Are those 72lb KB's?

Had a nice 4 day break at a cabin in eastern Oregon. Enjoyed the quad, swiming with my springer Harley and the night time lightening show.

This pic was taken June 24 at the Global Grip Challenge, it was held at the Sorinex facility in Irmo, SC. After the competition we were messing around when I took this shot. Jonathan has a crazy strong neck, he's pressing a 65lb + 55lb kettlebell here in a full neck bridge. Jonathan was the one who turned me on to Crossfit- he's taught me a lot about how to train smart, and he's a great friend.

I'm sure there's some functional fitness buried somewhere in that photo.

This week George and I had our third lesson from a former Olympic Weightlifter. It's amazing how the little things can make so much difference: the proper grip; keeping your bar close to your body; balancing the bar on your chest and shoulders before the jerk. We've only just scratched the surface.

We got the idea for some private tuition either from the comments here or on the messageboard, I can't recall, but it's been brilliant. I would recommend it for anyone.

Those look like they say 53??? But they look like 70 pounders. Either way....damn. What a savage.

Real men do that on concrete.

With demon heads.

On fire.

-D.

I love doing neck bridges, but recntly heard they were extremely hard on your cervical vertebraes. Anyone know anything about it?

Rebuttal from a real climate scientist;

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

JW

Get some Jeff! Go again. Way to expose a fraud. He's so good at plagarism, he should hang with Ward Churchill @ CU-Boulder.

Thats wrestlers bridge press right?

Comment #8, why didn't the rebuttal address the study by the National Academy of Sciences which has found Earth is 'likely' the hottest it has been in 2,000 years?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/22/global.warming.ap/index.html

"Other new research Thursday showed that global warming produced about half of the extra hurricane-fueled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005, and natural cycles were a minor factor, according to Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a research lab sponsored by the National Science Foundation and universities. Their study is being published by the American Geophysical Union."

The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters.

Good site on the global warming bebate:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/science/globalwarming/index.html

Given the consequences of catastrophies that very well could develop with global warming (and the whole notion does make surface sence to me)...based on what we KNOW,it'd be as idiotic to discount it's validity as it is to assert it's impending doom.
Or so was one general conclusion of a symposium at the U of Chicago.
As always it seems that the moderates looked at it with the dispassion needed for levelheadedness that the Gore-like zealots or the seemingly pure contrarionism of the 'right' flatly lacked in the exchange.

I'm no smart guy, but I did make a bicarbonate of soda based, lava-spewing volcano at the 6th grade science fair back at the height of the cold war.

Peer reveiw examines the questions; Does hypothesis plus "proof" equal conclusion, is the "proof" valid, & can the results be replicated. Not whether the other "scientists" like you, or think your volcano is cool.

At least that's what our teacher, Mrs. Martone said, and she was pretty AND smart. SO ACCORDING TO MIKE MUELLER'S LOGIC THAT MEANS SHE WAS "PRETTY SMART". All my peers agreed.

Global Warming + Birkenstock professors + liberal mainstream media = junk science. It must be true, all my peers agree.

Hi there, I've been doing Crossfit for about three months and have noticed big improvements in my strength and endurance. I've never posted on the boards before but I wanted to comment on these two letters.

What a sorry, petty display of childish name-calling and ad hominem attacks; what a total breakdown in critical thinking and rational debate.

It's true; Mike's letter was filled with personal attacks and a striking number of misspellings and errors. But ultimately Jeff's was no more thoughtful--rather than responding to the content of the letter (even if it was drawn from another source) he attacks Mike and cynically asserts that he is motivated by the desire to market "radical environmentalism."

True, it was misleading at best that Mike didn't introduce the section that he drew from another source (I discovered that myself, before reading Jeff's letter, with a simple Google search) but ultimately I chalk that up to the same carelessness evident in the portion of the letter he wrote himself. But I would have expected Jeff to respond, even in brief, to some of the material arguments raised by the letter. Perhaps Jeff has done that before in other posts and I have not seen it.

I don't read the boards closely enough to have read previous posts exchanged by these two, but it's clear that at this point there is little in the way of meaningful debate going on. Perhaps the personal arguments between these two is voyeuristically of interest to Crossfit as a community, but I think the section of Mike's letter that quotes Hansen should be of much greater importance to all of us as citizens.

On the subject of anthropogenic climate change, I will simply say that I believe that it is happening. What I want to reject are Jeff's attempts to undermine the credibility of the arguments supporting anthropogenic climate change *strictly* by insinuating the personal and political motivations of the sources. First, he attacks Mike himself, his spelling and his and motivations as they relate to his employer; second, he attacks Jim Hansen, the source of the letter, who, once labeled a "radical environmentalist" can be safely ignored; third, he (indirectly) attacks Gore and the Democrats, by asserting that because they are a source of this article the article is intrinsically suspect. Nowhere here is there any indication of why we are to disbelieve the evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

We politicize truth itself when we attack the logic of others on specious technical and personal grounds. So what if it is Al Gore (or some hated Hollywood celebrity) who tries to raise awareness about climate change? Does that make it any less real? And are we to honestly believe that when others profess a belief in climate change (scientists included), they do it only because they want their political "side" to win? If that is true then we are lost.

I prefer to believe that it is not the process of science itself that has become politicized (as Crichton suggested in the article of a few weeks ago), but rather our public debate about science. Science will ultimately find its way no matter what we say on our message boards and editorial pages; even Crichton's examples indicated this, as all of his historical dissenters were ultimately vindicated by the scientific evidence. The scientists will figure out what is true as the facts continue to present themselves--I would argue that in the case of climate change, they already have. If the "fringe naysayers" are right, then they will have their day. But they will have their day because they are supported by facts and evidence, not because of how loudly they cry "bias!"

A footnote: as a climber, I will add that climbers have been aware of the incredible pace of climate change for years. Friends tell me to climb Kilimanjaro now, before the famous "Snows of Kilimanjaro are gone in six to ten years. Classic routes in the Alps are unclimbable due to rockfall as the mountains lose their permafrost. Heinrich Harrer's famous snow and ice route on the North Face of the Eiger has disappeared as the face is now only bare rock.

I hope no-one tries to imitate that KB bridge move.

It could seriously be a one way ticket to a wheelchair.

Looks like a real hero-move to me.

Notwithstanding the strength illustrated here...its just that images/ideas like that should come with a warning, becuase some nimrod is sure to try to imitate it and seriously damage something.

Went to do OH Squats today, wrist injury prevented holding any weight overhead. SO practiced form for cleans. Did several sets. Didn't really count beacause I was being coached by a guy who has done Oly lifting for several years.

So, did somebody put those KB in his hands... or... how exactly does one get himself into that position? Yikes!

Absolutely battered after yesterday.

Worked on OH squat form.

Am still losing weight - which I cant afford to do! Will add more protein

Nick (#19), you may know precisely what you are doing, but if you don't, don't leave it to guesswork.

Post a summary of what you are trying to achieve; your diet; and your activity over the last week- into the nutrition section of the noticeboard and ask for some guidance. The level of knowledge that you will find there is incredible: http://www.crossfit.com/discus/messages/23/23.html

On another matter, Coach has long suggested that Oly Lifters can jump incredible heights because of their capacity to release explosive energy. If anyone doubts this, look at this photo: http://www.qwa.org./info/images/5.jpg

Thanks Matt

Shortly off on holiday, so on return what I plan to do is the following:

Baseline body composition and measurements, and keep a food diary for a fortnight, then post this and other relevant info in nutrition section and ask for comments. Really appreciate your input.

#8 JW, good article

#11 Chuck, the "hockey stick" model of dramatic temperature rise over the last hundred years, which is relied upon by the scientists in your CNN article, was discredited years ago for severely flawed mathmatics. That model will take randomly generated numbers and produce a hockey stick graph. See
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=13830&ch=biztech

#15 Jeff, very thoughtful post. I suspect that Jeff Glassman got angry at the insults, and I can't blame him for responding in kind. What is a "toon" anyway? Mueller called JG and Barry Cooper "toons." I'm a great fan of Barry Cooper's posts, so I guess that makes me an aspiring "toon."

Mueller loses all credibility with me when he calls Michael Crichton an "oil industry hack." Perhaps that label is justified when applied to scientists whose paychecks and grants come from the oil industry, but Crichton makes millions from book sales and movie rights, and does not get any money from the oil industry that I know of.

As to the merits of the global warming debate. The article from NY Review of Books by Jim Hansen, which Mueller's letter does not attribute, is typical global warming non-science. Stories of localized warming trends, including animal migrations, over periods of even an old man's lifetime are no more valuable to this debate that comparing temperatures in July to temperatures in December. I might as well offer evidence that the squirrel's in Georgia are not as furry this year or talk about how hot it was in Atlanta in the summer of 1968.

I'm a global warming skeptic for several reasons:
First, the planet has been going through warming and cooling periods for hundreds of millions of years. Warming periods (interglacial periods) are nothing new. Historically, they have been much shorter than the glacial periods by several orders of magnitude, and they are much kinder to animal and human life than the glacial periods. (If you want to talk about crisis for humankind, think about glaciers extending to the tropics.)

If the first proposition is accepted, proving or arguing that the earth is heating up becomes a non-issue. The issue then turns to figuring out how much of the current warming trend is due to human activity. (BTW if it were due to animal or plant activity, would it still be bad in the eyes of the alarmists?) What I have seen of the debate convinces me that the folks arguing for a significant human role are prone to the most egregious exaggerations and selective use of data, and when their data is questioned they resort to incoherent name calling in the manner of Mr. Mueller.

None of the alarmist studies and popular news articles about global warming ever make any mention of what is agreed to be the most significant factor in past cycles of cooling and warming, namely variations in the sun's output and the earth's orbit. This is an enormous hole in the theory of human caused climate change, because if they can't explain why this particular episode of warming has different causes from the hundreds of warming periods that preceded it, then the theory has no value.

It is a fact that the sun's output of heat is variable, and astronomers studying the sun have recently predicted that a period of global cooling will begin within a decade or so.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=062806I
Of course, this article appears at TCS, funded partially by the oil industry, but the astronomers' studies that it cites are not funded by big oil.

Lastly, it seems to me that the claims of imminent doom and crisis all come from the left side of the political spectrum, they all call for massive government action to save the planet, and I instinctively mistrust anyone who tells me I need to pay more taxes to get more government in my life.

No problem Nick. I was thinking the other day that the secret to the Crossfit is 70% diet and 30% exercise. That's perhaps an exaggeration, but it's not too far off the mark.

Those people who are not informed about what they are eating have next to no chance of achieving peak performance.

Dan (#22), I have to agree with your final statement. As a government employee (DoD), and a libertarian/independent, I often tell people that the worst thing they can do with their hard earned money is to give it to the government and expect the government to fix their ills. In the words of our esteemable 40th president, Ronald Reagan, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Ooh ooh, can we play 'Name that caption' with this picture? I'll start!

"Finally I can lift weights, wipe my brow, do a crab walk and clean the floor with my face all at the SAME TIME!!"

#22

Excellent post. I too am a warming skeptic mostly because the evidence presented on the topic is short term and not on a geological timeline.

What does worry me however is that unlike all the previous warming or cooling periods is fact that there is current a species which has been “tera-forming” on a grand scale for the past few decades. No other species has been capable altering their physical environments like humans have. So while species have migrated, evolved, come to dominance and then gone extinct, they have always been passive players in the global environmental changes. My concern is that we, over several generations could end up tipping the balance. This is certainly worth discussing.

I also like the posts about having clear level headed debates. We need more of this. It seems to me that people are spending their time huddled in groups of like minded folks, where positions are reduced to bumper sticker slogans and opposing points of view are looked at with disdain along with the folks who hold them. The art of open and scholarly debate is slowly dying.

Here’s a rest day WOD suggestion. Find someone who holds an opposite view on a topic important to you. Sit down with them over a cup of coffee and have a real discussion. Be open to learning something new or at least appreciating their point of view. The friction of open debate is what keeps the engine of democracy moving. Radical polarization serves no one in the long run.

Mike Mueller should feel like a complete moron right about now. How can Mike expect to save the Earth when he can't spell or use basic grammar? He needs to go back to Iceland and drill for some ice cores or something. Anything to keep him away from the intellectual side of the argument. Sheesh!

John Bachman # 15:

Excellent, thoughtful post.

To the global warming skeptics: I realize that many of you have a visceral dislike of "the left," the "mainstream media," and particularly of Al Gore. Sometimes, particularly on this issue, separating the message from the messenger is difficult. May I suggest, nevertheless, that you hold your nose, if necessary, and go to see "An Inconvenient Truth." The summary of recent developments is, at the least, thought-provoking.

btw...please try to see through my grammar errors...i'm typing straight into the posting tool without the benefit of spelling or grammar checks.

Happy 4th to all

How will we ever save the earth if noone can see past spelling and grammar? How can you call this a debate when one side is arguing a viewpoint, and the other is nothing more than a personal attack.

Mother always said...

All I heard from the second argument is, "Well I can't argue against any of the valid points he is making, so I will belittle him and show you that I am the bigger man!"

Congratulations, you know how to spell. Like I give a crap.

I love CrossFit. First post. I’ve been following the W.O.D.’s for close to 8 months. Life Changing stuff!!!

Regarding the self-professed man of elite intellect, Mike Mueller, I’m un-impressed. Those that self-elevate themselves and defend weak arguments with mud-slinging reveal their own weakness. If your grandeur and views were so un-assailable, facts, evidence and research would handily silence your detractors. I feel sorry for you.

P.S. Be careful when using big words that you know not how to spell

Jonathan had no help with this- he went into the bridge, took the KBs and pressed them. I don't think too many folks will try this because most poeple's necks are simply too weak to hold a neck bridge for a split second.

Why wouldn't you want a strong neck? It supports your brain! Ever been choked, woke up with a crick in your neck, been in a werck and had a little whiplash? If bridging makes your C-spine weak then wouldn't squating make your entire spine crumble?

Did 45 minutes of kickboxing for my rest day

As for the picture I would have serious reservations about its safety. We did neck bridges as part as football practice until the coach heard how dangerous they were. This was over 20 years ago. Just the position looks like it would put an unnatural strain on the delicate cervical vertebrae

Not worthy of discussion, except to say that we need to set the bar a little higher for rest day. If it's childlish bickering one wants to see then any convenient playground will suffice.

You guys are silly, I am here for the workouts, you seem to be here to argue. Global warming this, global warming that, it seems rather ineffectual to be on a fitness website arguing so intensly about matters that cannot be changed on a fitness website.
You want to argue global warming? or politics or whatever... it would seem better if you do it somewhere where it has benefit, i mean what are you guys getting out of it?
You wake up the next day and drum ur chest saying "HAHAHA!!! I told him!"?
Crossfit has been my homepage for almost 2 years now, I wake up, I do the workouts. Period.
Can crossfit be considered a competitive sport? I dont know but it seems to be afflicted by the same overcompesating arseholes who got nothing to do but argue, you argue with anyone who says crossfit is not good, you argue between yourselves, just STFU do the workouts, who cares what the 250#s of muscle at the benchpress thinks about you? or about the fluctuating temperature outside of your Health club just do the damn workout for youself and get on with your life.

#28 Porkchop
Al Gore's movie might better be titled, "An Inconvenient Lie" He predicts a 20 foot rise in sea level this century. Here's the Wikipedia entry on "Sea Level Rise"
"
Sea level rise is an increase in sea level. Multiple complex factors may influence such changes.
The sea level has risen more than 120 metres since the peak of the last ice age about 18,000 years ago. The bulk of that occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr; since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 3 mm/yr [1]; since 1992 satellite altimetry from TOPEX/Poseidon indicates a rate of about 3 mm/yr [2]. This change may be the first signs of the effect of global warming on sea level, which is predicted to cause significant rises in sea level over the course of the twenty-first century."

3 mm per year is one the higher estimates of climate scientists, and that is over too short a period to constitute a geological trend. Many others are in the 1-2mm range. 3 mm means 1 meter in 333 years. Run for the mountains as fast as you can!

To what does Al Gore attribute the even more dramatic increases in sea level that occurred millenia before the industrial revolution? The fact is that he does not mention them at all because it is "incovenient." With these sorts of "Inconvenient Lies" as the basis for Gore's alarmism, I see no reason to waste my time watching the movie. When the global warming crowd stops exaggerating I'll start paying attention.

Ohhh... and btw... when you dont have a workout to do...aka rest day. STFU sleep and spend time with your loved ones instead of writing lenghty letters to your fellow crossfit buddies about global warming... etc.

you get the point.

Active rest day:

5K in 25:05 (still trying to get sub 20)

Ring dips, L-sits (on rings), and false grip pull-ups (on rings) to close out the morning. Got oh so close to my first muscle up today.

Sam

Sara #18,

You go into a normal wrestler's bridge, bring both kettlebells around your head, grab them and press them up into that position. That's the simplified version. Having someone "hand" the kettlebells to you like that, especially at that weight, would be extremely dangerous and would require perfect timing and coordination. Better to make it a one-man show.

I've been doing this same move off and on in my training for the past two years. The heaviest I've gone is pressing two 53lb kettlebells for reps and/or simply holding the bridge position for time. Since gaining that strength I have never gone to heavier weights, but I rarely go lighter.

I also wrestled for four years, so I learned how to bridge in various positions including that one over a period of years before ever adding weight, and built the strength in my neck to do that kind of move very gradually. That is certainly NOT a move for beginners and should not be attempted unless you know exactly what you are doing or have a qualified coach to lead you through the progressions for that kind of lift who knows exactly what he/she is doing. I wouldn't even think of teaching it to someone who has not had at least a few years of some form of grappling practice. Most people simply don't need that type of strength in that position.

Some people even call that move, especially with weight, "too dangerous to attempt". If you are in that camp, then don't attempt it. Simple. :-)

The caption for that photo really should be "Don't Try This At Home."

#26 JFD4...You are dead on.

I see that as a society, we are moving away from the point where we can disagree and still remain civil. Peoples opinions are tied too closely to their self and their ego. When they are attacked it is often received as a personal attack. While it would be best that we all learned not to take it personally, we cannot change others, only ourselves. Alternative thought and divergent thinking are often the catalysts to great change. Following JFD4's advice, I will take the challenge, and have a discussion with a peer with which I hold an opposite opinion. I will do it with civility, respect, and no less passion than ever.

Its not enough to talk, post, or think about what is right. The world keeps tabs on action only. DO the right thing today.

"Forget about likes and dislikes; They are of no consequence. Just do what must be done. This may not be happiness, but it is greatness."
~George Bernard Shaw

Thanks CF

Great pic Dawg! Awesome bridge. My old ass
don't try bridging anymore after having
a nice numb tingling feeling running down
my right arm for a couple months after a try at
doing them. lol I can't imagine pressing two kb's
up. You got one freaky strong neck there Dawg.

Maybe the oceans are rising 3mm a year from water displacement from nautical traffic and an ever increasing volume of bio-mass in the oceans. I find this as likely as anything else.

By the way, where were all the June Hurricains??? I thought for sure President Bush wrapping up his 6th year in office would have destroyed life on earth...

If people put the same effort into opening thier mind and thinking as they do dispariging and discrediting each other, we would really be able to accomplish. I am an advocate for reducing our consumption of non-renewable resources for many reasons, not the least of which is because we will run out one day and if we start now, the transition will be easier to make. Global warming is happening, and while I do believe that humans have an impact, the level of impact or non-impact can and should be debated. However, even if one disagrees with the more alarming (or alarmist, depending on your POV) scenarios, you should at least take them as food for thought and discussion. Anything is possible in a system is complex and little understood as the earth. Even if Gore et. al. are full of crap, why is reducing consumption bad? Why is reducing pollution bad? Is economic growth so all important that it trumps any other concern?

"Only when the last tree dies, the last river poisoned, only then will you realize that money cannot be eaten." Indian proverb

Oy. It would be nice to have a conversation about this without dealing with the bickering of those two messages, so I'm going to ignore Mike vs. Jeff.

Climate. Left, Right, Gore, Bush, whatever. A great many scientists are scared by what the data is showing. Some think it might not be a big deal. Others are worried about the future, and many are starting to think that "the future" might be within our lifetimes.

It's an obvious cause for concern. We could, as responsible people, attempt to reduce the human impact on the planet, perhaps *without* waiting for the consequences to become so obvious as drowning a few of our cities or any of the other Bad Things that we're worried about. Maybe there's really nothing to worry about, but would it be so bad to try to be more Boy Scout (leave it cleaner than you found it) about the world and less self-centered (I don't care what my neighbors or my children have to deal with)?

The problem is this issue *is* political, and that's stupid. For one to decide how worried they are about our planet based on politics is idiotic.

While the first section of Mike Mueller's letter is a bit childish, and in need of proofreading, he follows up with a very thoughtful and intelligent piece on the dangers of global warming.
Jeff Glassman's reply seems, in contrast, petty and argumentative. He immediately latches onto grammar errors, for obviously the ultimate barometer of character is how much time one spends proofreading. He condemns Mike's name-calling, then follows up with a string of nonsense insults pulled straight from the propaganda machine. "Mueller is a mindless soldier in the movement -- an automaton, a straw man." This is exactly the kind of moronic response to serious scientific issues that Mueller lamented in the beginning of his post.
The most glaring example of wrong-headedness in Glassman's response is his accusation of Mike as a 'PR Hack' of a university. When we begin to accuse our academic institutions of peddling thought for mere profit, what is left sacred? And how does a university profit from radical environmentalism? I've never ehard of environmentalists offering huge research grants.
Lastly, I would bring into question Glassman's authority on environmental issues. What are his qualifications?

Myself, I have been doing crossfit on and off for the last few months, but I don't post my results. Include that in your rebuttal of my comments if you deem it appropriate, or relevant. I am a Canadian Chemical Engineering student, for background reference.

Great picture!!

All the negative responses that the picture is getting is reminding me of all the nay sayers that used to preach of the dangers of squating, deadlifting or any power movement. Now all I ever hear is "core muscle" training... from the same chrome and fern lifters.

Extreme movements creates extreme muscle. Again, GREAT PICTURE!!

Tried a modified 'Chad' from the CF Journal:
run 400
Deadlift 225 x 21
run 400
Thrusters 95 x 21
run 400
Front Squat 95 x 21
run 400
Push press 95 x 21
run 400
Time: 21:00

In junior high, we usually let the two kids duke it out until they collapse from exhaustion.
Here's hoping we can do the same thing with these two.

Oh, the fights in junior high are far more interesting. Less name calling.

I find it amusing that there are folks here who claim that they only come to Crossfit for the workouts and not the political articles found on rest day...that they detest the politics, etc., and only want to exercise.

How do we know these folks are being hypocritical? Because they've posted to this effect...on these very rest days, no less.

Though I am a global warming skeptic, it doesn't mean it might not be occurring. However, just because it might be happening does not mean that it was caused by Man.

Given the historic warming/cooling cycles of our planet, and the apparent fact that the sun itself is getting hotter (I saw it on the Discovery Channel, so it must be true!), means that perhaps the whole process is part of the natual evolution of Earth. Just as Man's actions might have a contributory effect on the cycle.

However I doubt that either side will admit to that which does not adhere to their beliefs. It's the nature of partisanship and the desire to hold onto one's beliefs when confronted with evidence to the contrary.

Personally, I like the Rest Days because I get exposed to an (usually) interesting article, followed by dozens of replies adhering to one side or the other. And it is from those answers that I get my entertainment.

In the interest of full-disclosure, I lean strongly libertarian (not "Big L" party, but the "small l" philosophy) and am equally put off by both parties in Washington and other levels of political interference in my (and your) life.

So, Coach, please continue the Rest Day political adventure. IMO, it's a WOD for the mind!!

Did a WOD I missed while on vacation -- the 21 jumping pullups/15 thruster couplet, max rounds in 20 minutes. Only managed to get 9 full rounds.

Regarding post #11 and the cnn link. How do you measure accurately the earth's temp over 2000 years?

I come to this site to get great info on working out and staying healthy. I do not come to the site to get political debate. When I pick up Sports Illustrated, I expect to see it full of sports articles, NOT political discourse- even on slow news days. Please stick to your knitting and keep the political bantering to cocktail parties or other sites devoted to that type of venue.

Houston Hotel room WOD:

100 Lunges
100 Ring Rows
100 Push ups
100 Squats

19:30

45: Daniel...Dude, Mike plagarized his artical/essay/arguement...whatever.

Dude went on a rant about people on this board, which JEFF GLASSMAN is one,then PLAGARIZED and you defend him.

Dude wrote to CROSSFIT daring Coach to publish his artical/essay/arguement that, out of the block, insults people on this board by calling them CONSERVARETARD TOONS for their view point and you seem bent to protect institutions like universities as if they should not be questioned and held sacred...

DUDE!!!! HE PLAGARIZED!!!! and his grammar and bearing was just pathetic for a "published" piece.

Jeff on the other hand, just pointed out his flaws and PLAGARISM, and expressed his conclusion of Mike's credibility. Which now should be questioned even more than before. As far as I can tell Jeff is the better man for arguing the credibility and standards that this "expert" holds himself too.

Mike...good job dude...you are a winner.

Ok, what really bothers me is that the whole global warming issue is turned into a political right vs left issue! That's really, well, stupid. And, the problem with statistics is that anyone can twist them to mean whatever they want. What are the facts about it? That's the important thing. Are we potentially destroying the planet or not?

Even if you are a skeptic about it, that means you think global warming *might* be possible, and if so, then you shouldn't be ignorant about it. Learn as much as you can from EVERY source possible. This is true learning. Learn all you can from every source, wheather you like their politics or not, and act based on what you know (hm, sounds like good advice for any issue).

Personally, I believe we are hurting our planet more than helping it and I try to act accordingly. I think global warming is too politicized and we need to work collectively to do the best for our world and lives and stop being selfish about what's best for "me."

The "right" says global warming is a farce. The "left" says global warming is an imminent catastrophe. Why? because they want your votes (and more importanly your money) and to make the other side wrong. It's crap! Obviously something is happening or it wouldn't be an issue. Let's take it out of the political realm and really think about it...

BTW, thanks for crossfit, I used to only be able to do 2 pull ups, now, my personal best is 26!! woohoo!

Get strong, be fit, save the world! (it's really not something to be ashamed of).

Comment #51 - Posted by tracy "How do you measure accurately the earth's temp over 2000 years?"

Temperatures have been recorded for the past 150 years, and prior to that, the scientists used tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources to track surface temperatures.

I'm not a scientist, so I'll keep it simple:

Haha...OWNED!!!

"just because it might be happening does not mean that it was caused by Man."

Well, it is happening. There is no "might" here. In the last century, the Earth has warmed by 1 degree Fahrenheit. Whether or not human activity has contributed to it is the question.

I think it is funny how people on this site think oatmeal is poison but carbon dioxide caused by car exhaust, and methane and nitrous oxide from industrial plants and agricultural activities are harmless. Sounds backasswards to anyone with common sense.

Coach,Tony & Greg
Thanks for the hospitality and the workout.
John

I'm very interested in the various approaches to the debate on global warming but I am even more concerned about the impact of global pollution. This is, as far as I'm aware, largely generated by humankind, and is one in which the impact is significant and increasing.

In the West we're largely isolated from the worst ravages of pollution, but itchy eyes and a wheezing chest from recent WOD's undertaken in Shanghai and Mexico City have convinced me that, collectively, Western society continues to keep its head in the sand.

How show should we address the issue? Do we need intervention or will market forces sort it out?

Given the amount of energy that bristles and bubbles on this board, methinks this would be an interesting and thought provoking topic.

Taffy, the itchy eyes were caused by pollution. Search the forums for info on it. Oatmeal is poison but pollution is harmless.

I meant the itchy eyes WERE NOT caued by pollution. Search the forums for info on it. Oatmeal is poison but pollution is harmless.

Hi all,
ALL WEIGHT IN KILOS
Lisa (sore wrist so...) Squat 45x10, 65x5, 80x5, 90x3x4.
Jon {Ride 1/2 mile at level 9 (~1:12), rest (1:03)}x4.
Then, snatch 50x5, 60x4, 70x4, 76x3, 81x2 (from hang below the knees; no dumping); Squat 125x10; and PP 65x10.
Bdw. 80.2.
Family camping in the Adirondacks...

#35 Paul, I get your point, but why insult people and what they want to do? Many folks enjoy critical thinking and a good arguement, you know, working out our brain and our bodies. The posts are in no way mandatory. Your way of dismissing any of the aruguments brought about by a big guy who can bench are insulting. I know many large individuals who are intelligent, and might just have an interesting thing to say. I understand your point about spending time with your family, but what about those of us stuck in a sandy country with no family around, are we wasting our life by trying to engage in a debate in our off time? Feel free to not care about the temp outside your gym, I have no such luxury. Why don't you "STFU" as you kindly put it, and practice what you preach by leaving the rest of us alone. Your idea of just not caring is so tpyically "ugly american" (if you are indeed american) that gives the sterotype more fuel. Do you say the same thing about the conflicts that my brothers are fighting right now? "Don't worry about that guys, lets go have some fun, no need to be informed as to why we are fighting."

I would also like to point out that I believe many of the folks who do Xfit are trying an alomst "radical" idea of fitness that is different then what many of the mainstream fitness experts would have you do. Xfit doesn't have anything to sell, like supplements, or exercise machines. I would almost say that Xfitters are making an informed and intelligent choice, and most are probably informed and intelligent people. Did any of us make you read the rest day posts?
As far as the global warming debate goes, I found the ideas brought about from Muellers plagarism interesting and some eye opening. Stolen ideas or not they are valid points. Dismissing them off hand is an old politcal tactic used by all parties for all of human history. Enough with the "liberal" and "conservative" finger pointing. Our culture is slowly being divided, but not so much so that we can't work toghter to find sane, economically sound way to fix things as a PEOPLE, united. Forget all these culture war BS. You want a culture war? Go live in Gaza. Listen to BBC world with the people there calling and debating about the confilct there. Thats a culture war.
Well, i'd rambled on long enough,I hope you find a point in this somewhere. Keep up the good workouts AND the interesting ideas.

Something to do individually...

Energy-saving vs incandescent

ENERGY-SAVING BULBS (compact fluorescent lights - CFLs)

* An 11-Watt CFL bulb (equivalent to an ordinary 60W bulb) costs £2.41 to run per year.

* Energy-saving bulbs last on average 12 times longer than ordinary light bulbs, with a life span of around six years.

* They cost about £3.50.

* Each bulb can reduce your electricity bill by up to £10 a year.

* They generate up to 70 per cent less heat.

ORDINARY (incandescent) LIGHT BULBS

* An ordinary 60W bulb costs up to £13.14 in electricity bills per year.

* The average life span is between 750 and 1000 hours, which gives round five months of use.

* An ordinary bulb costs around 50p.

* In most houses lighting accounts for approximately 15 per cent of the electricity bill.

* If every American home switched their five most-used light fittings to energy-saving bulbs, they would save $6bn (£3.2bn) and reduce greenhouse gases by nearly half a million tons.

* 90 per cent of the energy goes into generating heat.

Incidentally I work for an energy company and I'm all for doing our share to reduce waste. Walking, riding bikes, using less power...now with the price of gas people are "thinking" about conservation but once gas prices drop the want SUV's. Go figure.

Chuck, Tracy

Great.

But I've been wondering: what if the engine for growth is also the engine for pollution? Can we have an economy that both grows and reduces its negative impact on the environment?

If so, how can this be done?

Taffy,

I'm on your side that other countries are the bigger polluters. That is why America did not sign the Kyoto agreement. It would have allowed third world countries a free pass. In the US we spend enormous amounts of capital to reduce/prevent pollution. Which incidentally drives up the price @ the pump. Nothing is free and in my postion we have to redo the same projects over and over because of environmental standards that change as often as the wind. I believe there can be a balance between growth and environmental happiness but it will cost in both money and convenience. We all can do a little something in the big scheme of things. But the funny thing is that a lot people are "do as I say not as I do" types. Talk but no action.

#56 chuck

How accurate are such measurements? I can't imagine they are better than +/- 1 degree, I would even guess such "measurements" are around +/- 10 degrees and at that level of measurement uncertainty it is difficult to draw conclusions about global warming.

Skepticism needs to be employed when reading any scientific finding. First, all measurements are uncertain. For instance, when measuring an inch with a ruler divided into 1/16ths of an inch the measured value should be reported as 1 inch +/1 1/32 of an inch. When a scientist does not report uncertainty in their meaurements, I discount their work. Climate change involves thousands of variables which are coupled. Therefore, it is extemly difficult, and I can't stress this enough, for a scientist to to make statements about the affect an individual variable has on climate. Most of the work being done in climate research is based on computer models. How are these models checked for accuracy? Does an unbiased person check them? What uncertainty is associated with the model?

Next time a hurricane threatens the US look at the nine or so models that predict where the hurricane will hit. Why do the vary? Because predicting weather is extremely difficult. These models only forecast days in advance. How can we trust models that predict years in advance? Heck, the weather man in Ohio, doesn't even do a great job predicting the weather!

With that said, I think that we should be good stewards of our planet. As much as possible, we should limit pollution and avoid waste. In addition, research in climate prediction should continue until accurate models are developed from which sound policy can be generated.

Global warming is real but not caused by the sun or evil fossil-burning Bush supporters. No, global warming is caused by Crossfit, a direct result of a large group of people doing the same exercise program on the same day. Spewing out tons and tons of hot carbon dioxide and generating thousands of gallons of hot sweat each day. Did you ever wonder why it always snows on rest days?

Save the planet...Lay on the couch and eat Cheeots.

Catch-up day as usual. Ystd WOD done with 14 yo son. Weight scales used for Dad (BW 154) and Randy (BW 129). No ropes, no hope left at the end for towel push-ups! So, "Dirty Dozen - 1"

Bingo 18:40 (age 46)
Randy 17:00 (age 14)

OK to bested by offspring at CF!

I am not qualified to have an opinion on global warming. I do remember coming home from school as a 1st grader scared to death of the impending ice age (Early 70's). My mother told me that people always say that dooms day is coming. The natural inclination is to look at two data points, draw a line and extrapolate that sooner or later the world is going to end. There are a million scare theories out there.

Not too long ago, the world was flat and the sun and stars revolved around the Earth. I would like to post a bet ($1): The fear of global warming will be replaced with several other and equally grim and terrible things that may or may not happen in my life time.

Side note: Regardless of what the environment does, we will either evolove and adapt as a species or we won't. If we can't adapt, then we shouldn't.

Science has never been one of my intellectual strengths, just wanted to get this caveat out of the way before I state my opinion- an act which I have always been pretty good at…

I am quite uninformed regarding the global warming debate and don’t have any strong leanings towards either camp. Yet, it’s evident, to me and, likely, most of Florida’s coastal residents that the world is warming and the climate is changing. I remember learning during my ‘dinosaur phase’ around age six, or so- right around the time I first went on the wagon- about another climate change, commonly referred to as an Ice Age. This Ice Age, as THEY called it, made everything very cold and made many my beloved prehistoric animals,

A- Die.
B- Grow hair.
C- Start the Columbia Sportswear company.

It seems perfectly rational that if the climate can swing so radically in such a direction that it can, just as easily, go the other way and get really effin’ hot. Therefore, I’m not totally convinced that man has been the catalyst for the phenomena of global warming. That aside, it seems instinctive, to me anyway, that putting a bunch of toxic crap into the air, water and earth is probably (and I’m gonna get kinda technical here with my terming) ‘bad.’ Perhaps I’m all alone on this and maybe my wish to be minimally exposed to such chemicals means that I will miss out on the toxic-waste and lighting based accident that would imbibe me with the ability to shoot fire from my eyes- something I’d really like to have- but maybe the same event would just kill me. I’m leaning towards the latter event as being much more reality-based.

Thank you for reading.

-D.

PS- I forgot: if you drive a civilian Humvee you are a total tool. Not because of the emissions either, you just are. I can’t explain it.

I wish more people posted comments like Dan Silver.
Funny sh*t.

Reed

comment #68: "How accurate are such measurements? I can't imagine they are better than +/- 1 degree, I would even guess such "measurements" are around +/- 10 degrees and at that level of measurement uncertainty it is difficult to draw conclusions about global warming."

Why would you guess that? Sounds like wishful thinking on your part. You're suggesting that the scientists are incompetent. They ceratinly are aware of the potential for error. If the error was as high as you suggest, there would be no point in taking a measurement. They say they have techonology that allows them to accurately predict temperatures going back 400 years. Past 400 years, there is some guess work involved, but the 400 year estimate is dead on, no meaningful error.

comment #72: "It seems perfectly rational that if the climate can swing so radically in such a direction that it can, just as easily, go the other way and get really effin’ hot."

If it is so perfectly rational, then why do you have people denying that the climate is getting warmer? Seems like there are plenty of people who refuse to even accept that fact.

Comment 75:

I don’t know, Chuck. I do know that there’s an entire culture of people who believe that the twelfth descendant of their prophet will return if they spill enough blood and bring about near-apocalyptic destruction. There are also people who believe that the moon landing was staged, as were the 9/11 attacks. Some people believe that natives of North America were the original followers of Jesus Christ and some believe that AIDS is a lie. There are even people who believe that an alien ruler named Xenu, who was ruler of the Galactic Confederacy, brought billions of people to earth in spaceships, only to pile them in volcanoes and blow them up with hydrogen bombs. These same people believe that the souls of Xenu’s victims, known as Thetans, are still around today and inhabit our bodies, causing chaos within us. Luckily, if you are willing to spend enough time and money and unwaveringly subscribe to a large pile of bullshit then you can rid yourself of evil Thetans and be immortal. Isn’t that a relief?

Considering the above, I find it perfectly understandable that folks aren’t willing to believe that a puny race of monkeys could bring about a doomsday scenario through the use of motorcars and hairspray. People believe all sorts of things that, to me anyway, seem retarded. To my dismay, no amount of name calling and impassioned web postings will change that- but it seems to make people feel better. So, that said, consider this halftime and please resume name calling folks; it’s getting good.

-D.

Another typo: Mike left out the asterisk.*

I'm sure it was just an oversight.

Here's what it should have said:
(* Not my original thoughts. Why would I bother doing researching and presenting a cogent, well-thought argument for a bunch of conserveretards? It is beneath me to take time away from my life to offer point-by-point rebuttals to idiots like Jeff Glassman, so I will offer someone else's point-by-point rebuttals instead.)

See, it was just a typo...

I'm an evil Thetan, short and stout.....
Funny stuff D.
Made up my own WOD(how stupid was that?)
"4 Things I Need To Work On"
4 rds for time of:
400m run
10 pullups
20 pushups
30 situps
time 25:30.
Off to Barton Springs. Happy 4th all.

The position in the picture reminds me of the position my wife was in as she pushed out my 8.5 pound baby boy on Thursday.

No doubt Crossfit helps with functional fitness for both men and women, but women will always be tougher then us men. I doubt any of us guys could handle baby delivery, but if coach could come up with a suitable substitute we'd all sure try......

MC

Oh, that guy in the picture could use an exorcist.

#79 If men had to give birth the human race would be extinct by now.

#74 chuck

In school I learned a statement that makes a lot of sense, "In God I trust, all others bring data". In your response, you did not actually answer my question so I ask again, what is the reported measurement uncertainty associated with the techniques you described earlier?

Accuracy (aka meaurement uncertainty) is a relative term. The more important question that needs to be answered is what accuracy is required in one's measurements to make meaningful claims. Keep in mind, "all measurements are wrong but reported properly some measurement results can be useful".

The required accuracy is important as I will describe. The following article: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597 states that since 1988 global mean temperature has increased at the rate of 1 degree F per century. It tree rings, etc. can predict at +/- 1 degree F per year one would have to measure a temperature differential across 1,000 years to demonstrate a 1 degree temperature difference with 10% uncertainty.

The article goes on to explain that temperature swings (up an down) have been measured in 20 to 30 year pierods (time between peaks in a cyclic pattern). The measurement method you described would not be able to detect the cyclic patterns of climate based on an the measurement uncertainty I assumed earlier.

The +/- 10 degree uncertainty is not wishful thinking rather it is rational skepticism. If I remember correctly, one variable that causes variation in tree rings is the amount of rainfall a tree receives in a given year. I am sure there are other factors that contribute to its size as well (e.g. the amount of sunlight it received). Furthermore, how does a scientist know the "birth date" of tree so that is rings can be correlated to a specific year? I maintain similar skepticism with regard to the other measurement techniques you stated as the various other items are affected by more than one variable thus concluding a temperature change extremly difficult.

Furthermore, the various techniques you described did not explain how they account for temperatures across the globe as each measurement would have been very location specific. How does one know that an appropriate sample size was evaluted to ensure that the mean global temperature could be accurately determined? In the case of iceberg core measurements, this wouldn't be possible. My skepticism is warranted, not wishful thinking.

I admit, I am not a climatologist. If you have information on the measurement techniques employed I would enjoy reading about them. In my job, I work with a number of scientists (PhD "post hole digger" types) who have a poor understanding of measurement uncertainty and don't consider measurement instrument selection prior to performing tests. Their data is usually not as meaningful as it could be, yet they publish it! Most likely, scientist infer the temperature based on the techniques you described as it is the best method available to them (some data is better than nothing mentality, even if doesn't do anything for you). Furthermore, they must endure budget constraints like everyone else so they do the best that they can but I am sure it isn't perfect, yet they publish like everyone else as additional funding rides on their results.

You posted later that people need to admit temperatures are increasing. I will agree, it seems that they are, but I also believe the earth to be like any other system that experiences disturbances and thus oscillates or vibrates. It is quite logical to believe that we are experiencing an upward swing in temperature that is cyclic in nature.

I would like to continue but I don't have the time. Please provide me with some data to read...

Well first climate change is what the climate does so that is not even worth debating. But as far as data and refutting global warmers this site is the best by far. http://www.sepp.org/ Click on the right side "the week that was" And look at the archives for rebuttals to al gores docu-ganda. and solid data and refrences to the hockey stick graph which has been completely destroyed by the scientific community. Face it, when a scientist refuses to give anyone his data or how he came to his reslults in order for peer review, be skeptical of those results very skeptical.

As if the hairspray debate weren't enough...there is talk of removing OTC asthma inhalers because of...

CFCs in the propellant is causing a depletion in the ozone, and doing this could help save over 290 million cases of skin cancer in the NEXT 100 YEARS.

I mean, if this isn't just nuts, I don't know what is.

To Tracy, Comment 81
If men had to give birth, Cain would never have killed Able.

To All,
Whether the globe warms or not, park your car and ride your bike as often as possible.

To Coach and Lauren,
Thank you both so very much for all you do in promoting CrossFit.
In future, even if someone double dares you to surprise them by posting FOURTEEN PAGES of personal attacks on supposed personal attackers, unsupported allegations against undocumented assertions and other crap, if for no other reason than unrequited love of armadillos, resist. If it was not worth posting for itself, it certainly was not made more worthy by the "if you have the courage" ad hominem.
Lastly, thank you for saving me $7 on Al's movie. Superman's movie is better science fiction.

Did yesterdays WOD ssub 25 towel pullups for rope, 55lb dumbell for swings 27 min I love these kind of workouts even though it takes some time getting to different areas for different exerises.Actually, I appreciate the few seconds brake! Pullups imroving I ripped through the 20 and had some left in me. Thats an improvement. Can't wait till tomorrow.

Oh, I forgot. I took Rest Day yesterday.
Today: 3 mile run and Judo practice.

Group Moffett

Complete as many rounds in 20 minutes of:

"Cindy"

5 Pullups
10 Pushups
15 Squats

The rounds ranged from 8 to 15

Did OHS 7x3 today. Finished up with some singles. 235x1 PR and over BW. BW today 233.

Wooooooooooooo! effen Hooooooooooooo!

I'd like to thank the Thetan inside me for helping me out. Also the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That dude can OHS like crazy, even without bones, only spaghetti.

On the subject of global warming, it was very hot at my pool today. That is all.

I did not read all the posts, but those I read were great. I toe the line on global warming, I think both sides bring great points. The most interesting thing to me is that almost without fail republicans dispute global warming, while dems accept it; that is just totally bizarre to me. I can't even presume as to why that is.

Anyways, I'm off to China tomorrow for one month. Might try to spread some Crossfit to the land of billions. Crossfit Shanghai has a nice ring to it :)

I did not read all the posts, but those I read were great. I toe the line on global warming, I think both sides bring great points. The most interesting thing to me is that almost without fail republicans dispute global warming, while dems accept it; that is just totally bizarre to me. I can't even presume as to why that is.

Anyways, I'm off to China tomorrow for one month. Might try to spread some Crossfit to the land of billions. Crossfit Shanghai has a nice ring to it :)

#36 Dan McD -

The predicted 20-foot sea level rise would come from the melting of land-based glacial ice in Greenland and/or Antarctica. The Greenland glacier is demonstrably melting at a much more rapid rate than previously. In addition, as large pieces of sea ice break off the Antarctic ice shelves (which is happening), bordering land glacial ice start to "calve" into the sea. This also is demonstably happening. The calculation of a 20 foot rise in sea level is a calculation of the effect of an amount of glacial ice equal to half the ice in Antarctica (or an equivalent combination of Greenland and Antarctic glacial ice entering the sea. Given the demonstrated warming in the Arctic, the argument goes, it is possible that the Greenland ice may melt off fairly soon. I saw the movie, and I think that Gore makes a strong case -- the satellite photo evidence is remarkable and compelling. This is not a continuation of previous trends in sea level rise, but an entirely separate phenomenon.

Bw 200
44 yr
Run 5 mi. 43 min

A scientific "inconvenient truth", there was global warming in the 1930's and 40's, and global cooling from the 50's til the 70's. Most people don't remember that Earth day was originally instituted to make people aware of "catastrophic global cooling". In the 60's and 70's, the same alarmists who now tout global warming were worried about the onset of another ice age. The earth, like a big rock, warms and cools in cycles. Ever notice how the global warming crowd is always calling for more govt. intervention? Follow the money and power. I urge all to get the facts and the history, and THINK for yourself. Get some...And let's all just get along.

#64 Bink, I wasn't being insulting. I was being sarcastic, my comment on the "big guy" benching wasnt aimed at his intelligence but at the fact that he will probably think you are the retarded one for doing all those funky looking pull ups and odd swings...
You are the one quick to take offense and turn my sarcasm into a political issue, I never said i was disinterested in world events, all i was saying is that you guys can argue with eachother all you want but your arguments are not changing S#it, usually when you argue you do it with a goal in mind. What is your goal? prove the other guy wrong? convince him? what? all i see is rebuttal after rebuttal.
it is my belief that the only goal that these "critical thinking" rest days bring about is arguing, I think coach enjoys putting these articles up and watch the monkeys fling poo at eachother.
I got married on June 5th, in 2 days its my 1 month anniversary and I have seen my wife a grand total of 2 days since we got married.
I know how it is to be foward deployed, and I know how it is to be away from your loved ones.
Thats why I wanted to point out that whether or not Global warming is there, no ammount of arguing will change that fact, I value my family and my friends, if you value arguing go ahead, argue.

Im done.

Played tennis yesterday, did not make it to the gym. Only had about 20 minutes today, so I cranked 2 rounds of 20 pull-ups, 20 dips, 20 sit-ups, 1 mile run.

I was being chased home by one nasty thunderstorm or I would have gone for 3 rounds.

Tomorrow being Independence day, the gym will be closed. I'll do my 10 x: 250 meter row/20 push-up for time WOD.

that's an awesome picture and very impressive too. i've done it with 2 45's for 1 minute, followed by one 45, then nothing for one last minute w/o a break. holding that weight up though while doing is pretty sick. you're neck is probably the most important part of your body. strengthening will only prevent injuries. may as well do it.

Great wrestlers bridge press! Awesome pic.

Hey Paul,
Thanks for serving. This is how a community works, they find other things to have in common rather than just discussing the feelings of the 250#s on a barbell. Everyone is entitled to thier opinion but theres a difference of making it an argument about certain matters and trying to make it personal, which IMO seems like such an attack. I agree with you that it is rebuttle after rebuttle. What types of "critical thinking" issues should we talk about? You have the choice to practice what you preach..."when you dont have a workout to do...aka rest day. STFU sleep and spend time with your loved ones" - or if your deployed then write them some letters, rest and think about them instead of showing angst in the CF. community. Congrats on your marriage and good luck, and again thank you for serving.

#92 Porkchop

You are right, if the land based ice on the polar caps starts to melt we would indeed have very large sea level rises, but that ice is not melting, instead it is increasing, but you won't see that "inconvenient" truth in anything by Al Gore or the mainstream media.

I don't know the whole truth, no one does, but I reiterate that one of my problems with global warming alarmists is that they exaggerate to the point of lying, and leave out inconvenent data. And I am old enough to remember a Newsweek cover, as mentioned in another post, warning us of a coming ice age in the 70s.

From the June issue of National Review, the cover story, "Snow Job":

The world has two major ice sheets, one covering most of Greenland and the other covering most of Antarctica. While melting sea ice has captured its share of attention, it’s the land sheets that matter. Sea ice is already in the water, so its melting doesn’t raise ocean levels. But if land ice melts, the sea gets higher. Time wants you to be very worried about this: “By some estimates, the entire Greenland ice sheet would be enough to raise global sea levels 23 ft., swallowing up large parts of coastal Florida and most of Bangladesh. The Antarctic holds enough ice to raise sea levels more than 215 ft.” Farewell, Dhaka, we shall miss thee.

Or not. Those numbers sound impressive, but the chances of the ice caps’ fully melting are about as high as the chances of Time’s giving you an honest story on global warming. The truth is that there’s no solid evidence supporting the conclusion that we’ve locked the ice caps in to a melting trend. Let’s look at Antarctica and Greenland in turn.

About Antarctica, University of Virginia climate scientist Patrick J. Michaels is direct: “What has happened is that Antarctica has been gaining ice.” He explains that there has been a cooling trend over most of Antarctica for decades. At the same time, one tiny portion of the continent — the Antarctic Peninsula — has been warming, and its ice has been melting. The peninsula constitutes only about 2 percent of Antarctica’s total area, but almost every study of melting Antarctic ice you’ve heard of focuses on it.

So what about the rest of the continent? In 2002, Nature published a study by Peter Doran that looked at Antarctic temperature trends from 1966 to 2000. What it found was that about two-thirds of Antarctica got colder over that period. At the same time, Antarctica has gotten snowier, and as the snow has accumulated the ice sheet has grown. Snowfall is probably rising because water temperatures around Antarctica have gotten slightly — repeat, slightly — warmer. As a result, there is more surface evaporation, making for higher humidity and more precipitation. Higher humidity also means more clouds, which might explain the cooler weather.

How much ice has Antarctica gained? In a 2005 study published in Science, Curt Davis used satellite measurements to calculate changes in the ice sheet’s elevation, and found that it gained 45 billion tons of ice per year between 1992 and 2003. Far from flooding the coasts, that’s enough to lower sea levels by roughly 0.12 millimeters annually.

This doesn’t mean the trend of increasing Antarctic ice will continue forever. Science captured headlines in March when it published a study by Isabella Velicogna arguing that, between 2002 and 2005, Antarctica has been losing ice mass. Velicogna used a pair of satellites to measure the gravitational pull exerted by the Antarctic ice sheet, which in turn allowed her to calculate its mass. Her data suggest that, over the past three years, the sheet has lost about 152 cubic kilometers of ice per year. That would be the equivalent of about 0.4 millimeters of annual sea-level rise.

But three years do not a trend make. To begin with, such a short sampling period is a blip in the slow rhythms of climate change. Moreover, 2002 — the year in which the study began — was a high-water mark for Antarctic ice, so it’s not too surprising to see some decline since then. Alarmism over Velicogna’s study is on the order of going to the beach at high tide, drawing a line at the water’s edge, and fretting a few hours later that the oceans are drying up.

And Greenland? Various studies show that warmer temperatures are causing the ice sheet there to lose mass at the margins. But, as in Antarctica, higher sea temperatures are also causing greater snowfall and building up ice in the interior. As Richard Lindzen of MIT observes, “If you’re just going to look at what’s falling off the sides and ignore what’s collecting on top, that’s not exactly kosher.” The question is whether the net change is positive or negative.

Earlier this year, Eric Rignot and Pannir Kanagaratnam published a study in Science that used satellite measurements to calculate ice loss around Greenland’s coasts. They also used models to determine how much ice was vanishing from surface melt, and how much was accumulating from greater snowfall. Adding it all up, they got a decade of deficits: 91 cubic kilometers of ice lost in 1996, rising to 224 cubic kilometers in 2005. That translates to a sea-level rise of 0.23 millimeters in 1996 and 0.57 millimeters in 2005.

But, as the web publication CO2 Science has pointed out, their model-based estimate of the ice gain in Greenland’s interior was implausibly small. In fact, Science had earlier published a study by Ola Johannessen that used satellite measurements to determine how much the ice sheet was growing. Johannessen found that, between 1992 and 2003, it was gaining on average 5.4 centimeters of elevation per year.

That may not sound like a lot, but it adds up. Michaels, the University of Virginia professor, calculates that it amounts to about 74 cubic kilometers of ice per year. Rignot and Kanagaratnam could have subtracted that number from their estimate of coastal ice loss, which would have given them a negative total only for the past five years: 17 cubic kilometers lost in 2000, rising to 92 cubic kilometers in 2005. That would be equivalent to only 0.04 millimeters of sea-level rise in 2000 and 0.23 millimeters in 2005.

Add all the numbers from Greenland and Antarctica up, and you get a rather piddling total. In 2005, Jay Zwally of NASA published a study in the Journal of Glaciology that looked at the ice-mass changes for both Greenland and Antarctica from 1992 to 2002. He concluded that the total ice loss was equivalent to a sea-level rise of just 0.05 millimeters per year. At that rate, it would take the oceans a millennium to gain 5 centimeters, and a full 20,000 years to rise by a meter. To the hills, anyone?

My off day consisted of a "deck of cards" workout. Full deck of cards, shuffle. Flip over a card, do the exercise. We chose situps and pushups. Black for pushups, red for situps. Do the number on the card, face cards are all 10 reps, aces are 20 reps. Go as fast as possible.

If it's not global warming then it will be something else. Lets just live, love, have fun and do CrossFit.

"In life, it dosen't matter if you get knocked down because you will, it's whether you get back up that matters."
someone smarter than me

Ms. Krabaple, what's a global?

Marc: do you work your way the whole deck of cards?

On the articles posted:

1. Reality has a way of exerting itself. I personally think it's regrettable that people label oppenents as "hacks," "childish," "idiots" or whatever, rather address the arguments. If it (the person's argument) is true, then it doesn't matter if Larry, Curly or Mo is stating it.

2. If a person believes she is right on a point of contention, and also believes she is open minded, then I would suggest that person ask herself what evidence would need to be presented to convince her she's wrong and then seek out that evidence.

3. I applaud Jeff Glassman for pointing out the plagiarism of Mike Mueller. It compromises his credibilty.

Hmmm, for a while we actually had some reasoned, polite discourse. Then the usual STFU crowd showed up and the "I hate politics on MY fitness site" crowd also arrived to tell Coach how to use HIS bandwidth that HE PAID FOR. I don't know much about global climate change, but I do know telling someone else what THEY should post on THEIR site that THEY designed and THEY pay for and provide as a FREE RESOURCE makes you an ass under any definition of that word.

Here's what seems to be missing in all the hoopla - the debate really isn't about whether we're causing global warming or it's cyclical oir it even exists at all - it's about control and power, or the illusion of it. Underlying all of this is the goal (for both sides in this debate) of controlling social/governmental policy. This may be obvious to some, but stick with me a sec. Those saying we (the people) are causing all of this harm (and there seems to be this certain element of self-guilt about it - like I should feel bad for being a member of the greenhouse producing humanity) have a goal of (it seems) reducing oil consumption and forcing all of us to drive VW Rabbits again. Okay, fine. The naysayers say, go to hell, you've proved nothing and this is the same cry wolf routine you used 30 years ago to convince people an Ice Age was imminent.
And the sh*t flies on both sides.
I can think of much more compelling and immediate National Security reasons (see Saudi Arabian oil profits funding Wahabbi madrassahs) for reducing our use of foreign oil. I'm all for being a steward of the environment. I can't imagine someone seriously saying "nah, I'm all for polluting and pissing in my backyard".

So, what's the fuss? Does one side believe that by conceding even one iota (okay, maybe Florida will not be wiped out in 20 years, but there seems to be some cause for concern vs. okay, we probably should seek to reduce our pollutants by x% over the next 15 years) that they completely lose the ability to dictate some social agenda? I think ultimately that's why there's so much vehemence on either side - both want to dominate the debate in order to enforce their agenda.

I know why Jeff responded the way he did, but he's above that and should have raised the debate a bit, IMO. Shame also on Mike for posting that LONG letter as his own -- if he's as smart as he thinks he is, then he knows better and should have noted it wasn't his own. That's dishonest and makes one question his motives for doing that. Seems like he wanted to get "his view" on CF's site by challenging coach to post it, rather than simply saying "here's a site with compelling info."

Finally, it seems that the idea of compromise has become a dirty word in public policy and discourse. Conceding the validity of a point or two is seen as caving in to the whole. We ought to strive for something a little better here - just as we do in fitness.

PS - Dan Silver is one seriously funny dude and you all should check out his web page for a friggin' laugh when you're having a bad day. I do and I even drive a Mustang.

Dale-

Surprisingly enough, you were the one person I wasn't thinking of when I wrote that Mustang article.

Swear.

-D.

Comment #82 - "In your response, you did not actually answer my question so I ask again, what is the reported measurement uncertainty associated with the techniques you described earlier?"

Your question was answered. They said their analysis of the last 400 years is very accurate. They would have said the results were inconclusive if the margin of error was so large no conclusion could be reached (which is your position). Unless you collect the data and analyze it yourself with technology you have developed, at some stage you have to take people at their word.

It definitely seems hotter, and weather/season patterns of the past don't seem to be continuing.

We are thinking very seriously about getting a hybrid vehicle. Figure this is a way that we can participate at the grass roots level.

Couldn't follow much of the duckspeak--a lot of high-falutin talk and chest thumping.

No worries, though--Happy Crossfitting, all!

In defense of Mike Mueller, it was only at first that I thought it was his writing...then I noticed the writing style (in addition to grammatical and spelling issues) was different. I then went back an re-read the opening paragraphs (before the "1"). While not explicitly stated, I understood he was quoting verbatim.

However I think it could have been made much clearer.

Fight training:

1.5 minute sets

Heavy bag
wall ball (20lb, 10' target)
ball slams (20lb ball)
65# push press

4 rounds for 18 minutes total (no rests)

I averaged about 20 - 25 wall ball shots, 30 ball slams and 30 ppress every round.

comment 106

Again you refuse to bring NUMBERS or SOURCES to the table! Hearsay, the information you are passing along, is not admissable in court and doesn't help in this discussion either as it is unverifiable. As I stated earlier, scientists will report the best data that they have.

The data that you claim exists may be accurate compared to a guess but may not be accurate to temperature measurements scattered throughout the world which are averaged, to determine the mean global temperature for a year. If you do not provide the reported uncertainty +/- # or source of your information then you are passing along qualitative information that has no use!

Is this so difficult to understand?

Interesting. All of this has made me think a bit about the topics presented and countered. I don't have much of an opinion as I am not educated enough on the matter to make a worthwhile point in either direction, although I have my middle of the road beliefs on the issue.

As far as Mueller is concerned, I am educated enough to know that plagiarism undermines ones credibility and intelligence. I would expect more from someone touting his education and experience.

In regards to name calling on behalf of both parties, I look back and see who threw the first punch. I may be diplomatic and courteous, but after a certain point the gloves are off. You come out swinging, I come back kicking. I am sure Jeff feels the same way, after a continued personal attack, all bets are off regardless of who you are.

For those out there upset about posting political ideals on a rest day, with all due respect, no one made you read the article and post your own view which, by the way, seems to go against the mantra you just stated. While fitness is the main goal of this website, Coach can place anything he wants on here on a rest day. It is afterall his site and we are merely guests. When the family is in bed and I have a few minutes, I like to look over the posts, etc. They educate me and make me think about the ideas presented. The rest of my day is taken up by work, family time, and personal fitness time. I still think Coach posts hot topics to keep the heart rate high on rest days....

Tomorrow it is back to fitness time. All of us will put our "A" game back on the deck, hammer out the workout, and all of today's issues will fade away like a distant sunset. Take care and stay fit.

P.S.- Dan Silver - You are a one man riot. I was giggling like a schoolgirl reading your posts. Keep up the sense of humor, it's much appreciated.

Marc #100==We used to have two different deck of cards workouts where I was a lifeguard for a number of years, one being the "Deck of Hell" where red were pushups, black situps, and everyone in the guard room did all cards as fast as possible, same scoring as you outlined. The other game was just called a deck, and people took turns pulling the top card and doing that number of pushups. Hearts were regular pushups, diamonds were diamonds, clubs were wide-arm, and spades were dive bombers. Numbers up to ten, then eleven for jack, etc. to fifteen for an ace. Got us pretty fit for pushups anyhow.

As for the global warming scenarios, I have to agree with those who posted earlier that whether or not global warming is caused by humans, doesn't it make sense for us to address our impacts--on an individual and collective level--and try to cut back on pollution, etc.? How often can you ride your bike or walk instead of driving a car? How often can you buy food in bulk, instead of heavily packaged? Can you buy food grown locally more often, instead of food that has been shipped halfway around the world? How often can you bring your own grocery bags to the store? Can you wear a sweater instead of turning up the thermostat? Sleep with a wet washcloth and a fan instead of the A/C? What changes can you make in your daily routines that use less fossil fuels, create less non-recyclable waste, and in general decrease your consumption/output of harmful substances? Think it doesn't matter what one person does? You're more than one person in your impacts; think of your friends and family who may change their habits; think of how those changed habits can affect yours and others' businesses; think of how those businesses influence others. I don't fool myself into believing that I am not a part of producing pollution and using fossil fuels, but I have and continue to work on how to reduce my dependence, and honestly I feel healthier and eat better because of it. And really, food is where it's at. That and fitness.

45 minute walk on trails - progression level one for calf recovery after tearing it two weeks ago.

Global warming - I used to be a journalist at my local newspaper here in Bermuda and one interview I did was with a climate scientist at the Bermuda Biological Station for Research here. His thoughts on global warming - no one knows for sure whether or not the earth is entering a natural cycle of heating up just as it can cool down for an ice age or if man's activities are causing that to happen. However, he went on to say that the person in the street should be just as concerned about man's activities and what "we" are doing whether or not it is contributing to the heating up of the earth or not as it is definitely polluting the earth and us.

The vehemence of Mike Mueller's letter took me aback. Just what was it that prompted him to describe Jeff Glassman as an idiot and a "conserveretard toon"? Has Mueller really been stewing on this subject since late March when he last interacted with Glassman on the topic of global warming? And if so, why?

I put together a thread of Mike and Jeff's dialog across two rest day comments during March of 2006:

http://www.crossfit.com/cf-journal/mueller_glassman_agm_2006.pdf

It is fascinating stuff that puts us deep into the realm of epistemology: what do we know, and how do we know it?

What I gleaned of the discussion is that Mueller's basis for knowing is through appeals to scientific authority while Glassman's are by appeals to reason. Mueller says that a majority of credentialed scientists believe that anthropogenic global warming is real, and a clear and present danger. Glassman says that science is not a democracy and that the models that purport AGW are rudimentary and fail basic tests for what constitutes science and that you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that. Mueller takes umbrage at Glassman's arrogance and lack of pedigree for making these pronouncements and calls him an "internet troll". It is truly a dialog of the deaf and may well be a microcosm of what passes for informed debate on global warming.

I am going to jump right in and pronounce based on what little I know of these two men. I think this is, among other things, a conflict between science as government and industry funded makework and science as roll up your shirt sleeves and make shit happen. There is no small irony to me in an aspiring Ph.D. in human ecology (wtf?) whose current job is to secure research funding for a predominately liberal arts school (Mueller) lording it over a former chief scientist at Hughes Aircraft (Glassman) on what is science and the validity of other people's models. From what I understand of Jeff Glassman, he is neither wowed by pedigree (he has plenty of his own and hired first in class hard science doctoral grads from top universities by the bus load for years on end) nor in thrall to computational models. In his world, models that work put your lander on the surface of another planet; models that fail mean machines fall from the sky and good men you know and love die. I have no doubt that the models that supported the programs Jeff worked on were every bit as detailed (if not considerably more so) than those that would predict global climate change. But there is an awesome difference between an untestable hundred year climate prediction and something that blew up this morning with loss of life and a call to the widow. Reality is a bitch and doesn't always fit our preconceptions of how the world will be. I know Jeff Glassman has seen plenty of harsh scientific reality. I rather doubt the same is true for Mike Mueller.

Mueller gives the game away when he writes:

"Frankly, I take more of an evolutionary/ecological take to life and death on Earth. For example, I've been losing a lot of sleep lately thinking about the preponderance of good hard scientific evidence that we are all temporarily living on a rapidly dying planet, and that we who are alive today are all pretty much freaking doomed, as the inheritors of an irrepairably, industrially damaged planet, to witness our final extinction as a species. I encourage all in our CF community to stay strong for the coming "nature walk through the Apocalypse", and the big die-off to follow. I just feel really bad for my child, whom I will not live long enough to protect when things really start to become unglued. "

AGW die off, huh? This must be the Club of Rome for the new millennium.

Here is the fundamental difference between Mike Mueller and Jeff Glassman: Mueller mourns the middle aged son he won't be able to protect; Glassman doesn't give a damn whether the temperature is 1, 10 or 100 degrees (you pick whether it's Celsius or Fahrenheit) warmer or cooler fifty years out or how it got to be there--human ingenuity and perseverance will make it a fabulous place to be.

I'm with Dr. Rocket on this one.

A Newsweek article from 1975 shows that "all scientists" agree that global COOLING is going to starve us. It was even suggested that we cover the polar ice caps with black ash in order to melt them. http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf

while i'm a liberal, i couldn't help poking some fun at poor mike.
perhaps he needs the latest crossfit t-shirt design:

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i57/crossfit/hetordx_image_olive_full.jpg

Brian M. ....are we related?

Bachman #15

Mueller refused to address my previous posts, as he says, “point by point”. His plagiarism of Jim Hansen’s political tome is in no way such a response. If Jim Hansen wants to enter a dialog, I’d be happy to engage him, too.

To answer, “Why we are to disbelieve the evidence for anthropogenic climate change” and for those who think I should respond to the Hansen’s part, I offer a few observations:

Jim Hansen/Mueller claim,

>>“Warming can be predicted accurately based on knowledge of how Earth responded to similar levels of greenhouse gases in the past.”

Climatologists’ Global Climate Models have no predictive power for the most gross features of the earth’s climate: the ice ages and the glacial periods. These encompass gigantic, on-going temperature swings that mask the petty changes climatologists reckon from manmade CO2.

Their failure is evident in their suggestion to changing the name to “Global Circulation Models”. If these guys were vulcanologists, they’d confidently predict the month and day that Yellowstone is going to erupt, omitting anything about the year or century.

Climatologists are not only uncertain about their most significant figures, the ice ages, they also have no accuracy in their least significant figures, the weather. Who else claims a model valid only in the middle significant figures?

Jim Hansen/Mueller asserts,

>>“The most recent of these mass extinctions defines the boundary, 55 million years ago, between the Paleocene and Eocene epochs. The evolutionary turmoil associated with that climate change … .”

He/they reject competing theories for the so-called KT mass extinction: volcanoes, supernovas, meteors. Hansen is all too ready to stake a claim that supports his pet theory: GW aka AGW.

As you read through this stuff and the press releases, keep in mind that proof of GW is in no way proof of AGW.

Jim Hansen aka Mueller claims,

>>“Carbon dioxide (CO2), produced mainly by burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), is the most important greenhouse gas made by human beings.”

Can this sentence be parsed in any way to make it true? No one knows the origins of CO2, but it is stored in the oceans in vast quantities where it is released from warm waters into the atmosphere and reabsorbed in cold waters. In the process, the oceans slowly absorb any excess CO2, manmade or natural. (Proof is in preparation.)

The climate of the earth is controlled by the intensity of solar radiation, the attitude of the earth in its orbit, the reflection of cloud cover, the radiation absorption dominantly of the oceans, ocean currents, and lesser effects. Several mechanisms operate at once to govern the climate. See more on my postings happily summarized by Brian Mulvaney #114.

The greenhouse effect is one such minor factor. Even that is dominated by water vapor, over 20 to one more significant than CO2. But water vapor is manmade, too! Generally, more moles of water vapor are produced in fossil fuel combustion than of CO2.

The water (vapor) cycle and cloud cover overwhelmingly regulate the climate. Increased global temperatures release more water vapor from the oceans. The increased cloud cover “irises down” the radiation from the sun. In short, the actions of the oceans control the atmosphere, including its temperature, gas composition, and circulation.

The greenhouse effects add but a little. The heat capacity of the atmosphere is trivial compared to that of the oceans. The greenhouse effects put a little finishing touch on the final temperature of the air. They introduce no instability.

The climate is like an ocean liner – 150,000 horsepower, massive rudders and stabilizers, with Nature at the helm. Man has his oar in the water, Jim Hansen observes. He concludes man is going to steer the liner aground. Therefore, we need Al Gore.

Dan MacD # 22

Thanks for the kind remarks. You are right on about Jim Hansen’s non–science nonsense.

brandan melville #30

Note that Mueller made no valid point. As for spelling, don’t you find postings easier to read when they don’t contain strings like “noone”? Go ahead, give a crap! Engage your spell checker. One of surprising things about Mueller is that he sports two Master’s degrees, and works as a front man for Lehigh U., yet doesn’t use a spell checker.

Paul #35

“What are you guts getting out of it?”

There’s more to it than one could imagine. Perhaps Coach doesn’t want to model CrossFit after the U.S. penal system, where the clientele graduates hardened, fit, and still dumb as a stump.

Perhaps Coach thinks the battle for hearts and minds is not in backwater Iraq, but everywhere else where leftism flourishes. Perhaps he wants his battle scarred troops to come home more like the Greatest Generation than like the Murthas and Kerrys.

Perhaps Coach thinks we came within an eyelash of electing Gore in 2000, and imagine his reaction to 9/11! Imagine Gore’s reaction to Kyoto! Dubya had the decency to get mad about 9/11 and stay mad, and the very excellent advice to disassemble the bloc of Islamic terrorist states by freeing Iraq. Ditto his rejection of Kyoto.

For all you interested in this topic, I would like to clarify something. I “believe in” global warming, notwithstanding that science is not a belief system. GW is quite real. Measurements show that earth has been coming out of the last glacial period for tens of thousands of years, and a turn around is not yet in evidence. Earth is far from its historic warmest period, but before it gets even close to that point, life on earth will be severely challenged.

But as I’ve posted here before, AGW is a conjecture. No one should be doing anything about CO2 emissions. Worry about the Al Gores.

Daniel #45

Read my letter more carefully. It is not a reply to Mueller in any way.

Coach & Lauren did me the courtesy of sending me a copy of Mueller’s personal attack, and his dare to post it. They did, and with my permission, my letter, too. My letter is only to recommend they post Mueller intact, not correcting for the high-frequency misspellings. What misspellings, you might ask? I listed them.

One reason for not correcting his letter is to show the contrast between his writings and his plagiarism. Another reason is to show something about his state of mind. His 300 odd original words seem to have been written in a state of mental frenzy. We’ve got them on the run when they are reduced to such inanities.

As to those who have accused me of engaging in name-calling, I plead not guilty and offer in evidence my letter. Read it, guys. I think you’ll find justification for every adjective.

The accusation reminds me of left-think.

>>Saddam invaded Kuwait for the oil. We defended Kuwait. Therefore, we attacked Iraq for its oil.

>>The Soviet satellite North Vietnam invaded the South where there are rubber plantations. We defended the South. Therefore we intervened in a civil war out of corporate greed for the rubber.

>>The Soviet Union, the Evil Empire, was bent on world domination. We resisted. Therefore, we are the moral equivalent of the Soviet Union.

>>Clinton lied. Therefore Bush lied.

>>Glassman refuted Mueller’s name calling. Therefore Glassman is engaged in name calling.

>>“Name Calling is the attempt to distract the uninformed observer off the message by attacking the messenger (ad Hominem)”. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/propaganda3.html.

It is not name-calling to note that Mueller attacks AGW opponents as “P.R. hacks” when he himself is in the P.R. business. Nor is it name calling to contrast his double Masters degrees with his error-riddled blathering.

My reactions were not that Mueller couldn’t spell, or that he was unfamiliar with spell checkers. I imagined that he was so excited at seeing Jim Hansen’s 6/21/06 letter that he hastily dashed it off to spread the word in the forum where he hadn’t fared too well in rational exchange last March.

My next thought was that his keyboard was fouled with drool, but I didn’t put that in writing.

CCTJOEY, #54

Thank you, my pal Joey.

Brian Mulvaney # 114.

Thanks, again. In response, I refer to your letter.

Juries exist to nullify. Don’t listen to the judges and lawyers. Juries have 12 members and must be unanimous to raise the probability that someone with a useful IQ will prevent an injustice. Keep these rules sacred. Counsel and the judge work to dumb down the jury. They can’t tolerate someone smarter than a lawyer in the loop. Junk science, political correctness, deep pockets, expert opinion are today enforceable law. Play dumb in voir dire, then nullify away.

The Internet exists to nullify. By design and de facto, it is to break the stranglehold on information held by credentialed individuals and their closely held, monopolistic publications. It applies to book publishers who only print celebrities and double ax murderers. It applies to journalists and printed news, broadcasters and what passes for electronic news. It applies to PhDs on review panels for science journals. Here’s a rule: if the publication is not available for free, assume its articles do not exist. This applies to JAMA, Science, Nature, and many more. Don’t listen to Muellers. Resist any attempt to tax or otherwise regulate the Internet. Resist any demands to re-instigate “peer review”. Resist demands for credentials.

The loftiest academic achievement is the debate. Today U.S. Universities exist to indoctrinate.

Let good knowledge drive out the bad. Gresham’s Law in Epistemology.

Through dialog on points we can arrive at a semblance of truth and drive the enemies from the gate.

About my credentials: they’re real and they are spectacular. About peer review: I’m looking for one.

In response to Jeff Glassman:

Some things should be repeated for effect if not for personal amusement alone....

"There’s more to it than one could imagine. Perhaps Coach doesn’t want to model CrossFit after the U.S. penal system, where the clientele graduates hardened, fit, and still dumb as a stump."

"About my credentials: they’re real and they are spectacular. About peer review: I’m looking for one."

"My next thought was that his keyboard was fouled with drool, but I didn’t put that in writing."

I can barely contain myself when a naturally humble man comes out of his shell for a spike and dance in the endzone.

Mike, you are still a winner (whinner?) in that Politically Correct , left-wing, the sky is falling, " I was raised by women", YMCA soccer, kind-of-way.

XOXO,

CCTJOEY (proud to be a Conservaretard and part of the Brutal Military Junta)

Brian Mulvaney (#114) - excellent job in disassembling the debate between Mueller and Glassman - to the point where the maligning Mueller and begins glorifying Glassman - certainly Mr.(Dr.?) Glassman deserves respect for his credentials and his work; however, with nothing to compare Mr. (Dr.?) Mueller on, why bother?

The key point, though, seems to be that Mueller and Glassman have different viewpoints about science and what it is; Glassman's appears very much "bench science" in the sense there is a great deal of human control over the outcomes of science, but in the uncertainty of human-environment interactions, the environment trumps human influences because the natural environment is resilient; Mueller's is more "field science" in which there are multiple factors involved, a great deal of uncertainty in point analysis and hence trends are relied upon to make points, but in the case of human-environment interactions, the role of human influences stands out because there is a "tipping point" at which all will be lost. Both see (and look for) data supporting their views; both may have started out politely and openly enough, but hey, look how it has deteriorated... they'll never see eye to eye is my guess (except maybe on crossfit's effectiveness).

As for me, I've seen how land use decisions affect local micro-climates, from rainfall patterns on Florida's coast to flooding in northern Illinois. I like trees because they reduce my cooling bills. I like sidewalks and bikepaths because I don't have to rely on my automobile to get around and pay less in gasoline prices. I use fluorescent (sp?) lightbulbs because they cut my electricity bills. So, does it matter whether I do this because I feel environmentally "sound" or because I'm a cheap bastard of scottish descent who would rather spend my money on more dumbbells and a C2 rower than giving it to energy companies?

It does to the energy companies - I represent lost profit margins.

Mr. Jeff Glassman

Please clarify a few things for me:

Was the e-mail that was posted Mr. Mueller's complete e-mail? If so, and if he has indeed plagiarized by claiming the post as his own original work, then his dissertation committee should be so advised of this.

Because Mr. Mueller works for Lehigh U. as a research administrator, and because Lehigh receives the a large sum of their money from private industry, doesn't that make him a "PR hack for the university" capitalizing on corporate monies?

As your credentials are "real and spectacular" and your outed Mr. Mueller's, would you mind telling us what they are and where you've received them (not that that means much of anything; as you well know in your previous life at Hughes (although I won't presume to talk for you), qualifications and quality don't necessarily go hand in hand).

I agree with you on your post that U.S. universities exist to indoctrinate - a large percentage of students are indoctrinated into the capitalist way of life through business degrees (not that there is anything wrong with capitalism, so long as market failures are dealt with and students learn there is more to life than making money). I wish debate, such as we are engaged on here on this message board, were more important than numbers of students processed through the system (and serving them as "customers").

In that spirit, would you, or others here on the board, suggest a counter-point book to "The Republican War on Science" by Chris Mooney? And please, nothing by Crichton - he lost my respect with "Jurassic Park".

I wish good knowledge would drive out the bad - but money talks very loud, and can hire lots of mouthpieces to market bad (or good) knowledge and shoutdown the bad.

My motto on "junk science": follow the money, demand the data, independently replicate it.

And I'm hoping that "through dialogue on points we can arrive at a semblence of truth" and turn enemies to allies.

Jeff G.-

I dig the Seinfeld reference.

-D.

Patrick, # 121:

>>Please clarify a few things for me:

>>Was the e-mail that was posted Mr. Mueller's complete e-mail? If so, and if he has indeed plagiarized by claiming the post as his own original work, then his dissertation committee should be so advised of this.

Mueller did not copy me on his letter. What CrossFit posted is identical to the courtesy copy Lauren sent me. Personally, I wouldn’t recommend holding him professionally responsible for the plagiarism in his petty letter. I doubt he will ever have a committee, or that he is PhD material.

>>Because Mr. Mueller works for Lehigh U. as a research administrator, and because Lehigh receives the a large sum of their money from private industry, doesn't that make him a "PR hack for the university" capitalizing on corporate monies?

That’s too much of a stretch, too. It smacks of the anti-corporate mentality. Public corporations are awash with dirty hands, but its not inherent in the structure. Corporations are blindly defended by Republicans and blindly attacked by Democrats. Both are wrong, and the core strength of the U.S. is suffering.

>>As your credentials are "real and spectacular" and your outed Mr. Mueller's, would you mind telling us what they are and where you've received them (not that that means much of anything; as you well know in your previous life at Hughes (although I won't presume to talk for you), qualifications and quality don't necessarily go hand in hand).

Capsule CV: BS, ’60; MS, ’62, PhD ’72, all UCLA. Specialized in system sciences in the School of Engineering, modeling physical phenomena of all sorts. Staff Doctoral Fellow, Hughes Aircraft Company. Author, Evolution in Science, Hollowbook, New Hampshire, 1992. High tech consultant, 1989 to present. Expert federal witness on telecommunication satellite failures, Astrium SAS v. TRW, et al. Lecturer, QualComm. Division Chief Scientist, Missile Development Division, Microelectronics Systems Division, 15 of 28 years at Hughes Aircraft Company, performed duties of chief engineer, head of IR&D. Author, Generalization of the Fast Fourier Transform, IEEE Transactions on Computers, 1970. Naval Aviator, LCDR, 4.5 years active duty, 12 years reserve.

>>I agree with you on your post that U.S. universities exist to indoctrinate - a large percentage of students are indoctrinated into the capitalist way of life through business degrees (not that there is anything wrong with capitalism, so long as market failures are dealt with and students learn there is more to life than making money). I wish debate, such as we are engaged on here on this message board, were more important than numbers of students processed through the system (and serving them as "customers").

Does anyone teach capitalism for what it is, a natural consequence of freedom? I don’t think so. What’s taught in business school culminates in the MBA, where students learn how to manipulate short term profits at the expense of long term corporate survival and public responsibility. Several professional degrees now appear to be all process, devoid of substantive content: law, teaching, business administration. I know of no university whose doctorates can be said to grasp the epistemological basics of even their own science. Junk science is embedded in curricula, including Anthropogenic Global Warming, undiagnosable diseases like ADHD and anything called a syndrome, environmentalism, social victimization, Marxism as economics. I’d wager that we could find tobacco addiction and second hand smoke disease taught as fact at colleges, just as it is in grammar school. Junk science is infective, even if the diseases aren’t. Students are far more likely to come out of our Universities as Marxists than as “capitalists”, environmentalists rather than scientists.

>>In that spirit, would you, or others here on the board, suggest a counter-point book to "The Republican War on Science" by Chris Mooney? And please, nothing by Crichton - he lost my respect with "Jurassic Park".

Share with us what Mooney had to say. But let me guess from the title: Bush denied federal funds for stem cell research; or Bush didn’t sign on to Kyoto. Aren’t these excellent results, maybe just for the wrong reasons? Why should the federal government fund basic science at all, except for weapons? Kyoto is backed by the worst kind of junk science -- not just neutrally ignorant, but designed against scientific principles for political gain.

>>I wish good knowledge would drive out the bad - but money talks very loud, and can hire lots of mouthpieces to market bad (or good) knowledge and shoutdown the bad.

As much as money and marketing can influence knowledge, it is challenged, at last, by the Internet where M&M are ineffective. Dan Rather is now the poster child for the process. Soon we’ll be able to replace him with AGW, all unfunded, unmarketed.

>>My motto on "junk science": follow the money, demand the data, independently replicate it.

Aren’t you back to the anti-corporation mentality? Or do you suggest that federal funds and university grants taint research results, too? The money is like correlation – it gives a clue where one might look for cause and effect. Even if you’ve found where cause and effect might lie, you can’t distinguish between cause and effect. They get reversed, like CO2 and Global Warming in AGW. I suspect the same thing could happen with the money – rewards follow promise.

>>And I'm hoping that "through dialogue on points we can arrive at a semblence of truth" and turn enemies to allies.

This has the odor of winning hearts and minds. I don’t buy it. Hearts and minds have a half life of about five generations, and that’s after the annihilation of a generation of males in a good war. Funny how it all turns on the males. Today, our job is to send the Jihadists off to Allah, toute suite.

Dr. Glassman

Thanks for responding! I appreciate your response.

My sister graduated with a degree in physics from UCLA - so, I'd have to say it is a top-notch school (even without her graduating from there). And your credentials are well-earned and substantial.

I can't really say that I'm anti-corporate. All three of my sisters and a good majority of my friends and colleagues work for them; what I do have a problem with is likely what you allude to in your post: dirty hands and short-sighted policies that focus on profit first (usually short-term) and which leads to negative externalities in terms of pollution and stability for the middle class. Also, that what passes for capitalism in the United States really isn't; it is a highly structed system of trusts in which government, more often than not, is captured by the economic interests they are supposed to regulate.

As for what Mooney has to say, I'll have to get back to you with the specifics - as I recall, what he said about stem cell research is the scientific rationale behind stating the stem cell lines that were left to be experimented with were enough to accomplish the job (they were considered too degraded to work with - I can't comment on that not being a biologist) in other words, Bush wanted to have his political cake (that cell research could be accomplished with the current stem cell lines) by mis-stating the science and not taking a political stance. As for the other topic that is of major concern for me is the recent to-do about intelligent design, and the stance of the White House on this. (To me, calling something a science without actually doing the work - but just cherry-picking negative findings without taking everything into account - is just insulting.). If anything, I'd like a book similar to the "Culture of Fear" (or whatever it is called), but one that is more reasonably argued and discusses fear-mongering (which occurs on both sides).

I'd have to respectfully disagree with you on a variety of things: on AGW, I'd have to say, yeah, humans do have an effect - the question is to what extent, and is it significant?; on ADHD - I believe it is an over-feminization of the education process and under-exercising of our children, combined with terrible diet (junk food is cheap and subsidized by us through our government) and a easy way for pharmaceutical companies to make money off of drugging our children; tobacco addiction? Well, if you mean addication to nicotine, yep, there's plenty enough study results for us to accept nicotine is addictive, albeit a low-level narcotic with some beneficial characteristics (interestingly, results from a student whose committee I sat on suggests that the additives put in cigarettes are more carcinogenic than the nicotine... go figure). On the second-hand smoke issue, it is kinda hard to do a double-blind experimental study ethically (kinda calls up the Tuskeegee experiments...), but animal studies and correlative studies suggest this is the case.

I think it is at this point that we likely need to have a firm definition of what "Junk Science" is and is not. In my mind, most of the problem is not with the science so much as the pronouncements that go beyond the science. But if it is used to "tar and feather" opposing views, then I'd have to say it is just intellectual laziness/arrogance.

As to Dan Rather - granted, he was caught out - but what of the original question (which seems to be forgotten) - what happened with the missing time (1-2 years in the Guard)?

As to the "follow the money" comment - Naw, I'm just cynical. Money might not corrupt, but it certainly structures what questions will be answered. For instance, I was part (a research subject) of a study which considered the impact of supplements on physical development. While it was done professionally, ended up being published in a refereed journal (sorry!), and didn't smack of corporate control, it was funded by a supplement company, used university resources (and paid university overhead), and diverted the attention of the researchers away from other problems (i.e., crossfit type issues to deal with obese populations) to deal with a way to make money for a company. And because the university rewards individuals who bring in money, emphases will be placed on bringing in business and supporting corporate efforts at research, not necessarily dealing with real issues of concern, or more frightenly, doing research that is unpopular because it might contradict what major contributors state.

I'm not sure what to say about federal funding - I believe there are similar flaws as researchers will chase the dollars (just witness homeland security issues and AIDS before it), but at least the research is open to the public. And I'm going to have to disagree with you on federal/state funding of basic science - I liked what NASA did (and does), appreciated what happened with the ag-extension service (until capture occurred), and believe that it drives the nation's economic engine (to an extent).

As to the final comment - jeez... I thought it was all about winning hearts and minds. I believe (with some support) that democratic (and yes, capitalistic) societies will not attack each other - to me, that's a pretty decent goal (even if just for five generations). And yes, it pretty much is all about the "Demonic Male" - young men from 15-30 are pretty much the cause of all human conflict... that's why I love crossfit and rugby - wears 'em out too much to start fights and cause problems!

Thanks for the dialogue - I am enriched by it.

Brother Joey, I'm sure we are related.

Coach and Lauren and CrossFit Community:

I wrote the introductory challenge to Coach and Lauren that appeared at the beginning of the article, and below my challenge sumitted the article from James Hanson with the headline and byline for James Hanson, as well as a link to the original article. I did not at all represent Hansen's article to Coach and Lauren as my work. I did ask them to post the article as Hansen's work. They played fast and loose, and dropped Hansen's credits, thus making it appear that the article that followed my challenge was my work.

Thanks for rat #$* me, Coach. I think you just demonstrated to me that this site has indeed jumped the shark, and that you are a punk and have no real integrity when someone challenges your pathetic narrow world view.

I will accept your apology if you repost my original comments with the full credits to James Hansen' article.

To all Crossfitters: I am not the author of the article that appears below my challenge to Coach and Lauren, James Hansen is. I did not represent myself as the author of the article to Coach and Lauren, but they chose to edit cleverly to make is seem that I did claim to be the author. Sloppiness on their part? Or a cynical attempt to further discredit the science behind climate change by making a proponent look stupid? Crossfitters can decide for themselves only if Coach and Lauren make a real effort to conduct themselves with integrity. I see no such effort on their part regarding this debate.

And Jeff Glassman, your email alias is "DrRocket". What exactly do you have a doctorate in? Yes, I work as a program development officer in science and engineering at a well-respected university, and respect both scientists and the scientific peer review process. You demonstrate your pathetic ideocy and ignorace of how science actually works and progresses in your denial of the value and importance of peer review. You are a toon. And I did post a point-by-point response to your earlier ad hominem attack on me and the peer review process and anthropogenic climate change about a week after our initial exchange a few months back. It is archived, anyone interested in my points and yours can search on my name and yours. They will see a lot of sophmoric crap from you, but not surprisingly, no WOD results. From me they will see more WOD results that rest day posts.

Anyway, kids, I'm wanted back on Earth. Farewell CrossFit restday. See you in the gym.

And again, Coach, good fitness program, but scurrilous politics.

Mike Mueller

****ADMIN NOTE: This post caught by MT's spam filter for use of the F-bomb (which I edited out...although the rest of the diatribe is intact.....~Lynne Pitts******

Since Coach and Lauren will not come clean, I post my original email to them verbatim:

Coach and Lauren:

I have been practicing CrossFit since last September. The gains in strength and fitness that I have experienced as a result have put me in the best, most competive shape of my 47-year long life. I used to post regularly, but stopped doing when I got attaked by that toon Jeff Glassman for daring to raise the issue of anthropogenic climate change and global warming, and after you then posted rest day thought pieces by oil industry flacks like Sally Balunas and Michael Crichton, while not posting scientifically-accurate studies by legitimate climate scientists. Indeed, idiots like Jeff and Barry Cooper, and well, frankly, to me, most conserveretard toons, are too tedious to debate politics with, because your simple and facile first principles dumb-down issues so much that it gives hetorodx thinking people like myself a headace to even begin to attempt to think down to your narrow and unscientific-world view level. And I certainly do not have the time away from my life to offer point-by-point rebuttals to idiots like Jeff Glassman. Hence my vow to no longer post on rest days.

I would like to respectfully suggest to you that if you insist on polticizing rest day, then at least provide links to articles that pass the basic intellegence test, not the stupid facile, industry-funded crap of hacks like Balunas and Crichton. "Consensus science", for your information, is a term developed by oil-industry P.R. hacks to create the illusion that legitimate scientific peer review is somehow suspect, when indeed it is the basis of all scientific, engineering, and technological progress. Something written by the members of our country's National Academy of Science (the Hall of Fame of our real scientists), and endorsed by the Hall of Famers in 8 other leading industrial nations, like the 3rd (and soon to be released 4th) IPCC report, would be a good start for you to prove to me that CrossFit hasn't completely "jumped the shark" on rest days.

I challenge you to read the article below, and to have the integrity, strength, and sense of fairness to present it to the CrossFit community for discussion. You have already presented the idiotic contrarian case about climate change twice, how about equal time for the scientists? And thank you again for creating the world's absolutely greatest fitness program.

Best regards,

Mike Mueller

--------------------------------------------

The Threat to the Planet

by Jim Hansen

The Weather Makers; How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth
by Tim Flannery
Atlantic Monthly Press, 357 pp., $24.00

Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change
by Elizabeth Kolbert
Bloomsbury, 210 pp., $22.95

An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It
by Al Gore
Melcher Media/Rodale, 325 pp., $21.95 (paper)

An Inconvenient Truth
a film directed by Davis Guggenheim

Jim Hansen is Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University's Earth Institute. His opinions are expressed here, he writes, "as personal views under the protection of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution."

1.

Animals are on the run. Plants are migrating too. The Earth's creatures, save for one species, do not have thermostats in their

A reposting of my original reply to Jeff Glassman's attach on me and AGW from back in March. While we have since learned that Jeff Glassman is really well educated and a real scientist, I still stand by my comments:

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.

Posted by: Mike Mueller at March 27, 2006 02:16 PM

*****NOTE BY ADMIN: This post was caught by MT's spam filter for exceeding 10 hyperlinks. ~Lynne Pitts*******

Dr. Glassman:

It would appear that Coach and Lauren forwared an edited version of my email to you. They edited out my attributions of the article to James Hansen. Why they did so, I cannot guess, unless it was to discredit me, and by extension, the extensively researched and peer reviewed science behind AGW. You are quite disengeneous in your attack on me. I did indeed offer a point by point rebuttal to your adhominem attacks on peer reveiw, scientific method, and me on 060703.

You are a real rocket scientists. Good for you. I still wouldn't want you to perform surgery on my dog, nor advise me about either the scientific method or about climate science or any of the hundreds or thousands of other facets of science and engineering that you, in spite of your impressive credentials, are nothing more than a (sort of) well informed layman. Buy you are still a rhetorical bully. Really, you have lots of peers when it comes to science. But few, indeed, when it comes to ego. Many professionals are crackpots. You appear to me clearly to be one.

Mike Mueller

I guess you broke your vow...

"Hence my vow to no longer post on rest days."

Concerning the deck of cards workout, we go thru the entire deck, and try to finish within 20 minutes. 4 man crew, I am a fireman, so some guys aren't always that quick. Anyway, I want to get under 15 minutes, with good form of course!

By the way, the full deck is 248 reps for situps and pushups, if you count the aces as 20 reps.

I hope people are still reading this thread, because it just got good.

Oh, if AGW does bring about a 20ft rise in ocean levels, then are you guys thinking what I'm thinking: Beachfront property in Barstow!

I'm buying in tomorrow.

dbones:

I did say that I was done posting on rest days in my private e-mail to Greg Glassman and Lauren, but I did not give up the right to defend myself from libel, hence my posts in my defense, which by the way, I will continue to post until I receive an apology from Glassman, or he takes the coward's way out and bans me from posting on the site.

Many of my Crossfitting friends with way more character and honesty that Glassman can ever hope to have noted to me in private conversation the irony in what Glassman chose to leave out my e-mail, quote, "I challenge you to read the article below, and to have the integrity, strength, and sense of fairness to present it to the CrossFit community for discussion." I asked him to post James Hansen's article as James Hansen's article, not to edit my email so that it looks for all purposes that I plagerized Hansen.

I would venture that Greg Glassman's actions and lack of fairness have proved my point, that world class fitness coach that he is, he is in reality a lying sack of spinelessness, with no character or courage, and a petty little fascist to boot. Rest day has, as per my original e-mail, indeed "jumped the shark".

I stand by my original comments. Greg Glassman is in my opinion a conserveretard and the real "Pukie the Clown". Jeff Glassman may be an educated guy, but he is clearly wrong about AGW and peer review. He spent his rebuttal to (Hansen's article) criticizing me for plagerism (not his fault, he didn't know, he was a victim of Greg's lies as was everyone else who read it) and bad spelling. But I guess he couldn't argue against Hansen's science.

God bless all Crossfitters who keep honesty and integrity foremost.

Mike Mueller

I thank Lynn Pitts for posting my original response to this misrepresentation of my email to Greg Glassman and Lauren suggesting the posting of James Hansen's article, which they edited to make it appear that I was plagerizing Hansen.

Still waiting for an apology from Coach, though.

Out here.

Mike Mueller

The following is Mike Mueller's email from 11:44am this morning:

Coach and Lauren:

Thanks for the hatchet job. I don't know why you edited the last paragraph
of my email message to you, nor left out my attribution of the article to
James Hansen. Maybe it was because you realy are a conserveretard. If it
was unintentional, it will be relatively easy for you to post a correction
and apology, or to show you have a real set by posting my reply, which I
posted today, but which I see is being held back for review.

If your omission was intentional, I might just have to take this up with my
attorney. You see, I have a professional reputation, such as it is, and I
have never committed plagerism.

I think it is a real shame that you have chosen to punk me. I used to have
respect for you. I don't anymore. Someday I hope to visit Santa Cruz and,
if not to personally spit in your eye, to at least have my lawyer do it for
me.

Mike Mueller

This just in: Arctic sea level is *FALLING*

http://nunatsiaq.com/news/climate/60630_04.html

We're doomed!!

I cancelled my home internet, because I was spending too much time on stuff like this, and avoiding projects which I think will offer more laster benefit. [side note: if anyone reading this has a ton of money and wants to invest it, I have a number of inventions I'm working on, and could sure use some help].

I would like to offer a few comments, though. In most areas of controversy, there are "differences that make a difference." The relevant points here are the connection between chemicals created by human activity being released into the atmosphere, and creating a higher temperature at surface level; and the ability to act on the basis of such information.

1) is there actually a problem?; and 2) can we do something about it?

Now, I see a lot of words flowing around, but most of them are irrelevant. For example, Mike Mueller goes on and on about this, that, and the other, then inserts this: "Since then, however, it [the temperature] has dramatically and rapidly increased. And continues to increase. Largely due to CO2, via anthropogenic sources."

This is a simple assertion. I call this a sleight of hand, because you set up attention in one direction, then move in the other direction to create the impression of a seamless whole. This trick is used constantly, on the internet, in periodicals, in conversation. I would encourage people to start looking for it.

Creating internally coherent systems of belief is not hard. In religion, faith is a good thing, but in science you have to be constantly attacking your own first principles to expand the range of what you know. And the method of attack is experiment. You postulate something, then check it against reality.

A model is not an experiment, it is a hypothesis, and if you have not done an experiment, you have not done science, as Dr. Glassman has stated. We can predict the rate of accelleration of a solid mass with great precision, because we've done millions of experiments. We have not done that with global warming, because we can't, so anyone speaking with a tone of certainty is ignorant of basic science, by definition. That applies on all sides of the debate.

It does seem that the earth is getting warmer, but that fact is irrelevant to the political debate about CO2 emissions. I see these long articles about armadilloes, and I think BFD.

It's very important not to make vast plans with half vast ideas.

BTW, here's a good article on the peer review process: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html?ex=1304222400&en=989fce7c62c8e849&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Best line: if peer review were a drug, it would never be marketed.

Mike,

If you're concerned about your professional reputation, I think the accusation of plagiarism is the least of your worries. This may be news to you, but it is considered bad form to use persistent insult in company of any sort, and especially when attempting to position yourself on the moral and intellectual high ground.

As someone with graduate degrees, it's frankly amazing to me that you appear entirely tone-deaf to the childish peevishness of your many posts. You apparently feel great anger. There's nothing wrong with that. The trick, the mature coping strategy, is to channel that anger into better thinking.

#138 Barry
Pretty well reasoned post for a consevretard toon.

Mike Mueller (#129):

Coach and Lauren asked me to look into the missing attribution. Your original message is still on the CrossFit mail server. I retrieved a copy, and yes, your attribution to Jim Hansen is most definitely in your original message. Where it's not, at least not consistently, is in the Gmail account on the machine Lauren primarily uses for email. There's a problem with how the browser renders the message on her main PC. Sometimes the message loads with the missing text, other times it does not. On some of these instances, the Gmail client offers up a corrupted page warning, other times not. When your message is forwarded from that account for review (as Lauren did when she first received it) the message is generally truncated with the attribution missing. Here's a reproduction of that scenario from today:

http://www.crossfit.com/cf-journal/mueller_letter_to_crossfit_062906_forward2.png

This was the sequence of events: 1)Lauren retrieved your message from Gmail. The attribution may or may not have displayed at that time; 2) Lauren forwarded your letter for discussion. I can see from the thread history in Lauren's gmail account that the attribution is not in the forwarded version or any subsequent version in the mail thread; 3) Lauren copied and pasted the contents of your text message from the last message in the thread into a PDF that did not include the attribution. 4) Incorrect appearance of failure to attribute and unhappy public discussion of plagiarism ensues.

The problem appears to be specific to Lauren's work machine. We can reproduce the missing attribution on it at will, but not on other machines. (I can from other machines, however, see where in that mail thread the attribution paragraph disappeared.) My best guess is that it's a rendering problem with the HTML formatting of your message on Lauren's PC. The paragraph that includes the attribution is very heavy with HTML tags. It's possible that Lauren's firewall corrupted the HTML when it inspected it for javascript viruses or maybe it's some other browser rendering problem. What I can assure you of is that there was no editing of your message to cast you in a poor light and that any discussion of a purported failure to attribute the Hansen piece is misplaced and incorrect.

Uh, Mikey, it's LynnE.

For your and everyone else's info, I did you no personal favor. Like every internet site, we get a lot of spam. The spam filters sometimes catch posts they shouldn't.

Lately we have had a rash of immature individuals, like you, who cannot express themselves without profanity. So we added filters to catch profanity as well.

A couple of times a day, I check the spampot and release posts that got caught. Frankly, yours should have stayed in the spampot, but they are so entertaining, and illustrative of the awesome debating skills of a liberal academic who can't even complete a paragraph without some puerile epithet, that I had to let them appear.

Greg and Lauren did not edit a word of your pathetic email...as you keep ably demonstrating, they had no need to.

All,

Yes, the attribution was most definitely contained in Michael Mueller's original email. He has incorrectly, regrettably, and through accident been accused of plagiarism. (Had we not been managing our own email server we'd never have been able to correct the record.)

Michael,

I sincerely hope that your "professional reputation, such as it is" has not been damaged by these accusations or your responses to them.

I would, however, expect your standing among AGW fanciers, vendors, and consumers to be enhanced by all that has transpired and irredeemable among those given to debate, intellectual inquiry, civil discourse, or fondness for the language independently of the mistaken appearance, suspicion, and accusations of plagiary.

Does not change anything accept that you sent Coach an article you did not write AND you accually admitted it...you still are a bitter, whinning, sky is falling, childish, freak-o, leftist who hangs your hat on junk-science in an effort to drum up irrational fears in others and promote your own agenda...I fear for your children, but not because of man produced CO2 over kill or cow farts or hairspray or whipped cream/cheese whiz or jet contrails or melting snow cones or Greenland being green again like when the Vikings found it...

If I could find compasion to worry about your children in the future it would be from you doing something irrational like spitting in Coach's eye in front of your children so they can see you get your @$$ beat...

Mike, you are still a winner (whinner?)...

Barry Cooper (137) - thanks for the post - very well presented argument (and I loved the article - "my" favorite line: "Journals have devolved into information-laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry...").

I do however, have some issues with your take on science - I agree experimentation and replication is an important part of science and hypothesis testing, however, with the assertion (Dr. Glassman's) "if you have not done an experiment, you have not done science" - as it would seem that many "sciences" (geology, environmental chemistry, evolutionary biology) would not make the cut due to the inability to conduct experimentation, whereas in some medical cases, the inability to do so ethically makes experimentation a hopeful unlikelihood.

I do however, agree wholeheartedly with your assertion about certainty and basic science (actually, in my case I've learned the hard way to remain humble and couch my responses and beliefs in such terms). Sadly, it appears science is being politicized on both sides of the aisle (although it is a much more apparently Republican/Conservative activity due to their control of the three branches of government and their pandering to the Christian fundamental base). But then, our representatives are mainly lawyers whose standard of proof is not as strict as scientists, and show it with their rhetoric (sorry Dan MacD!).

And while I'm more sympathetic to Mr. Mueller's original argument (its not the armadillos that I'm worried about, its the alligators showing up further north every year that has me concerned... as do snakes on a plane), I certainly agree with you about the need for politeness and self-control (and my wife, with her teaching english, would be appalled at Mr. Mueller's spelling...).

Lynne (with an "E" - I wouldn't want to crush my soft liberal head with the mandatory tabata HSPUs!) and Coach - thank you for the clarification and the apology on this. I like crossfit's rest day commentaries when ideas clash, and love that it (or tends to be) is a zone of civil discourse.

Mike Mueller,

I regret my involvement in accusing you of plagiarism. Clearly you were not guilty.

Nonetheless, you have been as careless with your postings as with your spelling. I recommend you not load your postings with such massive citations. Just use the URL. Paraphrase what you think is important and relevant in your own voice if you can. When you do quote, us quotation marks or double horizontal caret signs (>>) at the start of every paragraph, or better, both. E.g.,

>>”I did indeed offer a point by point rebuttal to your adhominem [sic] attacks on peer reveiw [sic], scientific method, and me on 060703.” Mike Mueller #129

which you now contradict:

>>”And I certainly do not have the time away from my life to offer point-by-point rebuttals to idiots like Jeff Glassman.” Mike Mueller, circa 6/29/06.

Or

>>”You demonstrate your pathetic ideocy [sic] and ignorace [sic] of how science actually works and progresses in your denial of the value and importance of peer review. You are a toon[?]. And I did post a point-by-point response to your earlier ad hominem attack on me and the peer review process and anthropogenic climate change about a week after our initial exchange a few months back. Mike Mueller #126

You have repeatedly presented long lists of authorities supporting AGW. See Mike Mueller #128. If that list included every scientist and every scientific organization, it would prove nothing but the extent of the gullibility infecting you. To these groups and individuals, peer review is quite important. It is used routinely and successfully not to foster science, but like your pathetic name-calling to suppress dissent and criticism.

I could not find any ad hominem attack by me, and can recall none. Please provide the exact quote and I will 'fess up.

And how dare you accuse me of ideocy and igorace!

Right about now is when my gym teacher would grab a set of gloves and tell us to "settle it"...

Mike-

You may want to spit in my friend's eye but his friends want to pee on your hair...

Or at least have their dogs do it for them.

Woof.

-D.

#144 Patrick, yes, I am overstating the case a bit. Obviously, there are levels of evidence, and the only type of "experiment" we can really do on the planet is making a prediction, and seeing what happens. With respect to climatological models, currently, the issue seems to me to be that, as Jeff Glassman noted in his original post, the models make predictions, then when they don't happen, they say, ooops, we forgot something. NOW we have it straight. It also seems that the models omit known variables such as solar output. I thought Dr. Glassmans original post was excellent in every way, and frankly I can't add to it.

I myself am not willing to say that CO2 emissions are NOT affecting global temperatures. It just seems to me that the level of evidence currently is nowhere close to enough to warrant the large-scale governmental interventions in economic processes that are being sought so fervently by environmental activists. When you read their stuff, they consider the role of CO2 as proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and they simply have not done that. Even today, large groups of scientists--intelligent people--can be convinced of dumb things because they are sold well, and frankly in many cases because of personal interest in one viewpoint over another.

An interesting article...

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Barry (#148) - thanks for the response - I was not privy to Dr. Glassman's original post (probably off slacking somewhere - was that in March?). Maybe a clarification in my interpretation of what models are most useful for: they don't necessarily predict the future (although that is an important use for them) so much as predict the observed data based on other parameters/variables of interest. Even then, there seems like there would always be some error (if not a lot) based upon mis/under-specified models and data error (I'm ecstatic when my modeling of house sales data predicts two-thirds the variance). And of course, lacking data, assumptions must be made (how does one get back-dated data on solar radiation?).

For some very recent (forwarded to me on my U's listserve) clarification/muddling of the data debate, here's the press release from the National Academies of Science concerning the 1998 Michael Mann data with the "hockey stick":
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676

And it is based upon this parameter and data error it seems we (in a general sense... not you and me... necessarily) find ways of disagreeing on. And of course, what political inclination you have tends to lead to the way it is interpreted. That's why I hate the term "junk science" - its not the science that's junk so much as the interpretations that are faulty. So, I guess, on that point we agree.

I will, however, point to the excellent article posted by dbones (#149 - a bit complex for me at times, but thanks!) that suggests that local variations in warming do occur, and that anthropogenic sources play a role, in supporting policy change at the local level. After all, more armadillos on the road means more chances for me to crash my car...

Dr. Jeff Glassman:

I accept that you are not responsible for accusing me of plagerism. I also continue to contend that while you may be a very learned man in your discipline, and evidently a stickler for correct spelling, you are not the world's formost expert on climate change. In fact, I'm still waiting for you to substantively address the statements made by Dr. Hansen in his article. After all, I originally submitted the Hansen article to Greg Glassman in the hope that it would stimulate a debate between the CrossFit community, including AGW contrarians like yourself, and not turn into a vicious piranha attack on me. Oh well, live and learn.

However, I would like to point out to you that in your last post (#145), you mis-spelled ignorance. Doh!

Greg Glassman:

Thank you for the non-apology. I don't think that my professinal reputation has suffered as much from this as has yours. I would suggest that the next time someone sends you an e-mail at info@crossfit.com addressed to you and Lauren, and not a post to the blog and the entire CF community, which was the case here, that you at least offer the sender some advanced notice that you intend to post the email to the blog, and to make damn sure you get it right by paying attention to the contents of the resulting PDF before you post it, so that you can avoid mis-representing the words and ideas of the sender, and having them accused of things for which they are not guilty.

Brian Mulvaney's technical explanation places the problem on Lauren's work machine. I would suggest that the real problem here instead lies with you and your zeal to make an example of those, like me, who dare disagree with you. This zeal resulted in sloppy execution on your part, and a lot of name calling and accusations on the part of your fans. I admit I deserved to get flamed by you for calling you a conserveretard in the private email that I sent to you and Lauren. Certainly you could have replied privately back to my email and told me what you thought of that. I would have respected that. A man would have done that. But to fly off and post some butchered crap and attribute it to me without giving me a fair chance to review it and comment on it before hand are the actions of a bully. I don't think sending you a private e-mail, no matter how insulting it may have been to you, should have resulted in what has happened here in this space.

I note you did have time to share the resulting PDF with Jeff Glassman before you posted it on Monday, but you evidently did not have the time or inclination or sense of fairness to share it with me so that I could correct your error. Nor did you see fit to provide me with the courtesy to advise me in advance that you were indeed going to share my e-mail with the CrossFit community so that I could prepare a calm and reasoned response to the subsequent hammering that I experienced by your fan club. I think you were professionally sloppy and irresponsible in this regard.

To the other CFers who felt the need to criticize me for getting mad and posting negative in response to seeing something falsely attributed to me and then being accused of plagerism: I hope you are never falsly accused of anything, or find yourself having to defend yourself against false accusations, or to defend yourself from the howling mob. If you do, I hope you can show the super human restraint that I have failed to demonstrate, and that you do not get the urge to spit in the eye of the jerk that caused you to be falsely accused.

Well, that's about it. Let me summarize: Anthropogenic climate change is real, and it will negatively affect all of our lives in the future, this according to the world's foremost climate scientists, or it won't, according to the vastly more brainy Jeff Glassman. Greg Glassman has demonstrated to me that he really is a weak and sloppy zealot, and not man enough to offer a sincere apology when he has wronged someone. I have demonstrated that I have a temper and have little tolerance for being falsely accused, but that I am man enough to apologize when I am wrong. Herein lies a cautionary tale to those CFers who dare to challenge the conservative orthodoxy of Greg Glassman's political ideology. And don't ever call him a conserveretard, even in private, as he evidently has a very thin skin.

Thanks to all of the many CFers who took the time to share their kind words with me over this incident. I wish you all well.

Mike Mueller

Patrick (#150):

The post Barry refers to is Jeff Glassman's (#122) from March 21, 2006:

http://www.crossfit.com/cgi-bin/moveabletype/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1100

It's also in this PDF starting on page five:

http://www.crossfit.com/cf-journal/mueller_glassman_agm_2006.pdf

Here's the what is science bit:

>>"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."

In the essay Glassman asserts that:

a) scientific models follow the above hierarchy;

b) for reputable scientists to make a prediction they must exercise a model that fits all of the available data;

c) Global Climate Models are still at the level of conjecture, hence are insufficiently validated to form a basis for scientific prediction.

d) responsible scientists do not make predictions based on conjectures, "...especially if it would alarm the public or if (it) were to be used for public policy".

What I would dearly love is for someone to refute Glassman's logic. Is his definition of science incorrect or incomplete with respect to the matter under consideration? Are GCMs more mature than conjectures? If not, in what ways is it not un scientific and irresponsible to make predictions based on them?

This is funny. You write: "I hope you are never falsly accused of anything, or find yourself having to defend yourself against false accusations, or to defend yourself from the howling mob.", after having called me and a professional rocket scientist "conservaretard toons", with a considerable number of other epithets in the mix directed at a multitude of people.

You write: "I'm still waiting for you to substantively address the statements made by Dr. Hansen in his article." In point of fact, those statements have been addressed, by a number of people. The net of it is that nowhere in that article does he credibly link CO2 emissions with global warming. He just doesn't. Therefore, it's whistling air, and alligator burps. You can't refute something which never happened to begin with.

This is interesting. It is a persisting interest of mine how smart people become stupid. It happens to all of us, but some people seem unwilling or unable to break out of it.

Actually, I know the answer. It is vanity. Ego prevents one's mind from adapting fully to it's surroundings in a condition of change. Jeff Glassman actually changed my mind on global warming. I had one opinion, then examined the facts, expressed coherently and logically, and changed my mind. If someone were to actually challenge his case, factually, I might change my mind again. The truth is what it is, and we are all imbeciles to an extent we really can't fathom until we know everything there is to know about everything, which will likely take at least a few more weeks. Maybe longer.

You know, Coach, if you want to do a short run of Conserveretard Toon T-shirts, I'd wear mine proudly, maybe with "It's Mo@#%#%# Thinking Day" on the back.

Hi Mike (#151):

Glad you are still around. Bear with me a moment while I reach for my safety glasses...

CrossFit is a well of deep skepticism and roll your own empiricism. Unfortunately for you, this is just not an environment where the passion, or even violence, with which you express a belief will benefit your ability to persuade others of its correctness. In fact, the converse is true. The greater the behavior veers towards derangement, the less it seems compatible with rational thought.

Coach likes to make models. (CrossFit being the best known of them.) He's formed a hypothesis (n.b., more than a conjecture) that proponents of disastrous anthropogenic global warming will, when pressed on their beliefs, descend into sputtering infantile rage. You have done nothing to refute that hypothesis.

I don't enjoy your faith in experts, climate modelers or otherwise. In many ways life would be simpler if I could reliably look to others to tell me in what to believe rather than having to evaluate claims critically. I've always been of a generally dubious bent, but like most folks was highly susceptible to the weight of expert opinion. What hardened me was overwhelming evidence that consensus expert opinion on nutrition and exercise is not only wrong, but dangerously wrong. And that, I am convinced, is a fundamental CrossFit experience--one that puts you in a very tough crowd here. You ventured into the den of the skeptic armed only with an appeal to questionable authority, poor language and a professed desire to spit in eyes. You should not be surprised to come away mauled. Misplaced accusations over attribution were the least of the beating.

I don't have any proof that the AGW crowd has the science any more right than the low fat/high carb crowd. In both cases it's easier for me to understand the phenomena in terms of economic and political motivation than it is with scientific method. Like Barry Cooper and so many others in this community, I truly am open to the idea that humans are putting some A into GW, and that it might even be a bad thing we need to account for, but you've got to make a solid case. Invective and Jim Hansen is not only short of the mark, it is fully counterproductive.

Mike (#151): You've inspired me to order up a copy of a new Teaching Company lecture series entitled, "Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It" by your colleague at Lehigh University, Steven L. Goldman:

http://tinyurl.com/guvxs

Looking forward to the material.

Mueller #151:

>>”However, I would like to point out to you that in your last post (#145), you mis-spelled ignorance. Doh!:”

Arghh! You got me. Except what I misspelled was not ignorance, but ignorace. You remember! What you called me -- “ideocy and ignorace”. Mueller #126. For you, we’ll make an exception to the rule, “never explain a joke”.

My computer gives me fits trying to quote your text. It keeps correcting the spelling.

Barry # 148

Good science continuously adjusts its models. There is no penalty for little Ooopses. Often, we just restrict the domain of our models. The classic example is the restriction of Newtonian Mechanics to non-relativistic conditions.

Technology differs from basic science primarily in that the manmade real world can be altered to fit the model when the model doesn’t quite fit.

There was a huge penalty for Fleishman and Ponds for their cold fusion fiasco. Their model was well beyond repair. Only a minor tsk, tsk is needed for climatologists who modeled the earth’s atmosphere based on the greenhouse effect. Ditto for the hockey stick effect. But when they pull out all the stops, sound the alarms, proclaim irreversible catastrophe for man’s alleged effects, demand political action, they should be banished to scientific oblivion.

Patrick #150

Sometimes a scientific model receives recognition merely for its elegance. It may predict nothing beyond what has already been predicted, but it does so with fewer variables or easier computations. Some mathematical relationships are known by exhaustive computation, but recognition follows for an analytical proof. This is along the lines of your suggestions about new relationships based on different parameters or variables.

Sometimes a model qualifies as a theory merely by reducing the error in measurements. Science is continuously examining measurement errors, called noise, trying to model it for a more accurate model of the underlying phenomenon. Examples would be the occurrence and effects of sun spots, and a more accurate model for the 11 year solar cycle.

Generally, for a model to advance from a hypothesis to a theory, it needs to predict some previously unrecognized phenomenon or relationship, or some surprising measurement. It needs to have an element of novelty for full recognition. This is what is meant by predictive power.

Obvious phenomena for which the world is anxiously awaiting useful prediction are major earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. The next ice age or glacial period would also qualify, as would the extent of the on-going, interglacial warming period.

Prediction is about future observations, but not necessarily future events. Some examples might be a prediction about what would be discovered in an archeological excavation into the past. A better example would be the prediction of when a star will appear to go supernova, an event that actually occurred millions of years ago. A model for how the human brain performs some complex function, or what it does during sleep, could qualify if it predicts some new measurements or relationship between measurements. A model that indicates another ice age occurred before those now known, and predicts a consequential observation by some geological method or another, could qualify as a scientific theory.

Hey Mikey-
How 'bout you and your esteemed colleagues peer-review the term "sore loser"? You have my permission to cut and paste from this post

Jeff,
I was going to post a response to Brian Mulvaney's encapsulation of the "dialogue" between you and Mike M, such as it was, but it seems pre-empted by your response.
Brian did a great service, I think, as the back and forth made me reconsider what I wrote above about raising the level of the debate - you were justified in your letter. The striking thing about Mike's writings is the tone - it is not hyperbole to call them frothing, IMO. It struck me that for an academic, Mike seems way overwrought on this topic, while your tone seemed even-handed after re-reading. I hope it is not overstating your position to say that you would even consider AGW a viable postulate IF (capitals) the models could do what you describe - provide the proper level of predictability, having shown that they can reproduce any given known historical climate event (ice age, e.g.) to a requisite certainty AND show upon what inputs and factors the model/simulation is based.

On creds & epistemology - Einstein, the patent clerk, would have been proven right had he written E=mc2 on a cocktail napkin or on the bathroom wall. He wasn't right because a bunch of other smart guys reviewed it and said "hmmm, yess, that's right!" He was right when his special theory properly predicted the minute differences in the eclipse that Newtonian physics couldn't account for.

Thx for taking the time to post.

Brian, appreciate the .pdf with the history. I'm not sure if it's within the moderator job description, but I think it was creditable.

My own experience is that the global warming debunkers are very similar in spirit to creationists. (This sort of thing happens on the left, too. I often think about the exchange described in that “Nation” article about the “science wars” where a researcher begins a talk at a conference when someone interupts: “You believe in ‘genes’??”) Sometimes it seems as if the entire course of my intellectual life has been a long exercise in exploring and fighting the human tendency toward ideology. People desperately need highly simplified and emotionally satisfying overarching explanatory principles and they will go to great lengths to defend them. Now approaching middle-age, I confront this tendency with an increasing sense of futility. I expect to see only spotty and incremental gains in the war against this during my life, but it’s still a war worth fighting.

Conservatives/Libertarians try so very desperately to find their way around such environmental problems and rarely come up with anything even remotely like a credible alternative to conventional statist response (and we do need that.) The image which sums it up for me would be of Justice Scalia standing on the deck of a sinking ship and insisting that a good salt-water bath is just what we need that day.

http://www.thepoorman.net/tcs_parody/tcs_transnational_progressivism.html

#155 Barry...I'm in for one of those shirts!

Jeff,

Sorry about that. I'll need to be more careful about putting words in your mouth. I think we're saying basically the same thing, but you're saying it better.

weightlifting lesson today. the start is good, the snatch high-pull is getting better. need more explosiveness and fluid motion.

I was disappointed by Mike's tirade, partly because of all the personal attacks and loaded rhetoric. However I was equally disappointed by Jeff's response, which amounted to little more than waving his hand dismissively and saying "Bah!"

Mike, I really think you need to tone down the flames. Jeff, dismissing an argument because of who is saying it is just as much an ad hominem mistake as personal insults are. "Ad hominem" means simply "to the man," and refers to any argument that seeks to prove a point by discussing something unrelated (or simply untrue) about one's opponent.

Brian mentioned the empirical tone of Crossfit, and the corresponding distrust of "expert opinion." That's true, and it's a good thing, if used wisely. But it's also a bit of an overstatement. We have our "experts" here on CF as well - people with recognized expertise such as Coach. If someone just waved off Coach's opinions on matters of training, I think most people here would consider such a person unwise at best. He might not be the be all and end all (I'm sure he'd agree with me on that), but it's just not accurate to say that his opinion carries no more weight here than anyone else's, in his area of expertise.

Empiricism relies on being able to actually perceive the results of an experiment, after all. So for instance with regard to our own training it's an excellent tool: we can see the numbers (bodyweight, body fat, poundages) change for ourselves and measure just how effective a given training method is for us personally. With climate change, though, not so much. Climatologists have the tools and the expertise to measure and observe climate on a global scale. We individuals in our gyms don't. Empiricism is effective only if you recognize its limitations.

Experts likewise have their place. If your computer is having problems, are you going to trust your system and your precious data to a trained professional, or to your cousin Howard (who just finished "Windows for Dummies")? If you want to learn about a new discovery in chemistry, do you want to get your information from a Ph.D. Chemist, or from an editorial in the "Wall Street Journal?"

"Science is not a democracy." That is true, in the sense that science does not determine what is "true" by voting. However the process of science itself contains fact-checking and error-detection mechanisms such as predictive modeling and reproducibility. This means that if, over the course of years, a great many scientists gradually come to the same conclusion it demands a high standard of proof to defend another model. In other words, scientists can't define reality by vote, but if the overwhelming majority of scientists are saying the same thing, that's the way to bet. And if someone with an opposing viewpoint wants to be taken seriously then he or she had best have some pretty solid evidence.

Here's an example of empiricism, consensus, and expert opinion all coming together in Crossfit: Suppose "Joe" was trying to build his leg strength, and asked for advice. I think the consensus opinion here would weigh in overwhelmingly in favor of squatting as the best all-round tool for that, assuming no prohibitive back or leg injuries.

But suppose Joe says "No, I don't have any chronic injuries, but I've tried squatting and it doesn't increase my poundages much. Also it hurts my knees and my lower back." Well, here we have Joe's empirical experience refuting the consensus. And yet, the consensus is that this is a darn good movement for leg strength, so perhaps there's something wrong here.

Perhaps Joe would do well to see an expert about his squats. There might be a couple of simple adjustments to his form that would solve his problems and help this exercise work for him as well as it works for most people. Or an expert might be able to suggest another exercise that would work better in Joe's particular case. Joe could test the changes out empirically and see if they helped him.

My point is simply that saying "Sure, the experts agree about global warming, but what do experts know anyway?" is unwise. And it's not how we usually do things, even in Crossfit. It's being done in the global warming debate mainly because what the experts say is uncomfortable and inconvenient.

Jeff, when it comes right down to it, what are your real objections to AGW theory? Is it the variability in the outcomes of various models? Fair enough, but even the most conservative peer-reviewed forecasts are pretty bleak. It shouldn't be lack of observations, since there are thousands upon thousands of actual measured datapoints. Is it a sense of a rush to judgement by scientists, even though the consensus on AGW has taken 10-15 years to gel? I'd really like a concise summary of just why you dismiss that consensus so casually.

To date, I have seen no solid evidence to refute AGW. If you can provide some, I would like to see it.

Shar (#161):

You wrote: "Sometimes it seems as if the entire course of my intellectual life has been a long exercise in exploring and fighting the human tendency toward ideology. People desperately need highly simplified and emotionally satisfying overarching explanatory principles and they will go to great lengths to defend them. Now approaching middle-age, I confront this tendency with an increasing sense of futility. I expect to see only spotty and incremental gains in the war against this during my life, but it’s still a war worth fighting. "

Ok, I'll bite. Here are the simplified and emotionally satisfying overarching explanatory principles of my ideology:

-individual liberty as a first principle
-the rule of law
-free markets
-limited government

These are principles worth fighting for. At this very moment, men far better than I are engaged in mortal struggle to defend them. That's literal, not metaphorical war. I can't think of anything more humbling.

So just exactly which complex (nuanced?) principles would you seek to replace mine with? What would your victory look like?

Nice job, by the way, invoking the religious right boogie man: "You believe in 'genes'??". Now be honest, is that a sentiment you ever have personally encountered during the course of your long intellectual life, or is it just something you found in The Nation?

Brian Mulvaney (#153) thanks for the post - plenty to chew on there. I enjoyed reading the back and forth between Mr. Mueller and Dr. Glassman... interesting human dynamic going on there... however, interestingly, I'm finding much more light than heat (and smoke) in the current discussion... one point, that I would like addressed by both you and Dr. Glassman is point "c" of your/his post. Does a hypothesis have to address "all the data" (which seems to be highly difficult, as there are always outliers and all data is typically not in)? If not, then what is the threshold?

Dr. Glassman (#158) thanks again - if I get this right, science, as an enterprise, moves forward on the basis of new measurements (such as Rosalind Franklin's x-ray photos of DNA) and/or new theories to explain those measurements (such as Watson and Cricks theory of the double helix)? But even in the case of the double helix, it is not so much a predictive theory as just descriptive.

I guess one of the problems I have (and I believe I've noted in previous posts) is that some aspects of the scientific enterprise are relatively "easy" to work with, as they are more amenable for laboratory studies, whereas other aspects of the scientific enterprise are highly difficult to deal with, as it involves the messiness of data with plenty of noise and not fully specified models in that there are a variety of variables to deal with, and then specification of how these variables affect the variable of interest (the dependent variable), which might be linear, logorithmic, exponential, etc (sorry, I'd have to go find my stats book to continue...), and then the potential for interaction of these variables with each other (which may or may not be linear, etc).

So given the "messiness" of modeling such things as the climate, earthquakes, human behavior, etc., and the indeterminancy of the findings, what is the level at which we ought to take action?

I guess the best way of addressing this is make a conjecture that crossfit is a, well, conjecture (don't get me wrong, on a purely pragmatic level, crossfit works for me): there is no real dependent variable (fitness, while identified as ten components, which are conceptual components of the theory of crossfit, do not have a standard of measurement), the independent variable(s) - that of crossfit, are complex in that there is a high degree of variability within the program (and my apologies for not taking into account Coach's program design -I have yet to buy that edition of the crossfit journal - maybe some day there will be a crossfit book, hint, hint!), as well as variability within individuals doing crossfit (and the variability of their day-to-day life, as well) and given the difficulty of measuring all aspects of this, as well as the potential for variable response rates, there is no reason to consider crossfit as anything beyond conjecture - correct? And if that is the case, does that argue against doing crossfit, or maybe at what level of evidence should action be taken?

Now I know that this is an analogy (not a homology) and there are bound to be errors in reasoning (I'm not a philosopher king, that's for certain!), but ultimately, with everything, it seems the question is, what is the threshhold for action?

Of course, I might just be echoing Paul S.'s (#165) fine post.

Brian Mulvaney (#166), if I might address your post (responding to Shar's post #161) - I won't disagree with your first principles - they are mine as well, and they are worth fighting for - however, a question here would be one of definition - how does one define individual liberty? Does it include my ability to play loud music all night in spite of my neighbors presence? Can I pass gas around them, or swear, spit tobacco on them, blow smoke into their faces, go naked, be drunk/wasted. Does the free market allow for pollution of the atmosphere with mercury and lead, the spraying of pesticides that drifts onto my fields and into the water, etc. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just believe there is a nuanced argument as to definition of each of these principles that varies based on where you live (i.e., in a big city, I'm for gun control, but in the country, I'm all for gun ownership).

And actually, to address the religious right boogie man - I've been there - I was a part of the religious right in my education, and I know the people who are there and their attitude towards science, freedom, the environment and the like, and it scares me (they're my parents too). It scares me fiercely that people who believe the end times and rapture will occur in fifty years are making policy that will affect my (as yet unborn) children.

I think the relevant points keep getting missed. In my understanding, the relevant points are these:

1) The earth seems to be getting warmer
2) Carbon Dioxide (and other) emissions have increased in the last 100 years
3) As a result, many people have concluded the two are linked, and demand public policy changes which will affect most industries in pretty dramatic ways.

Literally every argument for massive regulation I see uses as a 1-2 punch: 1) Anecdotal evidence for global warming; 2) a computer model showing how that warming COULD be tied to carbon dioxide emission.

Jeff's contribution, in my view (again, my view, I'm not wanting to put words in his mouth; errors are mine), was simply to point to counter-arguments relative to the CO2-as-warming-agent idea, combined with the sipmle observation that Minnesota, as one example, used to be covered with glaciers. That's why there are 10,000+ lakes there. Now, the glaciers are gone. Why? The earth got warmer. It happens. Regularly. Therefore saying that glaciers are receding somewhere doesn't amount to a hill of beans scientifically, especially when it may objectively be the case that Antartica is getting colder. That latter fact (if it is a fact) also creates trouble with computer models predicting greater warmth. Now, as he pointed out (in my understanding), it could be that one variable was forgotten, and the models are NOW correct. But that is hardly sufficient reason to tell most of the Third World they can't develop heavy industry to improve their living conditions. If we could, which I don't think we can.

Bottom line: BIG regulation, small evidence.

Barry, the evidence for global warming is far from anecdotal. It's based on actual measurements of worldwide climate.

The greenhouse effect of CO2 is well-established scientifically as well. Where do you get the idea that all of this is based on stories and guesswork?

I had an interesting thought this evening. Many posts have stated that they do not believe in global warming because the predictions are based on computer models that have not been verified by independent repeatable testing. However, how many of these same people believe in evolution, which has not been verified by repeatable experiments?

Actually dbones (#170), neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory has been verified by repeated experiments in terms of adaptations of different animal species to their environments. A good example would be the concept of symmetry = beauty. Symmetry across the natural world (trees, animals, humans) is desirable; it also is an indicator of low parasite load. So, as simple a thing as "what is beauty" has adaptive value for those who hold that value in terms of reproductive fitness. And example specific to humans would be the 2-to-3 hip-to-waist ratio for women. Women who are at their most fecund exhibit this ratio cross-culturally (i.e., beauty is not in the eyes of the beholder); post-menopausal women are noted by their thickening waists in comparison with their hips. And of course, there is no more powerful an indicator of evolution's power than agriculture.

So, in sum, it is not so much a "belief in evolution" as it is an awareness of its explanatory power (i.e., I don't have to believe in gravity for it to have an effect on me).

Patrick,

I don't want to hijack this forum but when discussing evolution a definition of terms is useful. What you described would be classified as micro-evolution as the species does not change but develops a more surviving trait. Macro-evolution would deal with the transformation of one species into another (i.e. a fish that is capable of walking on land). My earlier comments were aimed at the latter definition of evolution.

Shar #161:

>>”My own experience is that the global warming debunkers are very similar in spirit to creationists.”

First, I say again, GW is quite real. It is AGW that is false. The analogy here should be between creationism and AGW. Each has some basis in observations, but in the end both are nonsense as far as objective knowledge goes.

Patrick #167:

Science moves forward through its models of the Real World, advancing those models from conjecture to hypotheses, to theories, and finally to laws. In general, a hypothesis need not address “all the data”; that is asking too much. But a hypothesis must satisfy all the data in the sense that it must not be falsifiable by some datum in its domain. If a hypothesis can be shown not to satisfy even one datum, it must be redefined or demoted to a conjecture. Scientists get their kicks from finding some falsifying datum for someone else's model.

Patrick #171:

Whether models are explanatory or descriptive are irrelevant, subjective tangents. As satisfying as they might be (subjective again), those aspects are purely in the eyes of the beholders.

What explains things to LCDR Data or describes things to Geordi La Forge are quite different than what explains or describes the same things to Jean-Luc.

Science is the objective branch of knowledge. It builds on facts: measurements compared to standards. The whole crew should be able to agree on that much.

Science is not a belief system. One may believe in it or its models as he might choose. But the weight of the believers is no part of the art. Science is not about voting, either.

Science IS about predictive power, all in the objective world. That's what the meaning of is is.

Science may not invoke a supernatural power. God is about faith and mystery. If He were measurable, or predictable, He would be demoted to the Man Behind the Curtain.

What science shares with theology is that both are manmade.

Hey guys - looks like we'll be off the board pretty soon. If so - thanks - I enjoyed it and learned a lot.

dbones (#172) - but that is what evolution is about (unless you take the saltation/punctuated equilibria approach of Eldridge and Gould [sorry, I forgot the author of the saltation theory]), incremental change due to environmental stimuli through the mechanism of increased reproductive fitness. Ultimately, in the case of the latter, scientists need to provide the link between species ("missing link") - and even then we have to remember that species are a man-made concept over which there is a great deal of debate (especially when it comes to regulatory actions such as the endangered species act). Linneas developed a systematic approach, but that was based on phenotypic (physical) differences. A good example of the problems with such an approach is that of "race". Anyhow, I'm sure we'll have a dialogue on this at a later point if we aren't able to continue on here.

Dr. Glassman - yep to your response to #167 - agreed on the falsification thing - the only way the scientific enterprise goes forward is by running into a lot of blind alleys, going back to the beginning and starting over again. Hence the 99% (97%?) perspiration/1% (3%) inspiration.

As to the response to #171, I hate to go all philosophical on you, but considering variations within each individual in their sensory abilities, the differences in interpretation of communication/language, and the fact that humans are causal creatures (we make causal inferences even about random things - hence the overwhelming success of gambling), I might quibble about the term "objective world".

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a post-modern deconstructionist (egads!), but I'm not a Platonist (come out of the cave...). I'd say the "objective reality" approach is great when teaching undergrads and the like, but I'd like to stay more "Aristotelian" in saying we can find "small 't' truth" as opposed to saying there either is "no truth" or "capitol 'T' truth" of which only true believers/initiates are aware.

So in sum - I agree, but with caveats (and a great deal of humility/skepticism as to my own abilities to make truth claims). Science is predictive of the objective world, but humans are not objective in that they cannot share the same sensory datum in exactly the same way, nor communicate in exactly the same sense to each other. To carry the Star Trek analogy forward, humans are not Borg - as you put it so well, we have different ways of processing the same information (what is objective reality and what are the causal variables) and communicating it (back to noise). Which is why we have politics (such as what is the threshold of action and what are the best approaches to dealing with issues that are perceived as problems) and crossfit rest day "fun-time" (!)

And thanks for the Star Trek reference... if I were to post my full name, I'd probably be accused of trolling... or get lots of fan mail...

Finally, agreed on the final comments. There's a whole lot of debate there... Anyhow, have a great rest of the weekend.