY: I loved that Onion report, and yes, so true. Market Research studies pretty much found that the only reason BART got built in the Bay Area was because everyone who voted for it hoped other people would take it and get the heck out of their way on the roads.

OK, so it's funny you mention BART. After a recent visit to San Fran, I was left with a very favorable opinion of BART. Only one misgiving; it didn't go to enough places in the city. I guess being built on a series of hills, ala Rome, is not so conducive to an underground light rail system. Nonetheless, we went from Oakland, to Berkeley, to the City quickly and safely. Impressive.

The rest of my transportation was handled by walking and Dan Silver's car. It least he drives a Subaru, which is mandated in SF I believe.

Unfortunately, the place I live (metro LA, actually, OC) is the worst for pub transport. The city fathers figured that light rail was limited in its appeal and application and decided some 70 years ago to push a freeway system for a commuter based society. We all know how that turned out. The major artery between OC and LA, Interstate 5 (aka The Santa Ana Freeway) has seen little improvement past the OC border in 40 plus years. Result? A 30 mile drive that takes up to 2 hours in rush hour.
That's progress baby.

A long time ago, you could ride the Pacific Electric Railway from LA to Newport Beach in about an hour and a half. My mother has told us stories of riding to OC from Santa Monica for a dime, just to get away. The tracks are now long gone due to the car-based society thrust upon us by LA's founders and their oilmen cronies. Memorials have been put up to remind us of how good it was, and could have been.

Funny thing: Some want to bring back the "Red Cars" and increase light rail throughout the Southland. Now, it seems like a case of "too little; too late." Too bad.

To answer the question above: If pub transport was efficient in LA/OC, I'd probably use it.

Gas is way too freakin' expensive.

chuck comment #24

well said....

COACH is never going to change what HE does on HIS website. as long as COACH is in charge of HIS website, be prepared to disagree or agree on rest day topics. as for global warming.... I live in Ausitn Texas, and have become accustomed to light winters and harsh summers. This past 'winter', we had 2 DAYS of temperatures of freezing or below! So in other words, WE DIDN'T HAVE A WINTER! It's a good thing I love to swim because I'll be spending plenty of time in the water this summer.

Save the planet by reading the bible and surrendering your life and will to the lord savior Jesus Christ.
=========
I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever
given to men. All the good from the Savior of the
world is communicated to us through this book.
- Abraham Lincoln

Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet anchor of your
liberties; write its precepts on your hearts and
practice them in your lives. To the influence of
this Book we are indebted for the progress made,
and to this we must look as our guide in the
future.
- Ulysses S. Grant

O.K. now post something from Robert E. Lee who actually lived like he believed.

Of course Coach believes his rest-day posts, or at least highly respects the opinion.

These posts not some exercise in discourse or critical thinking, as people are wont to believe. I suspect Coach believes that sort of mushy all-ideas-are-valid-or-at-least-worth-considering abstraction is beneath him. This website is his soap-box and he is using advance his beliefs.

Its a refreshing straight forward concept, that. I suspect the reason he has never clarified that point is because he had grown to enjoy the occasional "He never said he believes it" and "This is just to stimulate discussion" posts.

Or maybe once he says, explicitly, that this is what he believes, some jack*ss will come along as say "Crossfit doesn't work because Coach is Fat and denies Global Warming".

But make no mistake about it, unless he states otherwise he agrees with nearly all of his links. He seems like an “ideas matter” kind of guy, and to casually post something simply for the purposes of debate, in the same forum that he uses to celebrate our troops, and advance our fitness, would therefore be perverse.

Though the argument could be made that he is diluting his message.

Ron Nelson, Comment 88

Can you do something along the lines of rails to trails? Thirty miles in two hours is very comfortable bike riding speed.

Damn, that last post reads like some sort of love letter to Coach. I should add that while I agree with him on a lot of stuff, his manner (and Lynne's too), is often needless rude and boorish.

there.

I have never heard of asshats. Ass clowns, yes. I am starting to get the idea of what an asshat is every time I see Tristam post something. Funny, it's only on rest day. Now we have several new ass clowns running amok in the comments. My theory is this: it's either the same ass clown posting several versions of his opinion or there are several ass clowns that heard about the site and only want to take jabs and turn every rest day into a political discussion. I think today was an excellent opportunity to discuss SCIENCE, ass clowns.

Hi again,
Workout as follows ALL WEIGHT IN KILOS
Lisa Ride one mile; then, Squat 45x8, 70x3, 80x2, 90x2x8 (1:00 interval); Press 35x3, 40x2x7 (1:00 interval); and Power snatch 35x3x5.
Bdw. 62 kilos

Jon Ride 2 miles at level 7; then, squat 62x10, 102x3, 122x2, 130x2x10 (:54 interval); Press 62x2x7 (1:00 interval); and power snatch 50x3x5.
Bdw. 82 kilos
Until tomorrow...

Am I a moron who does not sack up?

I need the rules...

Am I only NOT a moron who does not sack up if I post my score(s) that day and post an opinion/rant?

Do I get credit forward if I post scores but don't rant that day?

Can I be in an opinion/rant debt, if I post to much compared to score posts?

Will I cease to be a moron who does not sack up if I post scores for several days without an opinion/rant?

Can I see my report card thus far?

Who is the official judge of who is a moron who does not sack up?

Can this judge be bribed?

What are the qualifications to be such a judge?

Can I be punished?
Can I please be punished?

Is there an appeals process?

I found guilty can I take my case to a Supreme Court of judges who will be the final say on if I am in fact a moron who does not sack up?

Are there "police" or just judges like Sly Stallone in "Judge Dread?

Does Sly post here?

Will he say "CCTJOEY, you are a moron who does not sack up...PREPARE TO BE JUDGED!!!"

On global warming...I thought sunny and warm enviroments with an abudence of CO2 were good for plants on land and in the sea...which means more cute little animals...which means more food to eat after tanning on those warm sunny days...

Actually global warming has been caused by my plan to become an evil overlord. It will cause you all to panic and screaming for assistance that your present government's can't provide.

Ad hominem and strawmen = Poor form.

In any case, politicizing science -- as has been done by the global warming industry -- is bad for everyone. What's almost as bad is making predictions about what may happen based on computer simulations and then using those predictions -- disguised as science -- to incite fear. As has been said before, follow the money. And keep in mind, global warming is simply a theory.

Hell, I'm just old enough to remember in the 70s when climatologists were convinced we were headed for another ice age. They predicted -- there's that again -- that global temps would be as many as 11 degrees cooler by the year 2000. They used fear back then, too.

Did we somehow overcorrect in the 30 years since? Doubtful. The fact remains that the earth has experienced numerous cooling and warming periods (and science -- that which hasn't been politicized -- supports that notion; it's amazing what Google will turn up). I suspect the earth will experience many more in the millennia to come.

Good post rls-denver. I'll turn over the keys to my gas guzzling v8 pickup about the same time I turn over my weapons collection. The earth gets warm, the earth cools, and then it does it again. If you don't like the dirty oil on the polar bear's claw, try to wipe it off. You'll find that he isn't as friendly as you expect. Maybe he likes the oil on his foot. Ever think of that?

It's interesting to observe, to me, how little actual discussion/debate goes on in most of these. Her case, it seemed to me, was straightforward:

1) Climatological models exist, purporting rough accuracy to some extent in the future--up to 100 years in some cases--which make specific predictions, such as the Arctic should be warming, and that certain layers of the atmosphere which we can measure accurately over time should also be warming.
2) Public lobbying groups want policy to be made based upon those models, which rely heavily on certain factors, and for most intents and purposes ignore other factors, such as the 11 year cycle of solar magnetic activity.
3) The predictions made by these models do not appear to be reflected in current reality, thereby falsifying them, to an extent as yet undetermined.
4) Climatological change obviously happens, as evidenced in many places, such as polar ice, and very old trees. However, we can only describe them, not predict them, and it is abundantly clear that the Earth warmed up, and cooled down, before the internal combustion engine was a spark in anyones eye.
5) In the last century, most of the temperature increase happened between 1900 and 1950, roughly, according to her.

These are all purported to be facts. If true, these are facts which are not commonly known, presumably since fear sells better than optimism, and our media is profit driven, and are selling to--by and large--ignorant people with short attention spans.

With respect to argument, I should add, snide derision and hysteria are for weak-minded people, not thinkers. If you post an article showing someone was funded by Exxon, so what? That is simple ad hominem attack, and as such does not qualify as debate.

I see so many liberal attacks on the administration which are of this low caliber, as if insult qualified as argument. News flash: it doesn't. Now, Ann Coulter does the same thing, and so does Rush, but I remember that basic mindset starting some time in the 80's as the Political Correctness movement, and Ann Coulter is nothing other than a conservative reflection of that same "I don't need facts, I know I'm right, you're an idiot, and if you disagree with me, I'll just ignore you and turn on Rush/NPR."

Dave Wood- Well said.

My own spin on matters relating to the environment is that we really need to kill all the puny humans as quickly as possible in order to save the planet. I have two theories as to how to go about this:

1- Use fossil fuels for everything, burn all of our garbage, burn all of our old buildings and burn everything else at some point. The idea being to fill the sky with putrid, black smoke that none of us can breathe and that will pollute our water tables and food sources to the point that they are unfit for human consumption. Invent an artificial intelligence to fix the problem.

2- Stop EVERYTHING. No more electricity, no more antibiotics or SRIs, no more cars, no more buildings, no more farms, no more clear cutting, no more sitcoms, no more awesome pools outside my freaking killer hotel room on Waikiki beach, no more Waikiki beach, no more anything man-made. Then we just de-evolve, slowly and over time, until we revert back to Robb Wolf's cave-man friends. Prior to this, we invent an artificial intelligence to monitor the process.

Either way, Earth will still be here long after we are gone but will hopefully be controlled by giant, killer robots. I'll be on Mars lecturing Earth's ex-pats from the little jar my head is floating in.

-D.

Just for fun!! (never thought I would say that.)

1 mile run 7:50 minute

Fran 8:20 minute. WOOOOO!!!!HOOOOO!! picked up a minute from the last time.

.25 mile warm down 2 minutes.

Coach I cant thak you enough. 42 and finally creating the athelete I always wanted to be.

Off for the last few days, so today is a make up day...

5 Min. C2 row - 1200M
CFWU

5 rounds of:
5 Pull-ups
120M run
Time: 4:37

3x5 Squats -
115#
165#
165#

Freakin Dan.
He's already started the "pickling" process for his head, from the liver up.

Walt (post # up there somewhere):
The powers that be are kicking around a trails idea. Problem is, Southern Pacific has sold or leased much of the right of way. Near me, most of it is wide open and waiting. Bike away.
In the Valley, they're using the right of ways for the "Orange Line." Stories everyday of people in cars running into the busses that use the new line. Makes you want to take Dan's idea to heart.

Dan, get out of the sun before the sunspots ruin your tats. Enjoy the islands, lucky bastard.

Dan: Thanks.

Howard (#61): (if you haven't given up in despair):

Yes, the whole thing is over in 7.5 minutes (of near hell). That was a particularly short and very intense WOD (although there are others that are similar . . . the ones named "Fran" and "Helen" are similar in duration and intensity).

If you're still "going through the motions" to work into CrossFit, you might consider doing that WOD with nothing but a broomstick or a PVC pipe . . . that alone will give a lot of people a workout.

If you do that, and you're not particularly winded afterwards, then add the classic "CrossFit Warmup" as an additional workout:

3 rounds of:
5 - 10 pullups,
5 - 10 dips,
5 - 10 situps (on a GHD, if possible), and
30 - 60 seconds of "Samson stretch"

(and next time, add a bit of weight to the broomstick).

Best of luck!

Over on the message boards there is a bias toward science and data, peer-reviewed studies, and so forth. If I posted something suggesting that a high-carb diet was a good way to lose weight a bunch of people would fire back with STUDIES showing that this wasn't the case. The ratio of data to opinion is high.

So I recently read State of Fear by Michael Crichton. Yes it is a novel, but it's a novel with footnotes, data, and an extensive bibliography. By the end of it I was arriving at the opinion that maybe they whole greenhouse gas / global warming thing wasn't so clearcut. Characters in the book, in arguments like we see here, presented research to the contrary.

So now I'm trying to sort out my own opinions and beliefs about this. I consider State of Fear to be a decent argument against global warming so now I'm just starting to work on a couple books from the other side. When I saw this rest day topic I was optimistic that a few people would fire back with some good data from the global-warming-is-real side of the argument. Instead there are some attacks on the author and her funding and statements like "He finds shills (in this case, the one scientist out of a hundred who thinks all this global warming is hooey) who support his right-damaged predetermined positions!"

I'd like to examine both sides of this but I need something more than "everyone knows it's getting warmer." Any help?

ARRRRGGGHHH!!!

Come on guys, how are we going to move forward in a solution-oriented frame of mind (whether it be politics, religion, science, fitness, etc.) unless we can learn to communicate?

Just a few clips from today's commentary demonstrating complete lack of critical thinking, reason, respect and restraint (just totally bums me out):

***Bravo dickheads

***ass hat environmental wackos

***STFU

***Praise Jesus

***don't propegate your view on the war in Iraq here, dude....a lot CrossFtitters are soldiers

***Douchebag

***Just get out of here, dude. go post on some other website

***I, as a Christian, see God's hand everywhere

***I really dont think we can detroy the Earth, it's smarter than we are..but rather it will take care of the problem ("Us") to keep on existing as a living entity.

***Of course Coach believes his rest-day posts, or at least highly respects the opinion.

#107 Cole,

Good on you for wanting to research more about it. Just try not to lose a sense of humour about it all. .

CCTJOEY- There are no moron cops here. Just a bunch of people who want to be sack-less. If you're not man enough to post your name w/your opinion, Then yes you do deserve what ever punishment Sly or the other occupants here dish out. Usually just a tongue lashing. If you're going to post something, then be man/woman enough to put your name on it.

ChrisM,
Don't worry, I won't lose my sense of humor about it. There is plenty of amusing arguing going on and I definitely got a few good chuckles. Just not much in the way of real information and I was optimistic that I might so that's disappointing. But sometimes you get what you pay for...

Thanks David!

More of Professor Baliunas: http://www.reason.com/0510/cr.sb.full.shtml

OK, so here's some good humor. I'm reading the article that Coach just posted the link to when I notice the ad on the side of the page: "Beware the Dangers of Weight Training / The Ultimate Fitness Program / Master Your Own Bodyweight / No Equipment Required." You think anyone will fall for it?

DJ,

What name would you like? I wont go into why my name will not be put on this forum, but my e-mail address is always linked. My "handle" is to help with "CRED" with those that might recognize it so that when I bother to sound off others can know where I am coming from. Much like COACH using "COACH" I can only hope that is manly enough for you and others to accept. I have and am paying my dues and cross-fit is a nice addition. Of course you might not have meant me at all.

I don't choose to post here normally because I don't use this for motovation and I track my progress in a diary. Actually, I don't understand a lot of the rather rambling posts about people's workout results.
I get people's questions about the WOD and other's kind responses, but the rambling about a person's mother-in-law was in town so they had to substitute running for lunges does not seem useful.

I could be looking at this all wrong. Perhaps "Comments" should be just that and we should leave discussion for elsewhere.

"PREPARE TO BE JUDGED!!!"

A religous extremist is the same regardless of religion, why are we even bringing religion into this. How did we get that way? The way I see it is like this. An Islamic extremist is the same as a Christian extremist. You cant reason with extremists.

On the other hand......

After all is said and done, the only ones left to inherit the world will be the people of Crossfit. We are people of every color, of every race, of every profession, seeking to better ourselfs through each WOD. My religion is Crossfit, it is the only thing judging me.

Peace

CCTJOEY,

The comments I made earlier weren't directed towards you. They were towards the people who put in fake names and e-mail addresses for fear of being called out on their posts. Not just the gibberish of Tristram, but all. Even "Godswarrior". (That pains me, because I to am a religious/spiritual man too.) As far as why you don't post your name. I know what CCT is, and serve as well. Actually, you and I might work together one day. I just choose not to post my job w/my name. That's cool you do though. There are a lot of us who serve here, and we are actually pretty easy to pick out. Anyways bro, keep up the good posts, and don't take crap to heart when it's obviously not pointed towards you. Drop me an e-mail if you like.

I did Cindy today, 10 rounds with box pushups.

I can do standard pushups but I need to increase my reps - after about 30-40 I am spent and can't do any more. I'm not sure if it's my upperbody strength or just lack of practice. Jeff suggested the pushup progression in his KidsCrossFit newsletter. I skipped to box pushups - I can do more reps but they are still pretty frickin' hard.

D.J RIGHT ON!!!!.Some day everyone will have there very own "Master Card" moment.You just won't be able to buy your" God forsaken butts out of his reality!

"The existence of nonscientific motives does not tell us which side is right; only careful consideration of the evidence can do that."

This is the key point. It seems to me that an effect of the widespread safety and security we have earned through our military strength and economic prosperity has been to generate an entire class of people possessing college educations, but without the ability to think without hysteria. A class of Chicken Littles. "What if. ." the world is warming, "What if. . " our crops fail. etc. etc.

These are hypothetical scenarios not entirely different than the boogie man. "What if . ." I put my foot down and a hand grabs it from under my bed? This is the counsel of cowardice. The best method we have for assessing our physical reality is the scientific method, which relies on testing our ideas.

It is an unfortunate fact that vanity is often the most important factor with respect to what evidence people will accept. If Reagan says "Trees cause pollution", this is not subjected to empirical validation. It is laughed off. In fact, trees DO cause pollution, as CO2. That is why the Smoky Mountains are the smoky mountains.

Being educated and smart does not exempt anyone from doing the work of fact verification.

That last comment applies to me, too. After posting, I thought about it, and I don't think it is carbon dioxide, I think it is methane. I read a lengthy article on this some time ago, but don't have time to locate it now.

Some CrossFitters have expressed a genuine concern for and interest in global warming. It’s not easy to explain in a reasonable commentary, but let me try to bound the problem with a little essay for the interested citizen.

1. Whenever you read, “Most scientists believe …” you’re not reading about science. Most? Science is not a democracy; it’s not about voting; nor is it about consensus. Believe? Nor is science a belief system.

When Galileo, Newton and Einstein made their great contributions, they were all alone, one man against the whole of the keepers of knowledge.

Neither is science about peer review, nor credentials. The DNA model was published expressly avoiding peer review. Einstein was a patent clerk.

Science is about models of the real world that have predictive power. Models come in four flavors: Conjectures, Hypotheses, Theories, and Laws, in order of predictive power. Briefly, Conjectures need assert no prediction, and may not even fit all the data. A Hypothesis is a Conjecture that fits all the data (it is not immediately refutable) and makes at least one significant (novel) prediction, but none of its predictions has been validated. A Hypothesis becomes a Theory when at least one significant prediction has been validated, but some possible consequences or predictions have not been tested. A Law is a Theory in which all possible predictions have been validated.

CrossFit is Coach’s model for achieving physical fitness. It’s had some peer review – rejection, threats, ridicule. Does it have predictive power? Are his credentials important? Is it science? It might be lethal, but is it more or less lethal than traditional methods or under fire? The jury is still out, but that’s you CrossFitters! Couch would want you to post your verdicts here.

2. Global warming has two distinct aspects, one Fact and the other Model. A Fact is a measurement compared to a standard. A Model is an objective, cause and effect relationship.

Global Warming (GW) is a Fact, or better a collection of facts. The climate of the earth is known to some extent for billions of years. It is characterized by four to six profound ice ages. The climate warms coming out of ice ages and cools going into them (back and forth, global warming then cooling -- repeat). In between the Ice Ages, the earth warms and cools on a smaller scale, somewhat periodically every 40,000 to around 100,000 years. These are called interglacial periods or intervals. These are the first and second order climate facts of the earth. The facts entail and require no cause.

For the last 40 million years, the earth has been coming out of the last ice age. Some climatologists say we remain in that ice age until the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica vanish. That’s the first order state today. For a time somewhere between 18,000 and 40,000 years or so, the earth has been warming since the last interglacial low. We’re warming due to both the first and second order effects. To be sure, there are tertiary effects, too, like the Little Ice Age.

So much for GW as Fact. The earth is warming. It’s not yet at the point of the being the warmest ever.

Climatologists try to predict where the climate is going by building a model. Traditionally (before federal grants) they wanted to know how warm it is going to be, and when is the next ice age. The models today are all on computer, and are called Global Climate Models (GCMs). As will be discussed next, they are quite primitive.

3. We need to trace through the heating mechanism for the earth to understand what’s going on in the GCMs.

It begins with the great engine of the climate: the Sun. If it were just to stop radiating, the earth would drop to maybe a few degrees Kelvin, warmed only by gravitational and rotational frictions.

How much radiation reaches the earth depends on the varying intensity of the solar radiation, and its wavelength and other parameters depend on the rotation rate of the sun, the rotation of the earth, and the orbit of the earth.

Radiation from the sun is filtered by the earth’s cloud cover, some is reflected back into space and some passes to the surface. The atmosphere is fairly transparent. The land mass is small, relatively reflective, and has a small heat capacity.

By comparison, the oceans are more than twice the surface area, dark and highly absorptive, and have a huge heat capacity. Much of the energy from the sun is stored in the reservoir of the oceans where it is released back into the atmosphere along with water vapor.

The distribution between land mass and ocean absorption depends on the location of the continents as they drift around the globe.

The water vapor in the atmosphere is the ultimate greenhouse gas. It contributes 95% of the heat retention. If you’d like to see the numbers on the missing water vapor, see the quite readable http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html. A widespread release of heat energy and water vapor occurs because of the massive, three dimensional conveyor belt current that winds its way around the globe through all the oceans. It is the reason, for example, that the eastern seaboard of North America is ten to twenty degrees cooler on average than Western Europe at the same latitudes. The effect is profound. Another major factor in the heat exchange from the oceans to the atmosphere is the cyclones.

Increases in water vapor causes increases in cloud cover to cut down on the solar heating, creating a closed loop effect. That is one of the reasons our climate is relatively stable in this era. Rain storms return the water back to the oceans.

These are candidates for the first order causes of climate. From what’s available to the public, most of these are not modeled at all, and none is modeled well in any GCM.

4. For reputable scientists to make a prediction, they must exercise a validated model. To be validated, the model first must fit all the available data. A single datum can be sufficient to falsify the model, or restrict its domain (the region or time interval to which it applies). Then the model must show that it has predictive power by making some non-trivial prediction that proves true.

After this validation, the model may be used to answer the “what if” questions of the prediction. E.g., what if we run it 100 years into the future? What if we alter the mix of greenhouse gasses?

The Nobel Prize will go to the climatologist whose model predicts the history of the ice ages. Another will go to the one who can predict the interglacial variations. A Prize would go for the GCM that could do these things just for the most recent interglacial period. At present the GCMs can do none of these.

The GCMs are not validated. A responsible scientist will not use such a model for a prediction, especially if it would alarm the public or if were to be used for public policy.

When a GCM is finally validated, say over the domain of the most recent interglacial period, the effects of manmade greenhouse gasses would have to be shown significant compared to the natural climate changes. That is, the probability that the temperature increase was caused by natural phenomenon would have to be quite low.

Global Warming caused by man is called Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). As a model, it ranks as no more than a conjecture.

What’s next, Ice Age or Toast? We don’t know. Can man do anything about either? Not yet; not with today’s technology.

5. CO2 is increasing. It has always increased with increasing temperature and vice versa going back about 400,000 years. Where does the CO2 come from and go? Why does it fluctuate naturally? Is it a cause of the temperature changes, or an effect of them? These are unknowns, and the CO2 cycle is not modeled in any GCM. But CO2 is far down the list of significant scientific factors. It’s just way up the list of political factors.

6. The notion that the earth is a delicate blue planet is romantic claptrap. Just as we don’t find cones in nature standing on their points, or many spherical stones resting on the sides of hills, the earth is not so delicately balanced (conditionally unstable) that man is going to tip it over or into some climatic oblivion. Today we are the beneficiaries of a long, benign, stable climate configuration. It could change suddenly into a catastrophe, for example, following a sudden switch in the path of the conveyor belt, or another big change in solar output.

7. Listen to Sallie Baliunas. She’s on the right track. We are blessed that W’s administration is not buying into the Kyoto Accords, whatever his reasons might be. It’s either brilliant science or a case of religious dogma falling jelly side up.

The advocates of an impending AGW catastrophe are Chicken Littles. It’s the Union of Concerned Socialists. They comprise left wing politicians, grant sucklings, disreputable technicians, and the scientifically illiterate media. Climatologists adjusted their unvalidated GCMs to produce a sufficiently alarming but still believable AGW. Even that was hard to do! It took years. Then they claim that each bit of additional evidence of already established Global Warming is proof of AGW. It is not.

GW is a sound Fact; AGW is a weak, scientific conjecture at best.

Eat cows and get a bigger SUV.

I don't think I've ever seen Jeff 'sack up' and post any WOD results, but please keep that kind of rest day post coming.

And while I'm no scientist by any stretch, hasn't there been a measurable though as yet unpredictable shift in the earth's atmosphere (and hence greenhouse gasses) from the naturally occuring shifts in electromagnetic radiation, from equator to poles and back (through warming and cooling periods between ice ages)?

Jeff is not only a 'real' scientist, he's a great cook, and along with wife Mary, are two of the most gracious hosts on this warm planet. I know it's only March, but could I wangle a Thanksgiving invite? I miss you guys.

Dr. G: Thanks for sharing this marvelous debunking. You've forever altered my response to the expression "Most scientists believe...".

Ross #123,

For you, it's Thanksgiving 24 X 7 here. Any time.

Jeff G.,
Your post made my day and reminded me of the basics I learned in my high school astronomy class. Excellent.
You also confirmed my originl post.
Although in a scientific manner as opposed to my sophmoric conclusion.

Jeff,
Thanks for putting that together. It lays out the one side of the issue very well, I think. I wonder if I'll be able to find a similarly well constructed argument from the other side anywhere. That would make my attempt to understand both sides of the argument more complete. So far I've been able to find quiet logic on one side and hysterical sheep on the other. Onward through the fog...
Thanks again,
Cole

#124 in response to #122: “Dr. G: Thanks for sharing this marvelous debunking....”

What exactly is being debunked? They’re models, are called models, and are claimed to be only models. Ranges for different models are given. As Dr. G. states, models have to be validated by at least fitting available data, and the data on temperatures are modeled based on proxies, other data that has to stand in for temp data that we don’t have. So of course scientists adjusted their models to fit their data sets with the idea that that makes the model “better”, meaning “a more accurate representation of how climate actually occurs”. They did this by altering parameters in a way they hoped made sense (not in all cases, but would you grant in a few, some, or most?), “ran” the model, looked at the output, compared it to the actual proxy data. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Now these models are run forward and seem to show warming at a pace much faster than the historical record suggests has ever happened, as far as I understand it (which is based on very limited reading; I’m not trying to say I know much about this topic). The “debunking” seems to be the proposal of a conspiracy theory, that the scientists that comprise “most scientists agree...” are all manipulating what they’re doing for political and practical ends divorced from the search for “truth” and in abuse of scientific principles.

Biologists and ecologists are trying to address this possible global warming, too. For example, suppose that the Earth is warming faster than it has in the recent past. That would suggest that ecosystems are going to change on a short time scale, say decades, such as what plants grow at what latitude, when breeding will occur (because that’s based on seasonal changes), what animals will be able to live in different areas (b/c they depend on the plants and rainfall), at what altitude different animals or plants will live, etc. So you can hypothesize that X animal’s range will change b/c the temps are getting warmer and then do an experiment or collect some data. Now there is evidence for this in many species. You can hypothesize Y animal which lives on the mountainsides will now live higher b/c Z predator can now go higher or b/c Y’s food source doesn’t grow as low anymore, where it’s now too hot or where another warmer-loving plant has pushed it out, out-competed it. There is evidence for this, too. You can hypothesize that Q animal will breed earlier in the spring b/c the spring comes earlier in terms of snowmelt. There is evidence for that for several species. This stuff is happening right now after a long period of relative stasis.

So a lot of data supports the idea of faster, recent warming. Maybe some of it is wrong. Maybe some of it is due to other causes. But the accumulation of these data suggest the idea of faster, recent warming. We should keep collecting these data to further our understanding and try to figure out what is going on.

But political decisions have to be made before all the results are in. We won’t “validate” all this until it is too late to do anything about it. The pushing and shoving and hysteria comes from having to make these political choices in the absence of absolute knowledge. Other agendas get mixed in, of course. Etc, etc. Political heroism comes from having to make these decisions and ending up on the “correct” side, a side which we won’t know for a long time or even longer.

René #128:

Good post. I didn't use the word debunk, but I am willing to do so if we can be perfectly clear about what is being debunked. Most of your post is about GW, and accelerating GW. I wouldn't dream of debunking those.

However, that man is the cause is, alas, junk science. It's AGW that needs debunking. Because GW is accelerating is not any kind of proof that it is caused by man. We've had accelerating GW in the past where man could not have been the cause. The climatologists' counter argument was the hockey stick effect, the darling of the AGW faction, now in the process of being debunked all by itself of its own weight.

Distinguish between GW the Fact and AGW the Model. GW is on-going, accelerated or not. It is a natural phenomenon, not yet well modeled.

Accept this as my hypothesis or conjecture: the relative concentration of free CO2 is caused by atmospheric temperature. The other part, dissolved CO2, resides in the ocean. If man dumped more CO2 into the atmosphere, it would slowly split between free and dissolved in about the same proportions.

I believe we could put water vapor into the GCMs as the overwhelming GH gas to account for global temperatures, and to provide temperature stability through closed-loop processes. This is theory-ready. Water vapor accounts for 95% of the heat held in the atmosphere; CO2 less than 4%.

Keep your gas-guzzler; just don't exhale.

Rene'
Thanks for joining in to this discussion. It's too bad that just about everyone else went home, so to speak. It seems that you do believe that we've had a major impact on the rate of global warming, or something like that. You seem like someone that would approach this in a logical, critical way so my question for you is what were the strongest factors in your decision. From your post it would seem like the answer could be "an accumulation of things" and if so, what were some of the most influential for you? Thank you.

Aside from issue whether GW is accelerating and caused by man, there are other more tangible and well proven reasons why its not a good idea to run out and buy that Hummer just because you think you look good in it and carries a lot of groceries:

- Local air quality in cities is very poor and in many areas getting worse. There has been a documented increase in all sorts of respiratory conditions in the young, old and of poor health.

- Atmospheric contaminants due to the combustion of fossil fuels and the production, use and destruction of the many sub-products are dispersed globally with direct, measurable impacts upon many terrestrial and aquatic organisms.

- Security concerns of having our economy tied to a resource that is primarily based in an unstable part of the world that is rife with fanatical cultural and religions values incompatible with our own.

If our efforts were put into efficiency rather than vanity, maybe we could live healthier and safer. If alternative energy development was given the kind of resources that, say - NASA gets, perhaps there would be a very different economic and political and atmospheric climate today.

Chris

Rene'(#128): My use of debunking was deliberate and precise. The "A" in AGW is bad science used to justify bad public policy. It is the latest and greatest rationale for socialism. Earlier rationales have been thoroughly disproved and discredited. This one still enjoys widespread and unwarranted approval. Dr. Glassman is making a valuable public contribution by detailing the false science at the heart of AGW.

I found this passage remarkable:

"But political decisions have to be made before all the results are in. We won’t “validate” all this until it is too late to do anything about it. The pushing and shoving and hysteria comes from having to make these political choices in the absence of absolute knowledge. Other agendas get mixed in, of course. Etc, etc. Political heroism comes from having to make these decisions and ending up on the “correct” side, a side which we won’t know for a long time or even longer."

You want to restrict my freedoms on account of your boogie man? That's not political heroism. That is a prescription for totalitarianism.

Did a tabata of kipping pull-ups (20/10) x 15 min @ min. 6 per.

#123: "You want restrict my freedoms on account of your boogie man?"

Sigh. No, I don't want to restrict your freedoms. Or my own. Corporations are not individuals. Should a coporation have a right to pollute the air I and my family breathe? The water my daughter drinks? To what extent? Aren't there public goods? Who will decide, who will protect those goods, and what does "protect" mean? Should we let the corporations decide what level constitutes harmful pollution, or should we let publically funded scientists do it?

We have a voice. We have to make these decisions, or they will be made for us by people not chosen by us. Some will not be happy with the choices. Does that mean we don't make them? Not choosing is also a choice.

Do you consider the idea of "shared sacrifice" to be a restriction of your freedoms? I know, I know--what sacrifices, who decides, will the government impose a penalty for non-compliance, default to "yes, it is a restriction". But at least some of these decisions have to be made, and they have to be made not in the arena of personal freedoms but certainly in the operation of corporations and who will bear the costs of economic activity. Anyway, when does not restricting your freedoms restrict mine? We can't all just do whatever we want to do, whenever we want to do it; we know that, and we also know that social customs play a big role here and not just imposed "rules" with penalties.

This is rambling because the topic is a gigantic one, and it is helpful to bound the discussion. The argument was about whether or not it is indeed a "boogie man".

If it is, public expenditure and sacrifice is misplaced and drains resources from other pressing needs. It it is not, the consequences might be dire, horrific, bad but not too bad, easy to adjust to, or compensated for by other factors because of the extremely complicated interactions involved. It is possible that addressing this as a likely risk and taking steps to mitigate it will lead to other beneficial consequences, beneficial both financially and socially at least from a "progressive political" point-of-view that sees negative consequences to unrestrained business or economic activity.

So part of the problem with trying to figure out who's unbiased (and what the truth about global warming is) is that both sides have ulterior agendas that are served by taking one or the other side in this debate. I'm sure you know all this. It makes it harder still to figure out whether or not man-made global warming is a "boogie man" or not.

100 burpees
50 kb swings 1.5 pd
25 pullups
12 200# sandbag "cleans", from floor to chest (this killed my time... over 10 minutes on this alone... form was off)
600m row
3x300# DL
1 :03 round on the heavy bag
:35::42

rest day

That's what I get for posting late... Wed. was a rest day. Disregard previous post.

Wow! Some great posts. Sorry if this is dead. I just want to add my 2 cents. I am not an astronomer, but I am an Aerospace Engineer... I do work at NASA and I perform space environmental testing, primarily UV exposure simulations -- using a solar simulator to replicate the amount of UV light a particluar spacecraft component would be exposed to in X hours in orbit. Jeff Glassman has said it far more articulately than I ever could. While there are factors that Sallie Baliunas has (arguably) not accounted for in her interview, ultimately her theory/conjecture is sound.

My reaction after reading the article was to print it and show it to a PHD co-worker of mine. This is a guy who used to do environmental field work and write EPA requirements for the state of MD. He said, "that's what I've been saying for 20 years". Additionally, he said that it was his experience that many of these "scientists" were willing to do or say "anything to shut down a factory or power plant". I realize this is simply hearsay on my part, so choose what you want to believe. Personally, he is a friend of mine and I do trust him. But you could also just do a scientific study, not wait for the results before you draw conclusions based on what some politician is telling you you should think, publish them, and rant about how those who are pointing out the flaws in your argument are evil and are trying to destroy the world. Your choice. I encourage you to read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton.

Please note, I am for ending our dependance on oil and other fossil fuels simply for cleaner air and security... once our technology has evolved enough to do so. Politicians love to do so, but you just can't legislate technology. Ultimately breakthroughs come when someone has a "eureka moment" and that lightbulb goes on over their head. Not when Congress says so.

Also, when I hear people ranting about "Our misguided mission to Mars". It seems that they have either a political grudge against the administration and/or their project got fiscally shafted by NASA's reallocation of (already tight) funds to human space flight. (Rene, sorry I do not know you and this is not targeted at you. It's just been my observation here at NASA.)

(www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/C/21.pdf)

Dr. Glassman has spoken, we can all go home now.

Including all of the (reputable) scientists from the various organisations that have made statements supporting the IPCC conclusions.

In the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, it was concluded that based on the balance of all available evidence and even considering uncertainties and areas lacking adequate research, the earth is undergoing a rapid warming trend that is outside the likely bounds of natural variations and this climate change is primarily driven by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning.

This statement has been explicitly endorsed by:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

in either one or both of these documents:

* http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
* http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619

In addition, the following institutions specializing in Climate, Atmosphere, Ocean and/or Earth sciences have published the same conclusions:

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

In a survey of scientific literature, where all legitimate scientific voices have a chance to be heard, Naomi Oreskes took on this research topic and surveyed all 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change". She divided the papers into six categories:

* explicit endorsement of the consensus position
* evaluation of impacts
* mitigation proposals
* methods
* paleoclimate analysis
* rejection of the consensus position

The key finding is that none of these papers fell into the last category while 75% fell into the first three.

For those of you who prefer to get your info from the bloggosphere rather than the National Academies of Science or referenced peer-reviewed scientific journals, go check out Coby Beck's site, A Few Things Ill Considered, where the above came from.

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/

You can also visit RealClimate.org, which was awared a 2005 Best Websites by the Scientific American.

http://realclimate.org/

Of course, Sallie what's her name and Jeff Glassman are right, and the thousands of real climate scientists represented by these legitimate scientific organizations are just plain wrong, or worse, part of a big global socialist conspiracy or a conspiracy of boffins who are wasting the taxpayers money with their "junk" science.

A few weeks back the so-called Dr. G flamed me for suggesting that peer review was an important part of the scientific process, and that credentials and bonafides were not important, that only ideas are (not withstanding the idea that peer review is, for those of us who know how it works, a real example of democracy in action, and a way for ideas to be impartially evaluated, and not just taken for granted). Well, Jeff, I'm still waiting to learn what your bonafides are, and I'm still waiting to see some references to actual peer reviewed scientific journals that support your flat-earth view toward this problem.

I am currently finishing a Ph.D. degree in human ecology. I work in research administration at a major research university. I have provided a citation to the NAS TAR report so that the folks on this site can read and judge for themselves. What have you provided except a bunch of glib sophmoric verbage, a snarky dismissal of me for even bringing this topic up three weeks ago, and a flat-earth assault on science? To your credit, like me, you post under you own name. But you have not convinced me of anything other than you write well, claim to know alot, but I'm yet to see any real indication that you do.

Sallie Baliunas' bio in Exxonsecrets.org, a site which demonstrates the interlocking web of money and organizations sponsored by Exxon to refute the scietific evidence on anthropgenic global warming.

"Board member, Chair of Science Advisory Board and Senior Scientist, George C Marshall Institute, Environment/Science Editor, Tech Central Station. Visiting Professor at Brigham Young University.Adjunct Professor at Tennessee State University.Past contributing editor to the World Climate Report, a publication of the Western Fuels Association. Advisory board, UK Scientific Alliance.Former expert, Competitive Enterprise Institute. Deputy Director of the Mount Wilson Institute.National Center or Public Policy Research expert on global warming and the ozone layer (1996)Robert Wesson Endowment Fund Fellow(1993-4) at Hoover Institution

A darling of the anti-climate movement, Baliunas has been a central scientist in the fight against action on climate change. She is used by virtually all of the Exxon-funded front groups as their scientific expert.

Baliunas' principal areas of interest include solar influence on climate change, the ozone layer and global warming. Baliunas views sunspots at the cause of climate change rather than carbon dioxide. Her articles are often tagged with the caveat: "[Baliunas''] remarks represent her own opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics."Baliunas wrote "The Ozone Crisis" , "Are Human Activities Causing Global Warming?" and "Ozone and Global Warming, Are the problems Real?" for the George C. Marshall Institute. In the mid to late 1990 she also worked with the Global Climate Coalition, a special interest group of coal, oil and utility companies, set up to lobby against international action on climate change. (NCPPR expert guide, 1996)"

Baliunas has recieved thousands of dollars in funding from Exxon, yet very little from the NSF. Naturally she is a proponent of private funding of scientific research, as private funding, unlike public funding, does not depend upon peer review by other experts in the field, but instead only upon the interests of the private funders.

Carbon Output Rises Sharply (March, 2006) Sharp rise in CO2 levels recorded. BBCNews.com, March 14, 2006 US climate scientists have recorded a significant rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, pushing it to a new record level. BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2 levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm) - 100ppm above the pre-industrial average. The research indicates that 2005 saw one of the largest increases on record - a rise of 2.6 ppm. The figures are seen as a benchmark for climate scientists around the globe. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been analysing samples of air taken from all over the world, including America's Rocky Mountains. The chief carbon dioxide analyst for NOAA says the latest data confirms a worrying trend that recent years have, on average, recorded double the rate of increase from just 30 years ago. "We don't see any sign of a decrease; in fact, we're seeing the opposite, the rate of increase is accelerating," Dr Pieter Tans told the BBC. The precise level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is of global concern because climate scientists fear certain thresholds may be "tipping points" that trigger sudden changes. The UK government's chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir David King, said the new data highlighted the importance of taking urgent action to limit carbon emissions. "Today we're over 380 ppm," he said. "That's higher than we've been for over a million years, possibly 30 million years. Mankind is changing the climate."

Mike #139

If you don't trust Sallie Baliunas, you might want to read other critics of AGW. Try this:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

or watch the videos posted here:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

There are many available on the web.

Sallie is special because she has been well position in US agencies, and has testified before Congress. I don't buy everything she says.

On the other hand, I have no connections to the coal or oil industry. I am frequently critical of George W. Bush. Yet I find the AGW threat ridiculous politics.

My bias is anti-junk science, and the on-going spate of AGW stuff is junk science.

For anyone concerned with AGW, do not rely on credentials or peer review. Use your reasoning ability.

Mike #141:

What appears to be the same story was the feature news story, 3 columns wide, with color, on the front page of the Arizona Republic this morning. The headline: Rising seas raising alarms. The subhead: Major study: Global warming will threaten coasts by 2100 if pollutants aren't reduced.

It's all nonsense. Both headlines are wrong.

It reminds me of the one liners that firemen cause fires, that trailer parks cause tornados, that carts push horses, or that smoking prevents most diseases, just not cancer. These are nonsense gag lines misapplying correlations.

Likewise, CO2 is strongly correlated with global temperature according to the best information on both sides. This goes back about a half million years -- long before man, much less the industrial revolution or SUVs. Check this chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.png

The AGW folks, though, say the CO2 CAUSES the temperature rise. Jails cause criminals, eh? The numbers and the record don't support their notion. They have two reasons for temperature to be the effect and CO2 being the cause: (1) frustration over their impotence in exerting political control over the too-successful US, in general, and now the Republican Party, and (2) scientific observations of the greenhouse effect on Venus. Actually, that's just one reason and one rationalization.

Coach likes to note the rarity of Republican vegans. Here we have a scarcity of Republican AGW proponents.

There is no doubt that GW exists. It could get much worse, or it could turn into catastrophic cooling leading to the next ice age.

Any responsible model for Global Climate would account for greenhouse gasses. They are real, and collectivey a major player in the climate. However, 95% of the effect comes from water vapor, and less than 4% from CO2. Check this cite I've recommended previously:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

My personal model for CO2 is that it is released from the ocean as the average temperature rises, and vice versa, there being an unknown mechanism that closes the loop to keep the concentration relatively constant. Nothing in our environment should be open loop. Nothing is delicately balanced. Nothing is waiting to be tipped over.

From what the climatologists have revealed, though, their Global Climate Models are all open loop.

The GCMs, which can't reproduce or predict global climate, don't yet account for the CO2 cycle. Or for the variability of the Sun; or for the variability of cloud cover, or for the variability of the conveyor belt ocean current; or for the creation and effect of cyclones. It can't be too suprising that the GCMs can't reproduce or predict climate. Yet it these GCMs are the backbone of the AGW threat. The GCM operators forced the otherwise useless GCMs to show a one to three degree rise in temperature per year due to manmade CO2. They fudged the data.

We may see a catastrophic rise in sea level. We may experience a substantially hotter climate. Man will not have been the cause, though, nor will he able to do anything about it for a long, long time.

We may be hit by a meteor. The Yellowstone Supervolcano may erupt. Chicken Licken is scared.

Jeff #141

I enjoy this site, and the articles you post are always interesting, your crusade against junk science is admirable. However, some of the worst junk science out there is that used to defend intelligent design. I've never seen any articles here debunking creationism or intelligent design. Why not post some?

Mike #141

Okay, lets do some math here. It's a simple physics problem. Suppose you have a body in space, the Earth in this case. You add heat in the form of solar radiation, in turn the body either reflects or absorbs the energy. The body emits this energy in order to maintain equilibrium. QIN = QOUT If you increase the intensity of the solar radiation, then amount of energy into the system increases. If this energy is still emitted at the same rate as before, the temperature naturally increases. Thus, if the earth's environment remains constant and the sun's intensity fluncuate's over an 11 year cycle... the temperatures will rise. Obviously, this equation gets far far more complicated and I can't post all the symbols. So if you really want to argue about the basic physics, refer to the "Spacecraft Thermal Controls Handbook" by David G. Gilmore of The Aerospace Corporation. Or just attack the Aerospace Corporation for it's ties to the Big Oil. It doesn't change the laws of physics if Sallie Baliunas recieved private grants from the Tooth Fairy! If you want to disprove her hypothesis, then use science... not political rhetoric to attack her credibility! You are not arguing to the point, merely changing the subject to avoid what you cannot answer too.

Thanks Jeff G. for a great synopsis of GW, AGW, and junk science.

oliver #143:

I agree: ID would be a choice subject. I debated whether to call AGW junk science because there is room for AGW on the lowest rung of science, Conjectures. ID doesn't make it to the ladder. It hypothesizes an unknown intelligent being, which is forbidden in a science model. If it were to be included in science, it would be the first model with an intelligent being with one possible exception. Some biologists make natural selection into a force with a will and prescience, carelessly weakening the Theory of Evolution.

You’ll have to petition Coach or Lauren, I think. They invite the topics. Or, find a way to change the subject on them.

Blake #144:

Good thinking.

Recently I suggested some reservations about Sallie Baliunas’ work. A main one is the significance of the 11 year solar cycle to GW. Eleven years is too short a cycle. These fluctuations would average out compared to the lowest order effects that usually need to be modeled first.

The first order effects cycle with the major ice ages. We’ve had at least four and maybe six, depending on who you read, over about 3.5 billion years. That’s an average interval of 600 million years or more. The Sun has probably had major changes of other kinds on that scale.

The second order effects are the interglacial intervals, and run about 40 to 100 thousand years.

A possible tertiary effect is represented by the Little Ice Age lasting five or six centuries, and ending almost two centuries ago. One would expect another major change in the Sun or the oceanic conveyor belt to account for that.

Even if one worries about manmade CO2, it’s been on an uptick for a half century or more (though not very significant to the total CO2, or to the total greenhouse effect).

These major periods include many to an awful lot of 11 year cycles.

Sallie’s work modeling the 11 year cycle is basic, and should help model the Sun in long terms that would be significant to GW.

Jeff Glassman:

You present a lot of really plausible sounding arguments. The only problem: They have all been lifted from sources of very dubious origins, non of them peer reviewed, and all of them have been addressed, criticized, and dismissed by lots and lots of very credible, peer-reviewed sources on climate change and global warming.

But Crossfitters don't have to take your or my word for it, they can go to the sources directly, and judge for themselves. They don't need to take the word of Sallie Baliunas, who is largely funded by Exxon, or James K. Glassman, who works closely with Sallie Baliunas at TechCentral.com, and who also receives large chunks of change from Exxon to confuse the rubes, and who may or may not be Jeff Glassman, hard to say, since Jeff doesn't seem to post his wod results, and seems to be one of the many trolls who have popped up on this site post the NYTimes Crossfit article, and who instead just posts his dazzling displays of mental gymnastics and junk science contrarian view about AGW, his ad-hominum attacks on legitmate scientists and legitimate science, the peer-review process, and such sources of junk science as the National Academy of Science.

Crossfitters can read the IPCC TAR document at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Of course, this panel was conveined by the UN, which as all flat-earthers like Jeff know, is a commie front without any legitimacy whatsoever. However, the member agencies that contributed to this panel include:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
- Royal Society of Canada
- Chinese Academy of Sciences
- Academié des Sciences (France)
- Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
- Indian National Science Academy
- Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
- Science Council of Japan
- Russian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Society (United Kingdom)
- National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

Of course, unlike Jeff, these organizations consist only of crackpots, commies, liberals, and other toons who fake all their scientific results, fool thousands of their peers, get published in peer-reviewed journals, win nobel prizes, etc., and then get themselves elected to their national academies, before they join the international commie/junkscience plot to confuse the flat earthers.

The IPCC TAR document is also endorsed by:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ao/climate/globalwarming.html

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
http://books.nap.edu/collections/global warming/index.html

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost future e.cf.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135

American Geophysical Union (AGU)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch 2003.html

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc 1.html

American Meteorological Society (AMS)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html

Yes, kids, these groups too are so suspect in their knowledge and nefarious uses of science, unlike the chiorboys at Exxon that fund Sallie and probably Jeff/James K. Glassman, or at least the sites that toons like Jeff cite in their rants against legitimate climatic research and people like me who at least have the integrity to post legitimate sources. Jeff provided a link to www.geocraft.com which is maintained by someone named Herb. Jeff, Sallie, and Herb got this stuff so wired, the National Academies of the US, Japan, Russia, Germany, Canada, etc., should all just pack it up.

Alright, let's get into some particulars, although this is a colossal waste of time refuting Jeff misdemeanor abuse of science step by step. Life is really too short, but since he was so nice to post his high-falutin BS, here goes:

From Jeff:
"The hallmarks of great science (e.g., Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Einstien) sit at the top of the heap. Those scientists suffered academic assaults...but today would be unable to publish their great acheivements except on the internet".

Pure hogwash, Jeff. Galileo lived before there was a peer review process in place, but he was a member in good standing at several universities in various parts of what would someday become Italy. Decartes was a member of the French Academie, Newton was not only a member of the British Royal Academy, he was also the Chancellor of the Exchequer for King Henry VII of England. Hardly a poor persecuted flat earther. Einstein published his revolutionary work in a, yes, that's right, a peer reviewed physics journal, before publishing hundreds more in, yes, peer reveiwed journals, while gaining membership in the National Academy of Science.

Great ideas don't start with a single brain; each brain learns what it knows by absorbing the knowledge of others. The giants develop great vision because they stand on the toes of others, while reading their papers in peer-reviewed journals.

From Jeff: "Or consider claims that Intellegent Design is supported by peer review". On what planet Jeff? Michael Behe, the ID toon extraordinaire has not been able to land a single ID article in a peer-reviewed journal that deals with evolution simply because his embrace of faith-based science is simply peerless in mainstream biology. His fellow faculty members at Lehigh University, have taken the extraordinary step to explicitly reject his love of ID and magical reality as the basis of good science. Vist www.lehigh.edu, and drill down to the biology department for the exact statement. Gee, Jeff, how did this baldface innacuracy get into your posts? Lack of integrity? Sun spots?

And this Jeffism: "Peer review and science are uncorrelated". Wha? You cannot publish in Nature, Science, Scientific American, and about 900 other well respected journals worldwide without going through peer review. You cannot get funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, or any other federal agency without peer review. You cannot sell weapons systems to the DoD without peer review. Peer review acts as a pure form of democracy, in that one's statements get sent out to other people with track records in the field (not to guys in their basemenst like Jeff and Herb at geocraft.com), who then review the science, check it for validity, reliability, reproducibility, falsification, etc., and then provide their comments and criticisms to the editors, who then publish the article in their journal, where it is then read by virtually every professional in the field (professionals Jeff, not guys like you who do what for a living?). They then write letters, post comments, reproduce the tests, measure it against their own work, and in turn write up their own work citing the earlier work. Keeps the whole scientific process rather transparent. Unlike the internet, where any toon with a dialup suddenly has what they lack in real life: apparent credibility. Oh yes, Jeff, occasionally one slips through the cracks, like the Sokol Affair that you cite, but others get bounced all the time, like Sallie Baliunas, or the cold fusion guys at Utah.

From Jeff: "think...about the technical accomplishments of industry. The underlying ideas are often basic science. Far from being peer reviewed, the new ideas are held as trade secrets". Jeff, I work in industrial liaison at a major research institution. Yes, we are often asked to sign non-disclosures before our researchers help industrial partners perform research, but the science they rely on comes from scientists, peer-reviewed ones at that, and the basic and derivitive science gets peer-reviewed in our labs, and in the labs of corporate America. They just don't make this stuff up, unlike you.

Watson and Crick were peer-reviewed, both before and especially after their work on DNA was published. Extensively. Another Jeff, er, innacuracy.

From Jeff: "GW qualifies as fact. It has been going on for 80,000 years." Right on both counts, Jeff, but only half true. What you omit is that after the last glaciation, ca 10,000 B.P. rapid warming was then follwed by a relatively static period in which the warming slowed to about where it was at the start of the industrial period. Since then, however, it has dramatically and rapidly increased. And continues to increase. Largely due to CO2, via anthropogenic sources. Sallie Baliunas is correct to point out that most AGW CO2 models do not do a good job of incorporating solar forcing into their models, but that is being looked at currently and better models are being developed, with the useful help of the peer review process. Anyone want some more info on this can visit:

www.realclimate.org for more info.

Just one more, as I have to rejoin my life. Jeff cites the typical GW contrarian statistic of H2O accounting for 98% of greenhouse gas. The trouble with this is that the actual figure is closer to 85%-90%, and that unlike C02 and methane, it doesm't stay long in the atmosphere. CO2 can hang out up there for years and years. Decades. Oh, and it is increasing rapidly year by year due to anthropogenic sources. about .02 per year. From 280ppm to as much as 400-500+ppm, which will negatively affect our atmosphere and our planet, by making it much warmer than it is now, regardless of whay Jeff and Sallie say.

Jeff, please, go get help for that superiority complex of yours. Learn some climate science from real climate scientists and peer-reviewed journals, instead of internet trolls like yourself or from Exxon funded think tanks. You write well, cite some really impressive sounding stuff that may or may not be science, but ultimately, you are a rhetorical bully.

Let us know how you learned so much about climate change and GW. Let us know how you did on a WOD or two.

This is the last post I will issue on this or any other rest day topic. There are too many toons, trolls, and wackos on this site like Jeff who know more than the collected knowledge of legitimate scientists who have done real science that has stood up to review and criticism. Jeff, if someday you and I happen to share perimeters, I'd be happy to discuss this and other matters with you personally. But this is it for me for rest day posting.