October 3, 2006

Tuesday 061003

Rest Day

fgb38-th.jpg

Enlarge image

CrossFitters net $100,000 for prostate cancer research.


2006 USA Weightlifting World Team

"Hot and Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge to Journalists who Cover Global Warming", Senator James Inhofe, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senate Floor Speech.

Post thoughts to comments.

Posted by lauren at October 3, 2006 6:46 PM
Comments

Inspiring video. Go USA! Go Casey!

Comment #1 - Posted by: John Seiler at October 2, 2006 7:16 PM

How BADASS is that video!

Awesome job Casey.

Comment #2 - Posted by: DJ at October 2, 2006 7:22 PM

Coach Glassman quotes page moved to http://crossfitoakland.com

Send quotes for inclusion to info@crossfitoakland.com

Comment #3 - Posted by: Maximus at October 2, 2006 7:28 PM

Nice work Maximus on the Quotes page.

Comment #4 - Posted by: DJ at October 2, 2006 7:36 PM

Hasn't Inhofe collected more than $300,000 in contributions from the oil and gas industry and $180,000 from utilities in the past 6 years? While this doesn't strike the merits of what he's arguing with respect to science (many others have done that), it does speak against his crying foul in regards to the media and their false politicization of global climate change.

Comment #5 - Posted by: zach at October 2, 2006 7:43 PM

DJ #4: Thanks

Coach: I thought this article was thought provoking: it led me to this Wiki entry on the "Little Ice Age" that I never heard of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Anyone who has totally accepted global warming should take a look.

Comment #6 - Posted by: Maximus at October 2, 2006 7:49 PM

Inhofe is more or less a laughing stock on the subject of global warming.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/11/opinion/main666190.shtml

Comment #7 - Posted by: charlie at October 2, 2006 7:52 PM

Charlie,

Intelligent people will likely read no further than the first sentence of your linked article. The objectivity ends at the moment the article begins.

Try again. I'm laughing at YOU.

Comment #8 - Posted by: Coach at October 2, 2006 8:01 PM

Governments, particularly demoncratic governments, are a mirror of the people they represent. Look at the people in the congress and the senate and ask yourself, are you proud of these people? Ask yourself how much credibility do any of these people have? Why would anyone believe anything from any of them, including Sen. Inhofe?

Comment #9 - Posted by: Ken Davis at October 2, 2006 8:03 PM

Ken,

You're on to something. Credentials are worthless. Time to think.

Comment #10 - Posted by: Coach at October 2, 2006 8:06 PM

#9 Ken,
"demoncratic" is that a Freudian slip?

Comment #11 - Posted by: Dorie G at October 2, 2006 8:12 PM

Inhofe writes:
"The history of the modern environmental movement is chock full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, and the projected death of our oceans. None of these predictions came true, yet it never stopped the doomsayers from continuing to predict a dire environmental future."

I would submit that many of these fears didn't come true, because people did something about them. As with climate change models, the models that generated the above predictions state as a basic assumption "If things don't change, then..." The idea is to change the trend, not to just hope it will go away.

Senator Inofe also writes:
"Changing to more energy-efficient light bulbs is a fine thing to do, but to somehow imply we can avert a climate disaster by these actions is absurd."

How is this absurd? Newer, more energy-efficient buildings, lights, power plants, etc., all add up to much less energy used, which over the long term, and across a large population, can make a very large difference. Is it enough of a difference? Who knows -- as has been stated in many rest days here on this subject: it's a complex world.

I can't really tell if Senator Inohofe cares more about our crappy media or about what he considers bad science. As far as I'm concerned, the second half of the speech is a waste: news from the file marked "duh". I've posted plenty on this subject and won't waste any more time on it.

As for the climate change issue, I'm not going to go too much into that, either. Senator Inhofe is heavily involved with the oil industry (as noted by zach in comment #5), and has a great deal of interest in not believing in anthropogenic global warming. I'm sure there is plenty of "groupthink" in the scientific community, just as there is in virtually any community. The fact that there are bad models that were over-hyped and that there is some lazy science going on in the climate-science community. Nevertheless, I believe that Senator Inhofe uses these facts to simply confirm what he already has a great interest in believing. I also believe that he's wrong.

In this case, dispite the hysteria of the press, and bad treaties that don't do a lot of good, like Kyoto, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that increased levels of CO2, as well as other gases like methane, hexafluoroethane, etc., are contributing to global warming. It's not clear how much, and it's not clear how bad things are going to get.

So I ask you this: if you can make a very small sacrifice now, to avoid the possibility of massive problems in the future, why wouldn't you? What are you afraid of?

Comment #12 - Posted by: madman at October 2, 2006 8:33 PM

you're the one who is being laughed at, charlie, and not just by coach.

giving a fake email just MIGHT have something to do with that.

Comment #13 - Posted by: David Aguasca at October 2, 2006 8:51 PM

Madman,

Actually the preponderance of the evidence does not support global warming. Check your math before you make a statement.

Comment #14 - Posted by: Grant at October 2, 2006 8:59 PM

I'm still torn on this whole global climate change thing. On the one hand, I keep hearing that thermometers from remote areas and satellite records show warming, in addition to things like corals, ocean and lake sediments, tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, etc. And reading articles like this one:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change

On the other hand, while I used to feel manipulated by politicians who denied global climate change, I now feel more manipulated by people who are trying to create a climate of fear and use global climate change as a way to have more government regulation, more loss of personal freedoms. Hmmm...

There's a huge difference between social (environmental) responsibility and legislation.

Comment #15 - Posted by: treelizard at October 2, 2006 9:18 PM

Does charlie only post on restdays?

Comment #16 - Posted by: Travis L @ Prosperity at October 2, 2006 9:21 PM

Grant,
I do not know what math you are refering to, but it is a FACT that the earth is warming at a unprecidented rate, irregardless of what you beleive the causes are.
Oh and there are scripts that crawl the internet searching for email addresses which are then sold to spammers. So not revealing a real email address may not be a bad idea at all.

Comment #17 - Posted by: Allen at October 2, 2006 9:27 PM

On a positive, non-argumentative not....
Congratulations to all the great CrossFitter that participated in the Fight Gone Bad Fund-Raiser. You are all amazing people!
...now we return you to your regularly schedualed rants...

Comment #18 - Posted by: Travis L @ Prosperity at October 2, 2006 9:32 PM

p.s. this video was funny.
http://www.transbuddha.com/mediaHolder.php?id=1147&pID=725752
(warning: it makes fun of Bush)

Comment #19 - Posted by: treelizard at October 2, 2006 9:38 PM

sweet vid...congrats Casey!!!

Comment #20 - Posted by: Eva T. at October 2, 2006 10:57 PM

Why would an organization that focusses on health/fitness keep linking to political issues? I come to this site for a great workout and to be motivated and inspired by amazing people. I dont need to know what the organization's owners feel about politics. Reading political exchanges takes away from that. I go to other sites/forums to "spar" on political/sensitive topics

I would suggest that if this site was created by a single indiviudal, he/she have a link to their personal blog so as to seperate their personal opinions from the core content (ie fitness). That way people can exit the site to read the org's opinions on topics other than fitness. Just my 2 cents.

Comment #21 - Posted by: Rob_d at October 3, 2006 1:07 AM

Rob_d,

The fitness espoused here is at least as contentious as the politics. CrossFit's detractors share the epistemological foundations of those who hate the right-of-far-left political, social, and economic views shared here. Fitness (and nutrition) beliefs are inextricably enmeshed in political perspective.

Many of you loving the fitness and hating the politics have broken ranks with the left to embrace reality on a single facet. Congratulations and keep on thinking.

Comment #22 - Posted by: Coach at October 3, 2006 1:41 AM

Rob_d,
Stay here, it's a one stop shop. Improve your ability to spar in real life with exceptional fitness training. Entertain yourself with generally intelligent people debating political, socioeconomical perspectives.

Comment #23 - Posted by: Robert Taylor at October 3, 2006 2:22 AM

Rob_d,
The issue of global warming and the political, social, and economic impact it has is so far reaching that it is worth discussion in any forum, in my opinion. If you don't like the intellectual stretching offered up on rest days, then don't participate; however, you must have some thoughts on the issue one way or the other that could provide insight and thought for others. Even if you disagree with the issue of global warming, you can't escape the other issue presented - media hype and its impact on us.

I tend to agree with the senator's views despite his support from the oil industry. At least he presented facts to support his assertions about media hype and scientific views that challenge global warming that are often overlooked.

There's no doubt that our climate is changing. Everything we do contributes in some way to climactic change. I just don't agree with the alarmists and their extreme views.

Rob-d, I suggest staying the course and use rest-day discussions to gain a broader perspective. Besides, everything here is free. So Coach can post whatever he wants.

Comment #24 - Posted by: Steve Rakow at October 3, 2006 2:57 AM

Coach, correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying that because I like/agree with Crossfit that I am more politically aligned with you?

Comment #25 - Posted by: Travis L @ Prosperity at October 3, 2006 3:03 AM

Actually Travis, I believe what Coach is saying is that by coming here, you've shown yourself willing to think/have an open mind. The "correct" fitness paradigm has been known and rabidly pushed for decades, and many of us have found it to be utter crap...and have found something better here at CF due to our willingness to spend a bit of time researching (to find CF in the first place) and our open minds (willing to try workouts that fly in the face of conventional thinking). I believe the rest day articles and commentary are a place where Coach would like to see a similar willingness to investigate the "accepted" claims and use an open mind to evaluate them.

It's not about Coach forcing his political/social/economic beliefs down our throats, it's about him suggesting we don't just accept "common knowledge".

Comment #26 - Posted by: Jim at October 3, 2006 3:16 AM

gday all, i want to make something very clear, i once logged on as just 'charlie' however I AM NOT THE CHARLIE WHO POSTS ALL THIS CRAP.....

i now wonder if the delay in me getting my shirts i ordered has anything to do with this! haha

Comment #27 - Posted by: aussie charlie at October 3, 2006 3:35 AM

Like most speeches in the US Congress, the Inhofe diatribe is yet another bit of fraud. He pretends to be challenging the media and their standards of objective reporting, but he's really using that title subject as a flimsy excuse to blast proponents of global warming theories based on a construct of skepticism derived from his personal idea of science being broadly right or wrong. The man looks ill, some kind of drunk with a bloated face and serious edema, his brain cannot possibly be fully functional. The idiot seems to be ignorant of predictions of major climate shifts involving both cooling and warming. For example, one result of melting arctic ice and dilution of northern ocean salinity with fresh water is the slowing, if not complete elimination, of the Gulf Stream conveyor system, which without doubt will throw all of northern Europe and parts of North America into an unprecedented Ice Age with catastrophic consequences. The sad reality is that the Earth's environment is not a constant created for the benefit of mankind, and it is quite capable of assuming any of several long term steady state conditions that would be totally destructive of all life as we know it. And because the planet is overpopulated with many of our necessities produced by highly sophisticated *science* based industries operating at redlined capacity, the slightest bit of perturbation spells for millions if not billions of deaths. Things just need to tip the right, or wrong, way.

Comment #28 - Posted by: RobertP at October 3, 2006 3:54 AM

Also, bear in mind that the Crossfit HQ hails from Santa Cruz, one of the most socially, religiously, and politically charged areas in California. Berkley contends daily for this title, as well.

Having attend UCSC and lived in Capitola, a respite in the hornet's nest of Santa Cruz county, I can tell you that you quickly are forced to establish a position and, more importantly, a conviction. Convictionless people will be chewed up and spit out in SC county, especially SC proper.

So don't be so surprised that Crossfit is as convicted as it is about its fitness philosophy and the political views of its owners are as heart-felt as they appear. It is a function of not isolating one's self in Santa Cruz. Unless you sit in a cave and never socialize that is how things roll in SC.

(side note: just thinking of SC makes me want to hit Linda's for some Seabreeze Spuds!)

Comment #29 - Posted by: SFC at October 3, 2006 4:09 AM

Just to break ranks for a moment... Congrats to all the U.S. weightlifters, especially Coach Mike's son. What I found incredible were the side views of the lifters. The bar path barely strayed out of the vertical plane. Awesome.

Comment #30 - Posted by: Mike Joyce at October 3, 2006 4:12 AM

Interesting observation, SFC #29. Misbeliefs or not, it is far more preferable to consort with people of passion than apathetic and ignorant dregs.

Comment #31 - Posted by: RobertP at October 3, 2006 4:28 AM

Jim, I really don't think that's what he was saying at all. But it's really a non-issue.

Yael, funny video.

Enjoy the rest day everyone.

Comment #32 - Posted by: Travis L @ Prosperity at October 3, 2006 4:47 AM

Few things:

I liked the phrase "climate porn". Polemical, obviously, but clever.

Second, the quote: "French President Jacques Chirac provided the key clue as to why so many in the international community still revere the Kyoto Protocol, who in 2000 said Kyoto represents “the first component of an authentic global governance.”

Third, for the global warming Kool-Aid (Warm-aid?) drinkers: how does the warming period in the Medieval Period fit within the supposedly impecable climate models? What caused it? You should be able to answer that question in detail with confidence. I expect crickets or hems and haws. Surprise me.

Comment #33 - Posted by: barry cooper at October 3, 2006 5:02 AM

Wow...our parks in GA don't have those nifty rowers and squat racks...all we have are swings too small for me and a twisting enclosed slide that I always get stuck in...

Comment #34 - Posted by: Mike OD at October 3, 2006 5:33 AM

RobertP
Based upon your description of the Senetor I wasn't sure if you were describing Inhofe or Kennedy.

The Global warming sky is falling crowd looses me when just three monthsago we were being told this is going to be the worst hurricane season ever. The computer models show it! Well..... here we are a few months later and it turns out to be one of the quietest on record. Based upon this and the weather "experts" inability to get the upcoming weekends weather correct, I'm just a little leary of uprooting my whole way of life over Irwin Allen disaster movie scenarios that never seem to pan out.

One last question. What model cars were around 15,000 years ago to melt the ice sheets that were covering most of Europe?

Comment #35 - Posted by: Jason B at October 3, 2006 5:37 AM

"Intelligent people will likely read no further than the first sentence of your linked article. The objectivity ends at the moment the article begins.

Try again. I'm laughing at YOU."

That seems rather impolite.

Comment #36 - Posted by: Andrew N at October 3, 2006 5:50 AM

RobertP-

I was with you on everything that you said at Comment #28 until you had to demonize our "highly sophisticated *science* based industries" Why ya gotta hate on the science? No RESPECK!

btw- In my undergrad classes on palentology, geology and natural history we studied the Ice Age and the physical records of climate changes, of course, and I remember being impressed to find that we are paradoxically within an extended warm peroid of a major glacial advance. And it could all change within a generation or even a decade. The climate changes very dramatically, but we've enjoyed one of the longest period of pleseant weather the world has ever know.

A good read - "Why Geography Matters: Three challenges facing America, climate change, the rise of China and global terrorism" (Harm De Blij).

-K

Comment #37 - Posted by: Kevin Rogers (Springfield, IL) at October 3, 2006 6:06 AM

Rob_d/Travis
I can't say I always agree with what the coach posts on the rest days. And I don't post often on rest or non-rest days which always seems like an easy way to put someone down on the site but I think the articles are a good way to explore your own views and formulate an opinion whether similar or opposing. It's a good thing that the website tries to get you to work more than your body.

Comment #38 - Posted by: Adam_B at October 3, 2006 6:33 AM

Off topic for a rest day, but:
Did yesterdays WOD today (kids and work took all of yesterday)

135/155/185/185/195/195/205/215/225(PR)
BW 158
Age 37

May not seem like much, but I began CrossFit @4 weeks ago, and the most I could DL was 135...
I have also lost @5 lbs, sleep better, feel better, and have even been told that I look better!
Thanks Coach! This Kool-Aid is delicious!

Comment #39 - Posted by: Josh L at October 3, 2006 6:38 AM

"Many of you loving the fitness and hating the politics have broken ranks with the left to embrace reality on a single facet. Congratulations and keep on thinking."

This has got to be the strangest thing I've ever read on here. What does a fitness program involving intense, varied functional workouts have at *all* to do with politics?

Coach, your worldview seems to be something approximating "all leftist thinking is wrong! All wrong thinking is leftist!" This does not strike me as the attitude of someone who truly thinks about things, but rather the attitude of someone who has packaged up their view of the world into neat partitions and refuses to self-examine.

Anyway, I'll post some global warming resources a bit later.

Comment #40 - Posted by: Ken at October 3, 2006 6:51 AM

Ken, I think it's well known that bodypart splits are part of the communist plot to takeover America.

First, steady state cardio. Next, La Revolución! Viva Weider!

Comment #41 - Posted by: Andrew N at October 3, 2006 6:59 AM

Matthew Axelson honored by President Bush:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060929-3.html
3rd paragraph from the bottom.
Robb

Comment #42 - Posted by: Robb Wolf at October 3, 2006 7:02 AM

While I always read the articles that are posted for rest days, I find it very hard to believe that Coach presents these articles for us to all say (mindlessly), "You are right Coach!" What kind of conversation is that, when everyone agrees with each other?
I think Coach presents these articles to challenge our minds the same way our bodies get challenged on the 3 days on. Growing is a painful thing to do and that's not just with your body. A lot of people when faced with the challenge to grow will resist with more energy than it would have taken for them to actually grow. So instead of railing against the articles posted just because it makes you uncomfortable (because you are being challenged to grow), maybe you should rise to the challenge and read the article and learn something new. Every day is presented to you to learn something new, it's up to you to decide if you will learn or not. Be thankful that you have a mind to be challenged. Be thankful that we don't live in a society that limits what we learn, there by making us dumber. Be thankful we live in a place that allows us to debate openly.

Thank you Coach for the daily lessons, whatever form they take. I hope that I did not put words in your mouth.

As for the topic, I am really having a hard time believing that global warming is not just some hype cooked up by attention seekers. I remember hearing not too long ago that we were just coming out of an ice age. I remember when I was a kid there were some winters where the snow would be on the ground until June, and people were screaming about global cooling and what did it mean.

Kate

Comment #43 - Posted by: jknl at October 3, 2006 7:02 AM

On a lighter note. Has anyone heard the RI theme song, "What are you going to do now PL"? Very funny with a lot of old school NCO language. It will bring back great memories. Now back to the weather. How about that killer hurricane season.

Comment #44 - Posted by: John at October 3, 2006 7:20 AM

Sounds odd that one would lump together those that denigrate CrossFit with those that hold a liberal or progressive worldview.

While I believe that CO2 has the ability to bring about the greenhouse effect, I also know that geothermic activities like volcanoes can bring about periods of cooling. Then there's the theory (no, I can't cite it) that just the solar system passing through a cosmic cloud of stardust could bring about cooling trends as the Sun's energy gets absorbed by the matter before it reaches the Earth.

While I laugh at Inhofe's attack on media as if it's a vast left-wing conspiracy, he does provide the numbers and dates concerning warming and cooling trends. The question however is can excess deposits of CO2 in our atmosphere bring about cataclysmic events or just incovenient events? He and others are willing to accept inconvenience in exchange for the boon that's been visited upon our race this last century (global wars not withstanding). So even if he's wrong, he hedged his bets in the speech.

Comment #45 - Posted by: Nuke-Marine at October 3, 2006 7:21 AM

First of all, you can pry my Scandinavian welfare state from my cold dead hands.

Second of all, science should not have anything to do with politics.

Comment #46 - Posted by: dirty godless leftist at October 3, 2006 7:28 AM

Wow, going through and attempting to verify all the claims in this speech is going to take a while, and I'm afraid that by the time I write up my own response to the article, this rest day entry will be long past read.

So for now I will post this response to the speech, for balance: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/9/25/17124/9789 ... it has bulletted responses to the major claims by Inhofe, and is worth your consideration. Though I wouldn't be surprised if Coach found some sentence in it that convinced him it was unworthy to be read.

I would also like to state that I generally find the popular media's portrayal of science to be abysmal, whatever side of politics it's on. This includes global warming -- there *is* way too much hype out there, and it hurts the credibility of the real scientists working on this issue. The fact is, the great majority of climate scientists out there take global warming very seriously.

I did find one claim by Inhofe that was completely misleading: The whole business of the Copenhagen Consensus. Inhofe claims that "They placed global warming at the bottom of the list in terms of our planet’s priorities." This is false. Any "thinking person" out there should go and read the Copenhagen Consensus and see for themselves what it says, instead of taking Inhofe's word at face value. The list they produced was *not* a list of our planet's priorities, but rather a ranked list of current proposed solutions to problems, based on how effective they expected them to be. The panel thought global warming *was* a threat, but just didn't like any of the current solutions. But don't take my word for it: "The panel recognised that global warming must be addressed, but agreed that approaches based on too abrupt a shift toward lower emissions of carbon are needlessly expensive." This single misleading statement makes me *incredibly* skeptical of every other single thing Inhofe says. He's just not a reliable source.

Finally, here's a few basic web sites that I would urge any climate change skeptics to read through and consider carefully:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/guides-by-category.html
http://www.realclimate.org/

Comment #47 - Posted by: Ken at October 3, 2006 7:38 AM

#38 Adam_B - So what are you trying to tell me? Maybe I'm dense, or maybe I've had a long day, but I can't seem to figure out what you were trying to say to me.

Comment #48 - Posted by: Travis L @ Prosperity at October 3, 2006 7:39 AM

Here's some strong evidence CO2 is a lagging, not a leading indicator of warming.

from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/vostokco2.html, we find the following abstract:

Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations
Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, and Bruce Deck

Scripps Institution of Oceanography.


Links to Paper Sources:
Published: © by the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Science, 283, 1712-1714
Download Vostok CO2 Data and Data Description from this study.


Abstract:
Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program / WDC for Paleoclimatology
8 February 2000.

Comment #49 - Posted by: Harry MacD at October 3, 2006 7:44 AM

why can't people just get it through their heads that no matter how many people say there shouldn't be politics on rest days and call Coach rude IT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE!!! Every week someone has to come and say the same thing that someone said last week. And then come the same responses ... we should all take turns (every rest day) to be the first person to post . And post something like

"Yes, it's a rest day. Yes, that means politics.
No, Coach doesn't care if you think he shouldn't post political articles. Just don't read them. No, he doesn't care if you think he is rude. If you don't want him to be "rude" then don't post stupid , because he will call you on it. In fact, almost everyone will call you on it."

Actually someone else should write it since you all (pretty much all of you)are more eloquent than i.which is why I usually dont join the arguments. I just listen and sometimes learn.

I like rest days. These conversations kinda let you get to know other crossfitters.

Comment #50 - Posted by: Tami at October 3, 2006 7:45 AM

I guess my post was taken out cause of the "s word" ? oops! supposed to be funny

Comment #51 - Posted by: Tami at October 3, 2006 7:54 AM

Everything is fine with our environment. Anyone who says that continued large scale use of petroleum products is harmful to our world is foolish and allowing themselves to be fooled by leftist “groupthinkers”. CO2 is perfectly natural and ultimately harmless. There simply is no proof that it is causing any harm. "Nothing to see here". Sen Inhofe is truly a free thinker and a patriot to boot.

Comment #52 - Posted by: DOB at October 3, 2006 7:57 AM

Sorry Travis,

I included you more the the dig at Charlie about rest day comments only. I just think it's petty remark, because you didn't confront his or her comments, though maybe you have in the past, but in anycase I found it petty.

Comment #53 - Posted by: Adam_B at October 3, 2006 8:05 AM

Tami's back!!! :-)

Comment #54 - Posted by: treelizard at October 3, 2006 8:20 AM

yeah... i missed me too! ;) now there are a few more pounds of me because of my sick/hurt/then lazy month

Comment #55 - Posted by: Tami at October 3, 2006 8:27 AM

#56
You misunderstand. I didn't say charlie was stupid . I don't know charlie and I actually didn't go to his site.

I was addressing a very common rest day issue ! Some one or multiple people feel like they need to say what Coach should or shouldn't post. Then everyone has to respond. And sometimes Coach will post and he usually doesn't pull punches or sugar coat, especially when people start saying stupid %#&& - not necessarily about politics but when they say he should care what people think about him or his site (that's when the gloves come off - i think it's funny). IT IS his site.Then someone always calls him rude or impolite or whatever, because he says whatever he wants on his own site.
I was just commenting seeing the same thing almost every rest day.

Comment #56 - Posted by: Tami at October 3, 2006 9:07 AM

Harry MacD-

Well done, ... support for the paradox.

Follow the facts, not to politicians.

Respeck!

-K

Comment #57 - Posted by: Kevin Rogers at October 3, 2006 9:10 AM

today he expressed his opinion about charlie's site and was called impolite for it later. In case I wasn't clear.

Comment #58 - Posted by: Tami at October 3, 2006 9:13 AM

I think it is an incredible achievement for this community to raise $100,000 for cancer research.

Many thanks to all CFers who took part.

I tried to be impolite but I guess I'm not so good at it! ;)

Comment #59 - Posted by: Bill R. at October 3, 2006 9:20 AM

Ahhh something new...debating global warming

I'm going to go workout.

ricky

Comment #60 - Posted by: ricky at October 3, 2006 9:22 AM

I have to admit in the past I was not as respectful of the FACT that this is coach’s site and he posts whatever he wishes to on rest days, as I am now. I felt like this amazing thing, this crossfit was somehow tainted by all this right wing regurgitation.

In retrospect his is a small price to pay for a free website and amazing program that has made us all better athletes. I thank you again coach and offer you nothing but love and respect regardless of our political distance.

ricky

Comment #61 - Posted by: ricky at October 3, 2006 9:50 AM

"Mary"
Complete as many rounds in 20 minutes as you can of:
5 Handstand Push-ups
10 One legged squats, alternating
15 Pull-ups
6 Full Rounds in 19:30

Comment #62 - Posted by: Ralph99mba at October 3, 2006 10:00 AM

Still getting back into the swing of things, so...

Modified CFWU x 3
10 x lunge walk
10 x ohs w/broomstick
15 x sit-up
10 x back-extension
10 x pull-up
6 x dip

On the global warming front, it's warm and sunny here in San Antonio.

Comment #63 - Posted by: Nicholas Burgett at October 3, 2006 10:18 AM

2 cents worth

1. Just curious but I wonder what the global warming proponents are doing about global warming? Drive fuel efficient cars, limit flying, walk/ride bikes more, etc?

2. Emerging economic power houses in China/India, etc are the ones that will need to be controlled in the future if you're concerned about environmental impact.

3. Why do all the people who complain about the rest day topics have the impression that it's a forced reading exercise? Hmmm...

Comment #64 - Posted by: tracy at October 3, 2006 10:39 AM

tracy -#65-

1. An outstanding question...I hope we see some responses (besides "ranting to the crowd of yes-men that already agree with me").

2. Excellent point...of course any effort to "control" an emerging nation would likely just be painted as an exercise in imperialism and roundly condemned.

3. Because they're too stupid to figure out how to minimized their own stress levels.

Comment #65 - Posted by: Jim at October 3, 2006 10:50 AM

I thought the "speech" made some tough points for global warming advocates to overcome:

Computer models are BS. I think it's a logical error to defend a point of view by referring to someone else's black box computer model. I mean give me a break; it's the assumptions that determine the output.

Without Chirac's world government, everyone will cheat, except us, because our excellent legal system will be effectively used to force our compliance. This is a classic "free rider" problem, where cheating would be rampant because the supposed benefits of compliance with Kyoto would be shared over the whole world, not just the nation trying to comply.

The measures advocated will have a copmpletely minimal effect on worldwide CO2 output. To think otherwise is magical thinking in my opnion. We'll all switch to hybrids and the world will get cooler. Right.

The third world would get screwed (although they'll probably cheat, because it makes sense for them to cheat). We developed our industrial structures, but we want everyone to take it easy now on use of petrochemicals. Kind of like 2 acre zoning to keep out the riffraff.

Final point: I love this site. The spirit of everyone is simply amazing, and I think having an exercise site stimulate evryone into political discussions is another aspect of something very special that Coach Glassman has created.

Comment #66 - Posted by: Blades at October 3, 2006 10:50 AM

minimized = minimize

Damn no spell check...

Comment #67 - Posted by: Jim at October 3, 2006 10:50 AM

When I was a professional eco-freak, I definitely walked the walk. Everything from compact flourescents to insulating my home to using less heating and AC...studied permaculture to learn how to work with the environment instead of against it. Planted native trees for shade and plants so I'd use less water. Carpooling, reducing, reusing, recycling, composting, etc. I still do a lot of this. I have a car now but I don't use it much and I still ride my bike to work more often than not. No patchouli, though.

Comment #68 - Posted by: treelizard at October 3, 2006 11:12 AM

I found this interesting opinion piece on the subject from The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7884738

Comment #69 - Posted by: rfs at October 3, 2006 11:13 AM

"Drawing on highly sophisticated computer models, climate scientists can project -- not predict -- how much temperatures may rise"

from a link previously posted http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/11/opinion/main666190.shtml.

Basically the sentence says that using sophisticated computer models, climate scientists are guessing how much temperatures will possibly rise.

The scientists don't know, the politicos don't know, and the past doesn't tell us what to expect in the future with regards to global warming.

I, myself, believe in treating the Earth and its environment with respect and do so in my personal life but I do not know whether the computer models the scientists use are correct.

I keep an open mind with respect to the possibility of global warming.

do the sophisticated computer climatology programs utilize "chaos theory" in developing the climate models?

Comment #70 - Posted by: franklie at October 3, 2006 11:18 AM

FANTASTIC video! Inspiring! Thanks for sharing it.

Comment #71 - Posted by: ap at October 3, 2006 11:23 AM

charlie (#7):
just read Inhofe's speech, then the article you linked. it is evident from reading the cbsnews article that mooney did not even read the speech. for example, his reference to inhofe's reference to "state of fear" by michael crichton. not only is it not oft-quoted in the speech, it wasn't even mentioned. you might do well to read the speech yourself.

Comment #72 - Posted by: mfbunch at October 3, 2006 11:25 AM

I need some help here from you crossfit veterans>>>

My shoulders, back and arms keep bothering me when I try to sleep at night after working out. It is keeping me up and worse yet my wife, who yields power like a petty tyrant over Rickyville. I pay and pay the next day for my constant repositioning.

Any suggestions from the team?

Yes. I am taking an anti-inflammatory.

thanks,
ricky

P.s. I have given up and embraced global warming. My house in Richmond will be waterfront soon so might as well enjoy ;)

Comment #73 - Posted by: ricky at October 3, 2006 11:39 AM

so. . .seems to me Ken's post (#47) pretty much nailed the coffin shut on Inhofe's speech. . .

Comment #74 - Posted by: matt at October 3, 2006 11:50 AM

Matt,

Are you being facetious?

Comment #75 - Posted by: Coach at October 3, 2006 12:14 PM

Ken and Matt,

Check out this link:
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

I've been researching. No, really. I scanned/read a sizable part of the links Ken posted. As I see it , the argument goes as follows:

"Computer models predict positive temperature feedback loop created by human carbon dioxide emission, with no sufficiently countervailing negative feedback loops in sight. 'Hockey Stick' model provides sufficent corroboration to call this model, in its' basic form, complete, and unalterable in it's prediction of warming. Anyone who disagrees is wrong. Because they are wrong, they are not scientists, and shouldn't be published, or promoted, and if tenured should be ignored to the extent possible. If people we don't know in countries we can't pronounce die because of policies implemented as a result of our science, well, hell, you gotta break a few eggs. . ."

I think the John Daly piece is damning. I'd be curious as to the response. I've already read the FAQ's on the Kool-Aid site.

Comment #76 - Posted by: barry cooper at October 3, 2006 12:25 PM

maybe there's a creature on a far away planet and it likes to turn the temperature up and down for a few laughs every 40 or 50 years or wahtever..that's my guess

Comment #77 - Posted by: dj haus at October 3, 2006 12:44 PM

Any help on posting #74,

any advice...I have to leave soon.

thanks,

ricky

Comment #78 - Posted by: ricky at October 3, 2006 12:46 PM

ricky,
haven't experienced any of those problems, but go to the message board and do a search and you might find something useful there. sorry i couldn't be more help.

Comment #79 - Posted by: mfbunch at October 3, 2006 12:49 PM

I enjoy the rest day repartee. It's good to hear all the disagreement and debate. Forums like this are one of the benefits of living in the good old US of A. That being said, there are a few topics on which the population will never be in complete agreement. Global warming, religion, Iraq, diet, exercise, etc.

What makes it worse is that a lot of people don't know how to discuss and debate. Not agreeing with them brings forth anger and ridicule. Can't we all just learn to disagree amicably?

Comment #80 - Posted by: MikeC at October 3, 2006 12:53 PM

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen. How's that for critical thinking?

Comment #81 - Posted by: Geir Kvetfjell at October 3, 2006 12:56 PM

It's a shame how word spinning can mislead and misdirect people. Climate change is not just about warming but is also about how things like thick clouds of smog can affect local weather patterns. Climate change is also about how the depletion of the ozone layer is accelerated and therefore increases our exposure to harmful aspects of solar radiation.

Right now, there is a whole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. That means animals, including humans, have less protection against harmful UV rays. Direct exposure to UV rays can affect organisms at the cellular level as well. This doesn't necessarily mean cancer, but it can cause other defects to occur. Increased exposure to the sun can also affect the biological processes of plants and especially phytoplankton. So what's the big deal about phytoplankton? Phytoplankton basically exists at the upper levels of the ocean and is an important food source for thousands of ocean dwelling species. High levels of exposure to UV rays inhibits the ability of phytoplankton to properly grow which means a resultant decrease in a major food source for ocean creatures. See, there was a reason that back in 1993 CFCs were no longer used.

Additionally, the climate change issue is not just about humanity causing the change, but moreso about humanity increasing the deleterious effects of climate change. In other words, humanity may be increasing the rate of change in a way that could cause increasing chaos in our weather patterns. However, the Earth is an amazing biosystem that has tended toward stabilization. In the end, I believe the Earth will be able to balance things out. I don't think that we should assume that humanity will still not suffer during the stabilization process.

Lastly, what is up with the fixation on so-called leftist ideology?! That term is so misused as to be rendered meaningless. The "right" during most of the 20th century was firmly entrenched in the reprehensible "separate but equal" doctrine. The "left" fought for equal rights for minorities, clean water for Americans, standard safety features for consumer products, the right of pregnant women to be free of job discrimination, etc. On each of those issues the "right" was at the opposite end of the spectrum.

But wait a minute, is that entirely true? Were there no Republicans or conservatives who marched against institutionalized racism? Is someone actually going to tell me that all Republicans or conservatives actually thought it was ok to deny women a job or continued employment because they're pregnant? I wouldn't believe that just like most of you should know better than to believe the just because someone thinks that regulation regarding clean water is a good thing, they also want to join the communist party. I mean, c'mon, don't tell me your world is so limited that you don't have friends, real friends that run the political gamut. Why must we fall prey to these false dichotomies of right and left that are becoming increasingly balkanized? All that does is shut down the opportunity for people to get together and continually work to create a better society.

Ok, I'll shut up now. Thanks Coach for this most sublime community and hey, I just re-upped for my second year!! Shouldn't we be throwing a party or something? If we get enough people in St. Louis one day, I'll have to show everyone what real Thai food tastes like when you're not in Bangkok.

Comment #82 - Posted by: Phillip - St. Louis at October 3, 2006 1:00 PM

Ricky,

Get The Stick, and roll yourself thoroughly before bed. I also have a 5" diameter PVC pipe I roll my upper back on. You may want to take a nice warm bath, too. Can't hurt anything.

Comment #83 - Posted by: barry cooper at October 3, 2006 1:01 PM

working crazy hours here, so did a easy but nice evening home wod.
40 reps SumoDeads w/30kg
30 reps FrontSquats w/30kg
1 min handstand against wall
30 reps SumoDeads w/30kg
20 reps FrontSquats w/30kg
1 min handstand against wall

+ my own Tabata Fingerboard session (4mins)

BW 67kg

Comment #84 - Posted by: mrjling at October 3, 2006 1:10 PM

Barry and mfbunch,

Thank you for the fine advice. i will give the stick a try and hit the hot tub after todays workout...oops.....I mean rest.

Thanks again,
ricky

Comment #85 - Posted by: ricky at October 3, 2006 1:16 PM

barry (#77),
thanks for posting that-it definitely shortens my response which i can now paraphrase thus:

after my own research of links posted today including the ones in senator inhofe's speech, the glaring difference is that senator inhofe's data come from external references and can be easily verified or disputed while ken's links and a couple of the other environmental links all point inward; their quoted references come, for the most part, from the same three websites which perpetuate their own data.

the articles ken referenced, rather than effectively refuting inhofe's speech, bolstered the argument he is trying to make: any challenges to the claim that the earth is close to a catastrophic, irreversable increase in temperature are met with 1-an immediate dismissal of the facts presented without an attempt to actually present data to the contrary; and 2-an immediate attempt to discredit the person making the claim as a pawn of big industry.

Comment #86 - Posted by: mfbunch at October 3, 2006 1:17 PM

Ricky, Epsom salt is good too.

Comment #87 - Posted by: treelizard at October 3, 2006 1:19 PM

Murph

34:00

Comment #88 - Posted by: Rocco at October 3, 2006 1:52 PM

--sorry for hijacking the comments and not talking about the topic today but I wanted to pass this along to a rower needy CFitter in Florida.

I saw this on craiglist. I just bought one of the two new concept 2 model D rowers this guy in is selling. I paid $400.00. He has one more left. He and his roomate bought them on a whime and never used them (not a CFitter). His roomate is moving so they are selling them. He was reserving the other for a friend of mine but the friend could not get it. There is one more if someone wants. They did not appear to have been used more than twenty minutes. I was so excited when I got home I rowed 5000m in 19:50 cried and rowed some more. They are in perfect condition.

http://miami.craigslist.org/spo/214937847.html

Comment #89 - Posted by: rb at October 3, 2006 2:16 PM

mfbunch #73: The Mooney piece predates the Imhofe speech from 2006/09/25. I believe it is a response to previous speeches from Inhofe.

Comment #90 - Posted by: rfs at October 3, 2006 2:25 PM

Phillip #83

No comment on your comment..Except, I'm in St. Louis. Where do you eat Thai :)....I like the King and I on South Grand.

CI

Comment #91 - Posted by: C Imes at October 3, 2006 2:38 PM

For a nice, balance view on climate change, have a look at the Economist survey on it from a few weeks back: http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?story_id=7852924

If you don't have a subscription to the Economist, you can buy the PDF for $4.95.

This is a nice summary of what it has to say:
"Global temperatures and sea levels seem to be rising, but whether this is mankind's or nature's fault is unclear. Environmentalists point to a build-up of greenhouse gases caused by the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, dairy farming and other human activities. The result is that a growing number of governments and businesses are becoming more environment-minded."


As for the Hockey Stick vs. the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. I'll read Daly's article, but after having just glanced at it thus far, I have one thing to say: the idea that human-produced CO2 and other greenhouse gases can create increased warming of the global climate is not refuted by the fact that the climate has changed prior to human beings putting a lot of CO2 in the air. Again, I haven't read the article, yet, but it seems to me that pointing out the Medieval Warm Period (as barry does in comment #33) as a counter to anthropogenic climate change is a like saying:
* Nature caused A and we don't know why
* Nature then caused Not-A and we don't know why
* Something is causing A again, and it CANNOT be caused by human beings because Nature did it in the past.

This last conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. It's a good clue that things are far more complex than are painted by the media, or by Al Gore. That's a good thing. But if it's used to simply say "it's complex, therefore we do nothing" is, in my mind, a poor judgement.

Comment #92 - Posted by: madman at October 3, 2006 2:53 PM

rfs,
i stand corrected. i still take issue with using an op-ed piece to refute the merits of a fact-based argument, especially with a piece by an OP-ED writer denouncing the scientific merit of the writings of a FICTION writer. state of fear may have been fiction but the data quoted and referenced was anything but.

madman (93), no one is refuting climatic change. what global warming skeptics are refuting is what the data is actual saying and whether that warming trend (which, from some of the data i've seen recently, is debatable) will continue regardless of environmental regulations implemented.

Comment #93 - Posted by: mfbunch at October 3, 2006 3:04 PM

mfbunch (#94) -- you're right, but that's really my point: what's being said is, "because we don't know whether human beings are actually causing this, we should do nothing". My argument is, "because we don't know whether human beings are actually causing this, but it looks like it's possible that we are, we should do as much as we can that will not cause undue suffering to alleviate the problem."

Just a difference of conclusion based on the same evidence.

Comment #94 - Posted by: madman at October 3, 2006 3:41 PM

I have to ask, what is the point of articles like this? The argument between pro- and anti-global warming activists has been like this for years now. In actuality the debate should be over. The question isn't whether we should stop our dependence on fossil fuels because the climate might warm up, the question should be whether we stop our dependence on fossil fuels because they are running out, put us in a competition with China, India, and other quickly growing countries, and beholden us to despotic and less-than-democratic regimes like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.

Yes, Kyoto was/is a moronic treaty and we probably don't know either way whether global warming is a real threat, though I'm skeptical whether it is.

We need to move past these trivial arguments because all this naval gazing does is hide the real problem, which is the need to find alternative fuel sources, or continue to bank roll the Ayatollah in Iran or fund Russian incursions on human rights.

Comment #95 - Posted by: LucienNicholson at October 3, 2006 3:42 PM

Inspiring video of Team USA!! Thanks.

Re: global warming. I'm a bit of a skeptic myself.

My local weatherman correctly predicts tomorrow's weather about 70% of the time. But, he's 50/50 when he tells me about next week. So, I doubt anyone has capabilities to predict 5, 10 or 20 years from now with any real confidence. They've badly guessed in the recent past. (see Time magazine on "The Coming Ice Age.")

If our scientists can tell us that our global climate is warming in the coming years, how come they can't tell us when the next hurricane is going to hit. Or, where? Don't you think that'd be easier? Last year at this time, scientists were predicting 2006 would be a worse year for hurricanes! Did everyone forget that?

Figure out tomorrow with 100% certainty. Then work on telling me whether I should book my trip to Whistler this year. When you nail that, then, maybe work on global climate predictions.

Comment #96 - Posted by: CraigH at October 3, 2006 4:45 PM

Interesting...I'm sitting here with the 9/9-15 issue of the Economist and was planning to read tonight.

Congrats and huge props to the community for the FGB fundraiser. Strong work, and a strong indication of what this community is made of.

Did heavy DL from ystd. Added handstand PU to CF WU.

D.

Comment #97 - Posted by: bingo at October 3, 2006 4:49 PM

By the way, I ride my bike to work and the gym to save fossil fuels for future generations and because smog days are for real and they suck.

If the "Global Warming" theory makes others do the same, great. But, it's still a theory.

Comment #98 - Posted by: CraigH at October 3, 2006 4:53 PM

"Linda"

Deadlift 255#
Bench Press 165#
Power Clean 125#

20:12

Just missed my goal.

Comment #99 - Posted by: Jeff at October 3, 2006 5:18 PM

barry #77

I'm happy to see that people are actually reading the links I've posted! I disagree with your summary of the argument, however, and don't see how that is supported by anything I posted.

I don't have time to completely read through the John Daly piece right now, but realclimate does a good job of arguing against some of the most common criticisms involved with the "hockey stick" debate. I wouldn't be surprised if Daly's article consisted mostly of these points, or misrepresented the hockey stick argument entirely. Please see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11 and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121 and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10 for example.

mfbunch #87

"the glaring difference is that senator inhofe's data come from external references and can be easily verified or disputed while ken's links and a couple of the other environmental links all point inward"

I couldn't disagree more. Inhofe's speech frustrated me because so many of his assertions were *un*sourced, and I had to search wildly around the internet to try to find out where he got his ideas. Most of these assertions traced back to non-peer-reviewed publications, surveys, or other non-scientific sources. On the other hand, the arguments on the web sites I linked to are for the most part well-cited, especially on realclimate.org, and can be traced back to actual published scientific papers and studies in peer-reviewed journals and publications. If you missed these extensive citations, you didn't read deeply enough.

"1-an immediate dismissal of the facts presented without an attempt to actually present data to the contrary;"

The dismissals listed were backed up with links and sources, many leading to extensive discussions of the issues. Did you have any specific points that you don't think was argued well, or are you just making a vague blanket statement?

"and 2-an immediate attempt to discredit the person making the claim as a pawn of big industry."

While I do like to concentrate on the facts and arguments at hand rather than a person's supposed biases, I do not think attempting to point out someone's connections and conflicts of interest renders an entire group of articles invalid. Likewise with mentioning someone's credentials or lack thereof.

Comment #100 - Posted by: Ken at October 3, 2006 5:20 PM

hmmm. The spam filter has intercepted my response to #77 barry and #87 mfbunch. Oh well. Hopefully it gets posted before this WOD discussion is old and gathering dust!

Comment #101 - Posted by: Ken at October 3, 2006 5:24 PM

Oh also, #94 mfbunch:

"state of fear may have been fiction but the data quoted and referenced was anything but."

Please see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74 , http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76 and http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/

Comment #102 - Posted by: Ken at October 3, 2006 5:27 PM

OK well I can't predict the future and will make no attempt to do so. This may seem to some to be generalized idealism but I think our focus has become too polarized on this issue. Yes, everyone will agree that human industrialization has a negative impact on our environment to varying degrees. Is this enough to alter our climate? There is no way to tell.

I think we all just need to agree that we can resolve any potential problems simply by lessening human impact on our natural environment. Alas, politics cannot exist without pro's and con's...thus we find ourselves in our current situation. The geophysical evolution of our planet is going to cause us enough problems without us throwing wrenches into the works.

My personal experience: I am an avid alpine climber here in Alaska. I spend about 100 days a year in the Alaska range and see, first hand, what is going on with the glaciers here. I honestly have to say I don't have all of (or any of) the answers for this but it does raise an eyebrow when I now have to climb 300' to get to a ledge that was once the base of a climb one could walk onto from the ice in 1953.

Comment #103 - Posted by: Ben -Alaska at October 3, 2006 5:45 PM

53# kb swings: 25, 25, 25, 25 - 1 min between sets.
35# kb snatches: 72 reps in 5 minutes, switching hands on the 5s.

Comment #104 - Posted by: Lynne Pitts at October 3, 2006 5:57 PM

give me something to lift now

Comment #105 - Posted by: VINNYs at October 3, 2006 6:19 PM

Just so everyone knows, "Ken Davis" (comment #9) is not "Ken" (comment #40)

Comment #106 - Posted by: Ken Davis at October 3, 2006 7:21 PM

Ken and Everyone,

I know nothing of climatology or mathematical modeling, but I know that mathematical modeling is the province of engineering. So, when a group of climatologists concludes that AGW is real on the basis of global climate models, I look quickly for engineers to confirm their modelings' legitimacy. The engineers I know with extensive and successful experience modeling complex physical phenomena wince painfully or laugh out loud at climatologists and their AGW supporting global climate models. Several have posted here.

Mathematician Stephen McIntyre of www.climateaudit.org has dedicated enormous energy and intellect to challenging the climate models used to support AGW and the climatologists at realclimate. The academic AGW debate seems to be increasingly drawn between panicked climatologists and the experts in the methods they are using to draw their conclusions.

The historical oscillating and hysteria of global cooling and warming advocates, the fact that engineers are aghast at the climatologists’ modeling, the knee jerk chanting of “oil money, oil money” from folks in the “climate porn” industry, the character assassination and law suits levied against skeptics, and the support of the likes of Gore tell me that AGW is a fraud, a political fraud that has purchased the support of many in the soft science of climatology.

If you give any group of scientists (or any other group) opportunity to gather fame, support, and cash from politicians you’ll find support, and plenty of it, for any cockamamie notion. (This is the curse of economics as a discipline and a science.)

I’m willing to bet that before my 7 month old daughter enters college we’ll find at least as many climatologists warning of global cooling as global warming and they’ll either be generally ignored by the MSM or heavily supported by liberals. The proposed solutions will remain the same, however - extensive government programs and expansion, crippling restrictions on the economy and industry, and more taxes. History is on my side.

Comment #107 - Posted by: Coach at October 4, 2006 1:57 AM

Madman,

As usual, I think we're pretty much on the same page. I'm not trying to say that CO2 CAN'T cause increases in global temperature. I don't need to say that. What I AM saying is that the state of evidence is an insufficient base upon which to create ANY major policy, much less the sort of economically draconian global regime envisioned by the more hysterical (which seems to be most of them) supporters of the AGW hypothesis.

In the links Ken posted, they said clearly that warming is an emergent phenomena arising from a complex system, and that they can't with confidence make computer-modelling predictions based on local factors, nor can they make global predictions based on global factors.

What they do, and the reason they can call it science, is they generate a hypothesis--such as "more hurricanes/worse hurricanes this year--then they watch what happens. When they fail to predict what actually happens, they conclude, correctly, that their hypothesis is flawed, and make corrections, followed by renewed (for the honest scientists, which is not all of them) predictions.

However, in no way, shape or form does it follow from the fact that scientists are following some form of the scientific method, that their current conclusions--which in this case consist of apocalyptic predictions of global disaster--are in fact correct. Quite the contrary. In science, the technical term for a hypothesis lacking predictive capability is WRONG. It may be wrong in big ways or small ways, but it is wrong. To claim otherwise is utterly and completely disingenuous. Saying "we almost have it right", is like me trying to claim a ticket for a horse I picked to Show because it placed 4th. Close, but no cigar.

We're told the models are getting more and more detailed and include more and more data. That's wonderful. However, until that data enables predictive value, that fact is irrelevant, although hopeful, for the true believers. I took precisely two classes in the hard sciences in college, and I learned that.

The more I read this stuff, the more I feel like I'm being subjected to an elaborate shell game. The modelling, by itself, is incomplete.

With respect to the "hockey stick", I have no doubt it has been independently corroborated by people other than Michael Mann. The question, though--the obvious question--is, did they use the same methodology? John Daly punches large holes in the methods Mann used to generate his numbers, and in fact provides better prima facie evidence than Mann provided that in fact Mann's model--and apparently politically motivated efforts to minimize the importance of both sunspot activity and the Medieval Warm Period--is wrong.

Bottom line: there appear to be both positive and negative feedback loops with respect to temperature, and there appears to be a correlation between sunspot activity and temperature.

Comment #108 - Posted by: barry cooper at October 4, 2006 5:20 AM

Coach and Barry --

Y'all present a convincing argument (more convincing than Senator Inohofe, that's for certain). I'm not going to change my fluorescent light-bulb usin' and bike-ridin' ways, but I will approach this issue with a different perspective as a result of today's discussion.

I think LucienNicholson (#94) had a very good point, nevertheless: a gradual move away from a fossil-fuel-based economy would likely be better for the United States in the long run, anyway. More nuclear plants, heavier investment in nuclear waste intermediation, and, of course, hydrogen / fuel cell technology would help keep us at the forefront technologically and reduce our dependence on bad actors like the house of Saud or Hugo Chavez.

Coach, thanks for again prompting and providing the forum for healthy debate on important issues.

Comment #109 - Posted by: madman at October 4, 2006 5:51 AM

You can put your global-warming bet down right here:

http://www.longbets.org/196

Comment #110 - Posted by: rfs at October 4, 2006 7:21 AM

It's interesting that Lindzen is called a "denialist" rather than a scientist with another opinion. The wording seems rather transparently designed to link him up with Holocaust deniers.

There was an article published in the New York Times a year or so ago stating that if peer-review were a drug, it wouldn't have sufficient reliability to be approved for sale to the public. They backed it up statistically.

Here is an interesting article on the state of String Theory in physics. In a nutshell, it doesn't work, but if you don't take it seriously, you can't get or keep an academic position.

http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000713DC-8161-14E3-BAEC83414B7F0000

Comment #111 - Posted by: barry cooper at October 4, 2006 7:41 AM

CI #92:

I eat at the King and I as well. I also like Sen over on 13th and Locust. Blue Elephant and Rearn Thai in Clayton are probably the best. However, I'm half Thai(mom's from Thailand) so I can cook a little and haven't found a restaurant coming anywhere near as good as my mom's cooking.

Phillip

Comment #112 - Posted by: Phillip -St. Louids at October 4, 2006 8:51 AM

Coach,

I appreciate your civil response to my various posts. However, I do strongly disagree with several of your conclusions. Climate modelling is a developing field, and I don't pretend to understand the details, but one mathematician (McIntyre) distrusting the method does not render it invalid. In fact, McIntyre's efforts are mostly aimed at debunking the "hockey stick" graph which is a *reconstruction* of past temperatures, not a predictive model of the future. He does not seem to be against climate modelling in *principle*, but rather argues that several major errors have been made in its application. Several of the RealClimate.org links I posted above do a pretty good job of defending the hockey stick from McIntyre et al's attacks, demonstrating that perhaps McIntyre himself does not use very good methodology in his debunkings.

I should also say that I am an engineer (electrical) and we use computer modelling and simulation extensively. It cannot be trusted to give exact results (eg, temperature will go up exactly this much over this many years), but it *can* be trusted to give insight into and estimate how certain factors will influence a system (eg, increasing CO2 will exacerbate warming all else being equal). So mark me down as at least one engineer who falls on the side of the climatologists, and who's not wincing painfully or laughing out loud (as if such things are equivalent to reasoned arguments anyway).

Let me say that I do not trust pundits, advocates, armchair scientists, hype artists and the media. But I *do* trust science, and real scientists working in the field, and right now paleoclimatologists are overwhelmingly telling us that global warming is a very real threat. Your assertion that climatology is a "soft science" is without support, and serves only to allow you to disregard the scientific mainstream in favor of skeptics from other disciplines.

And this leads in to the "global cooling" scares of the past. Like I said, I don't trust the media and the hype machines, but I *do* trust the scientists. It's true that there was a lot of media hype about a global cooling trend, and a lot of things written in the popular press. But guess what: there was *never* *one* *single* article published in the peer-reviewed scientific press that warned of an imminent global cooling threat. NEVER. If you can find one for me I'll eat my hat. The idea that climate scientists were panicking about global cooling is a MYTH. I can't emphasize this enough, because it comes up again and again, and people just refuse to change their opinions. Remember, it's very important to distinguish between scientific publications and popular publications when investigating this issue.

Please see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94 for more information.

Meanwhile, today there *is* a large number of published, peer-reviewed scientific papers predicting anthropogenic global warming. Times have changed.

Comment #113 - Posted by: Ken at October 4, 2006 9:30 AM

Sorry for cluttering this discussion up with links to realclimate.org, but once again, they do a very good job of arguing against many of the mainstays of AGW skepticism. Here is an article defending the validity of climate modelling, for barry, Coach, et al: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/is-climate-modelling-science/

Comment #114 - Posted by: Ken at October 4, 2006 9:39 AM

Ken,

I started to cut and paste, but realized it was ultimately distracting. Your own links clearly say that the science, while perhaps suggestive, is not only not complete, but CANNOT be complete, unless we create multiple Earths and perform experiments on them.

The basic issue is distinguishing AGW from the background "noise" of normal climate change, which has been going on forever. That is the importance of the "hockey stick". It seems to show relative stasis--i.e. very little internal variability of climate due to things like sunspot cycles--up until the 90's, when we get the "hottest years on record". Now, that is a powerful piece of evidence, if it's accurate, because it shows AGW as clearly standing out from the noise of the "normal".

However, if the temperatures in the 90's were comparable to those of the Medieval Period, and if they can be correlated with sunspots or something else, then our measured temperatures arguably--or at least plausibly--fall back below the noise threshold.

As near as I can determine, the current modelling works with what we THINK is the historical record (accurate temperature measurements--and then only in a few areas, and even with unknown variance in accuracy--only going back maybe 200 years), then works backward to "predict" it--i.e. integrate it within the model--then works forward to project, whatever.

REAL scientists are skeptics. They don't filter evidence without evaluating it, and they don't use words like "denialist". Your own link is clear that there are an unknown number of unknowns. The models CAN correlate backwards, but to the extent I can tell this means nothing, moving forward. That part isn't "solved" yet. No one can predict the hurrican season. Yet we are supposed to prevent China, India, Africa, and others from becoming industrialized?

I have no issues at all with fuel conservation and alternative energy sources. I drive a small car. But I see huge issues with what would amount to social engineering through economic engineering based on incomplete science.

Comment #115 - Posted by: barry cooper at October 4, 2006 10:28 AM

The Independent reports:

President Bush is preparing an astonishing U-turn on global warming, senior Washington sources say. After years of trying to sabotage agreements to tackle climate change he is drawing up plans to control emissions of carbon dioxide and rapidly boost the use of renewable energy sources. Administration insiders privately refer to the planned volte-face as Mr. Bush's "Nixon goes to China moment", recalling how the former president amazed the world after years of refusing to deal with its Communist regime. --The Independent, September 17

View the article at:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1604092.ece

If this is in fact true, will the crossfit "global warming is fiction" majority move in lock step with republican talking points and change their views, or will they continue their usual arguments?

Comment #116 - Posted by: Richard at October 4, 2006 11:43 AM

Fiction, and "not worth the investment of 100's of billions of dollars and altering our way of life radically" are two different things.

I'd be curious as to what he actually says. Obviously, a reduced fossil fuel dependence makes sense geopolitically, too. There is also an election coming, and environmental zealots have their claws in a lot of people.

Comment #117 - Posted by: barry cooper at October 4, 2006 11:51 AM

Brand X rocks.

Crossfit Kids WOD still named for my little ball kicker (mine, not a soccer ball). My volleyball team will love this today.

Comment #118 - Posted by: Ron Nelson at October 4, 2006 2:24 PM

rfs,
The longbet.org site is a red herring. I don't know of anyone doubting global warming. The "global warming skeptics" are critical of the complete lack of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

Richard #117,
Moving in lock step is a feature of liberals/democrats, not conservatives or libertarians. the libertarian/conservative alliance can agree on little outside of the threat of socialism and Democrats.

Comment #119 - Posted by: Coach at October 4, 2006 6:03 PM

Nice discusions, again.
to global warming: The past does not equal the future.
I think it is best to learn from and life in step with nature as much as possible.
Think and live with passion, Johan

Comment #120 - Posted by: Johan Nederhof at October 5, 2006 5:26 AM

We really needed a rest day!

Comment #121 - Posted by: Al at October 5, 2006 7:04 AM

Ken, #114

You admit that you “don’t pretend to understand the details” of Climate modeling, yet you use your qualifications as an electrical engineer to support “a large number of published, peer-reviewed scientific papers predicting anthropogenic global warming.” Based on your experience, you show a distrust of computer models because they “cannot be trusted to give exact results”. This statement is foreign to science, including engineering, because “exact results” is quite meaningless, designed only to make your distrust unassailable.

More completely, you say that “Climate modelling is a developing field, and I don’t pretend to understand the details”. If you were to look into the details, here are some things you would discover.

• Global Climate Models (GCMs) circa mid-80s included some solid physics, but were unable to predict global climate.

• Climatologists, specifically and especially including Gavin Schmidt (NASA Climate Modeler and leader of realclimage.org, www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=46) and James A. Hansen (AGW specialist and spokesman, www.gsfc.nasa.gov/bios/Hansen.html), divorced the GCMs they inherited from models for the sun and for the oceans. They changed the name of the models to Global Circulation Models.

• Caretakers of the GCMs dumped greenhouse gasses into the models as what they call “forcings” to represent man’s effects. The models reacted randomly, some producing no results and some producing immediate, runaway global temperatures. In the next few years, the climatologists manually adjusted the GCMs to produce believable temperatures, disconnected to any real physics but nonetheless with catastrophic results. In effect, they changed the GCMs into Global Catastrophe Models.

• Conclusion: rather than “developing”, GCMs have retrogressed.

• Conclusion: the GCMs cannot account for the variations in the sun, which is the variable, dominant source of heating for the earth.

• Conclusion: the GCMs cannot account for the carbon cycle to model the flow of CO2.

• Conclusion: the GCMs cannot account for the water cycle to model the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor, about 30 times more important than CO2.

• The GCMs have never been able to reproduce the dominant features of the earth’s climate, the ice ages and glacial periods, and hence especially not the critical interleaved warming periods. In scientific terms, the models have not been validated.

• Conclusion: Climatologists use of unvalidated GCMs to influence public policy is unethical.

• GCMs today are not just “‘soft science’”, which you dispute, but are worse: junk science.

• Critics of the GCMs pointed out that they did not include water vapor, the major greenhouse gas. Climatologists responded by adding water vapor, but still missing the water cycle.

• Climate models have a fixed cloud cover, which filters the solar energy. However, the effect is not closed loop for lack of a water cycle. Global warming is stabilized by the additional evaporation at higher temperatures, increasing greenhouse effects but also increasing cloud cover, shutting down the solar radiation. The GCMs don’t account for these essential bits of physics.

• As you claim, “global warming is a very real threat”. The earth has been on a major warming cycle for the past 60,000 years, and on a minor warming cycle since the Little Ice Age. The GCMs do not represent these effects or their causes, nor replicate the events even as “forcings”. These warming trends have not been reversed, and no one can say when that oft-repeated reversal will occur. However, the evidence of warming and the mathematical extrapolation (as opposed to physical prediction) of additional warming do not support the conjecture that man is in any way a cause.

Inhofe said that the “Kyoto protocol would avert only 0.06ºC of global warming by 2050”. (See charts attached to his 9/25/06 speech.) I predict that before long, science will reveal that the actual number is 0ºC, at least as far as CO2 is concerned. In short and the Mauna Loa measurements notwithstanding, I predict science will soon show that nothing that man has done or could reasonably do could possibly affect global climate for better or worse.

You seem to contradict yourself -- at one point distrusting computer models, and in another supporting the claims made by climatologists from their GCMs.

Citations to realclimate.org notwithstanding, when you use your credentials as an engineer blindly to promote such nonsense as AGW, you are guilty of unethical behavior. Do your homework.

Comment #122 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at October 5, 2006 9:10 AM

I have never posted here... be gentle with me.

I'm not even going to comment on the issue of global warming becuase both sides have valid points and both sides have heretics. I do agree that the concept of being intellectually stimulated on a rest day is good one. But if the point were merely intelectual stimulation, the links provided would occasionally be of a more left-leaning perspective, or even better, have nothing to do with politics. Political discussions are not the only way to challenge your thinking.

Yes, it is Coach's site and he can do whatever he wants with it, but I believe it's clear that there is an agenda attached to the posts, and they are not purely for our intelectual benefit. If you've been following the posts and exercise a little objectivity and common sense, this should be clear.

Comment #123 - Posted by: Jeremy at October 5, 2006 9:19 AM

#124 I would say that about as gentle as it gets... ;)

Comment #124 - Posted by: Tami at October 6, 2006 11:36 AM

Two items I ran into the other day on this subject reminded me of a previously overheard conversation.
The conversation was between two people in a nice Sarasota, FL restaurant. The conversation was intense and therefore loud enough to be overheard and was to the effect of: “it is important that there are some very public steps taken so that when the tide turns and the warming begins to slow or reverse it’s not a debacle”. There was more conversation and what I gathered was that they were concerned that as man made global warming proponents they would look the fools if global warming began to slow or reverse before they could somehow sell the idea that the turn around was also man made.

The two items that made me think of this conversation were #1. the 3 billion offered by Virgin Airline founder Richard Branson to help combat global warming http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/21/D8K9AML02.html & #2. A report that the oceans have been cooling over the last three years http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14944138 . The ocean cooling story goes on to clarify that most scientists still have faith in global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities and that they “hope that further studies will clarify this anomaly”.
Interesting.

Comment #125 - Posted by: Todd at October 7, 2006 5:41 AM
Post a comment






Remember personal info?