just learn to jab, folks

Sport-acrobatics, Amazing!!
Talk about Power, Strenght, Balance, Grace, Effecienty of movement,
Truly amazing
Enjoy, have fun, Johan

That was amazing! I can't believe how strong they are!

Wow - I am in total awe of that acrobatics video! That is incredible stuff! Thank you so much for posting that link!

I didn't think humans could that.

That guy doing a bridge with 3 other guys on top of his midsection is very impressive.

Hackleman's shot was classic!

Alfie, I have to agree. Also impressive were the Turkish Get-ups with a live, hand to handstand load! Great link!

Is the IPCC doing harm to science? No. It's impossible to harm science. That's nothing more than a hysterical allegation.

On Climate change:
The reason the committee has a one sided opinion is because the evidence is one sided. Where do you think all the industrial pollution goes? It don't just dissapear! it goes into the atmoshere... and it is proven that greenhouse gas levels are the highest they've ever been IN THE HISTORY OF THE EARTH. We know this from ice core samples taken from ice caps and analyzed at Scripps Institute at UCSD. I find the fact that there is still a DEBATE slightly absurd. In fact, most of the the "anti" studies have also been funded by (guess who) fossil fuel companies. Any suprises? Go watch "An Inconvenient Truth" and follow it up with independant research, rather than listen to an infammatory article. That's what I did.

"leave thought to comments"

Does anyone know of a good portable gym? My job has me all over the place and I can't do all of the WOD's anymore and need at least something. Any ideas?

I would like to thank all of you soldiers for defending our country and wish all the crossfit moms a happy mothers day.

So the gist of the article is that global climate change is real and that humans are causing it, but that the character of the rhetoric coming from scientists and media is alarmist.

I tend to agree with this sentiment, and disagree pretty strongly with the statement made by post #10 (SteveL). It's not that I'm a global warming skeptic, but that 1) the fact that a study is funded by an oil company doesn't automatically mean that its conclusions are false, and 2) this was far from an inflammatory article. On the contrary, it was unusually thoughtful for a magazine article.

But with respect to its conclusions, I think it would be interesting to debate the necessity for inflammatory, or even apocalyptic, rhetoric when making the case for changing human behavior. As a general rule, I'm extremely opposed to such hysterical predictions and fear-mongering. But in this case, the weight of behavioral inertia is enormous, and the tenor of most news these days is hysterical and apocalyptic. I think many people have come to think that, nuanced, moderate, and reasonable points of view, articulately expressed, are boring and should be ignored. Well, I'm guessing most people don't *think* this, but do *feel* it, and act accordingly.

So the question is, if it is indeed important for, say, the next 3 generations, that we begin to change our behavior now, so that it can be done at a moderate pace and with as little economic and social disruption as possible, maybe it's necessary to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater (to borrow a phrase) in order to get change started soon enough.

Any ideas on this?

Just watched the Sports Acrobatics video. Truly mind-blowing. I sat and watched, jaw resting on keyboard...

Sports Acrobatics. Fabulous! Kind of puts overhead squats in some perspective.

I find the line; 'Go watch "An Inconvenient Truth" and follow it up with independant (sic) research, rather than listen to an infammatory (sic) article. That's what I did.' simply hysterical. It's almost as if SteveL (#10) believes "An Inconvenient Truth" was neither inflammatory nor one sided.

Personally I believe the scientific hypothesis put forth by Chicken Little and Henny Penny makes as much sense and is infinitely more comforting . The sky is falling.

By the way, I have an embarrassing confession, I haven't bought a single carbon credit.

Great link to the Glumbert site. Those athletes are amazing!

Steve L #10

Strangely enough I did exactly what you are asking recently. I saw an inconvenient truth and thought it was compelling but once I followed it up with independant research I'm now not so sure.

Let me ask you a question. Have you seen 'The great global warming swindle'? If not google it, watch it and then let me know a reply to the points they bring up, as I found them more compelling than 'An inconvenient Truth'

This isn't a loaded question, I am genuinely interested in a response to their rebuttel on climate change

Sports Acrobatics = Awesome! Thx for the link!

Ronnie Boose is small!

#11 Dane,

It's called a dumbbell, a towel, and broomstick with those three objects you can implement 90% of CrossFit functional movements and get a great workout!

It's always good to see another clip from The PitMasta but the sports acrobatics people take the prize today. WOW.

I'm having a lot of trouble with exercises that require me to hold the bar in front -- like front squats, thrusters, power cleans...My thumbs always kill while I'm holding the bar, and then the joint is sore for days afterwards. Any advice? Much appreciated!

In the spirit of awesome videos, has anybody seen this? It was on TV in Japan not too long ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkBkZpK-fYQ

It's not only a good demonstration of functional strength, but it looks like fun too! They said that he's only the second person to complete the entire course, but I'm willing to bet money that some of the guys down at CrossFit HQ could finish this. Probably with a better time too!

In the spirit of awesome videos, has anybody seen this? It was on TV in Japan not too long ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkBkZpK-fYQ

It's not only a good demonstration of functional strength, but it looks like fun too! They said that he's only the second person to complete the entire course, but I'm willing to bet money that some of the guys down at CrossFit HQ could finish this. Probably with a better time too!

Holy Sweet Fancy Moses, those sport acrobats were unreal!! But I wonder if the larger girl that does most of the lifting ever says, 'Ok, Olga, this week I want to be on top!'

I have to agree with #13 in his response to #10. The article was far from inflammatory. One of the newer responses to Climate Change, from those who in the past dismissed it, is to say "yes it's changing but gosh this apocalyptic doomsday scenario is so harsh." I think #13 is on to something when he asks if the yelling fire approach is needed in order to instigate change at a pace that can make a difference.

As much as I'd like to dismiss Global Warming and believe that burning through fossil fuels like an addict on a binge won't effect the environment in anyway and thus I should be able to drive, use electricity and consume with no restraint it's impossible to do so based on the evidence and my own gut intuition from watching the way unchecked development and dirty technologies are fouling the soil, air and water.

It is certainly possible that theories such as the ones advanced in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" may be more true than the carbon buildup theory. I've been interested in the wanton disregard modern civilization exhibits towards the environment that sustains our existence for a very long time and I've watched those who doubt the carbon buildup theory of warming shift from saying there is no warming to there is warming but darn it it's not man's fault.

Rising to the challenge of addressing Global Warming can be a win-win situation. By addressing the imbalanced relationship that modern civilization has with the earth's resources and learning to live lighter on the earth all human beings can benefit. Those who dismiss man's effect on the environment conveniently ignore facts because it feels better much the way those in a dysfunctional family ignore the underlying dysfunction. To admit that there are limits and to live within an ecosystem with respect and an eye on the seventh generation to come, as my ancestors taught, requires true courage and imagination. If more people spent time listening and learning from the world around us instead of lumbering through the world oblivious to the delicate interactions and interdependence that sustain our lives there would be no "debate" about Global Warming. It's perfectly obvious that we are fouling our own nest and Global Warming is, hopefully, the wake up call that will cause mankind to address the hubris that is allowing us to destroy the beauty and wonder of the world around us.
Pay attention. Go to the dump. Check out the stunted plant growth and high rate of birth defects around many chemical plants. Visit an Ecuadoran oil town. Watch a mountain top disappear in Southern Appalachia from coal mining.
It's all connected. Messing with one strand in the web of creation creates a ripple effect. Global Warming is the clarion call to wake up and learn to live with some grace on this planet.

Yesterday's WOD

37/M/183

13:58

HSPU as good as you can do leaning up against a wall. This one was rough!

That video was unbelievable. The backwards flexibility of some of the women was a little scary at times. Amazing.

Hey jsipko, give Makoto Nagono his due. Olympic gold medalist Paul Hamm has competed on Ninja Warrior on more than one occasion, and he's only made it as far as the third stage once. American decathlete Paul Terek has also tried and failed on Ninja Warrior. When Nagono finally beat the course, it was something like the seventh or eighth time he'd competed and only the second time he'd made it to the fourth and final stage.

Is anyone else back really sore from yesterdays WOD? My back is killin me. I really have never had any back soreness from any of the workouts but this one really did a number on me.

You know, what could happen, is almost unlimited in almost any sphere. I could get hit by a truck, run over by a bus, I could get leukemia, lung cancer, psoriasis, or suddenly find a need for Viagra. I could lose my job, the economy could go into recession, something could happen to a family member, we could be hit by terrorists--hey that guy over there looks suspicious--a plane could overshoot the airport and crash into our building, I could get a batch of Wheaties made in China, etc. etc. etc.

The quote in my planner for today is "I learned very early in my life never to take counsel of my fears." General George S. Patton.

In evaluating the debate, what I see happening is scientists deciding they bear a unique responsibility for generating a political response to something that "may" happen, i.e. which they believe will happen, based on their interpretation of preliminary evidence. They conjure up worst case scenarios involving fire and ice, and then proceed to act as if those things were foreordained. Quite obviously, this mindset is exceedingly ripe for fraud and subterfuge, which is exactly what Michael Mann has been and is still being accused of.

Yet, in any debate, it helps considerably to have at least one faction that can be counted on to be as objective as possible, to be neutral, and above all else reliable. Trustworthy. A clear effect of politicizing science--even if it is well-intentioned--is going to be a drastic loss of credibilty, which in the long run will create a Chicken Little effect. If you will lie once, you will lie twice. It's that simple. Even if you had a good reason.

#10, it's interesting to me how you consider the abilty to repeat the AGW catechism to be equivalent to an irrefutable syllogism, rather than as the unproven hypothesis it is. There is in fact an informed debate going on about the facts, and they are far from being as unambiguous as those who limit their information sources believe.

37/M/190--Syracuse NY
off day: improve on the weaknesses...
BP: 185x10, 225x10, 225x5, 225x5, 185x15
Standing press: 115x6, 135x3, 135x3
150 double unders: 6:06 (-2 min off last time, though didn't get near the single-rep of 40 of last time)

As a scientist I am:

1. Ever impressed by the effectiveness, creativity and intensity of the CF workout.

2. Ever amazed by the anti-logic and overt neo-con bias of every rest day article.

Ricky

Comment #24

s.baer

for front squats [and the landing-stage of a clean], unless I'm wrong, you shouldn't be taking the weight on your thumbs /wrists. The bar should be far enough back to be touching your throat area, and the load should be across your front deltoid shoulder muscles - with elbows as high as possible. Your fingers do not bear any of the load - [look at the excellent form vids for guidance.] For thrusters, as you need to bear load on your arms, I still have trouble, and still hold the barweight on my hands for a smooth transition. hence I had to scale the 135lbs thrusters the other day!

ummmm...I thought I was somewhat strong. The Sports Acrobat video is absolutely amazing.
Time to go ask some co-workers to try some of those stunts.

Coach:

Today is my one-year anniversary since I discovered CrossFit through an article in Men's Journal. I've been working out since high school, but for the last ten years or so my workouts were substantial, but pretty unfocused. I'd tried various things to change up the workouts, getting away from the ho-hum of "Three sets of ten" and "two body parts, three days a week" and that stuff.

And then came CrossFit. It's been amazing. I'm consistently working to exhaustion, routinely sore "in a good way," and have had numerous people come up to me and ask me what I'm training for, "are you going into Basic?" (not at 37, thank you). I've caught people trying to do knees-to-elbows just after I've done them and shaking their heads.
I've been trying to recruit friends into joining me, but once I email them a video of the WOD, I get a "I'd throw up if I did that" and never hear from them again (they don't seem to appreciate the value of "Meeting Pukie," of whose acquaintance I've yet to make).
I can state without qualification that I'm in the best shape of my life. I went from a handful of pull ups to doing hundreds; I absolutely hate to run, yet my last 5K was my best time ever; I know I can now do 21-15-9 of 225# DL without breaking a set. And yet, I know there's still room for improvement--better form and faster times are out there to be had (not to mention the constant reminder of the times of the men AND women on the WOD's as a goal).

So thanks for everything, it's been a great year!
-GSD

#13, Madman,

"So the question is, if it is indeed important for, say, the next 3 generations, that we begin to change our behavior now, so that it can be done at a moderate pace and with as little economic and social disruption as possible, maybe it's necessary to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater (to borrow a phrase) in order to get change started soon enough."

Screaming "fire" in a crowded theater doesn't tend to make people move at a "moderate pace" or with little "social disruption." It makes some people scream and run hysterically, and if done often enough (think places with constant false alarms), it makes some people ignore the hysteria.

Holy smokes. I thought the "jaw resting on keyboard" comment was funny, til I watched the sport acrobatics video and did the same thing. Not just the skills (strength, balance, flexibility etc) but the TRUST between the acrobats was astonishing. Wow. I've never envisioned anything like "young man as jumprope" or the bridge supporting 3 men - eek.

To add to the global warming discussion...

I think you all have made good points, and I'd like to bring a different perspective. The fact that we are here thinking about change is the right step forward. The danger in my mind is not only the millions of Americans who are either too busy or too stupid to even acknowledge our debate on global warming, but also the millions of people in "developing" countries that are more interested in eating then buying a hybrid.

How do we educate those that don't have (or want)the capacity to be educated?

I know that is cynical, but it's real.

While I do not support Al Gore's method entirely, is his approach however entirely necessary to open eyes?

Keep thinking, and Keep talking... it is our salvation.

#11 Dane
Last year I was on the road all the time. Thats what led me to this place. The best alternative to weights (after body weight exercises of course) is a set of thera-bands. I used them for nearly everything. You can mimic nearly every weight lifting motion via theraband and you can really focus on form and the negative rep. Other than that you might be stuck with the fillable water weights you can find in the sky mall.

On a side note I converted my first to Cross Fit. He started a few days ago and was skeptical, was really worried about the lack of cardio. Well after a 20 minute killer workout he is now hooked. He is amazed like I was, when he saw this site, so much quality information for free coupled with a great support community.

What's this Global Warming you speak of?

Amazing video....wow.

#11 Dane.

Pierre is right. Get creative! I travel a lot and seem to get better workouts when I'm gone. I always buy a couple gallon jugs of spring water. They're great 69 cent 8 pound med balls (note, I didn't say slamballs!!) I usually take my rings too.

Hotel stairways make a great CF course. Take your suitcase and hold it overhead as you climb to the top floor, 2 steps at a time. Do a set of pushups and overhead squats and take the elevator back down as your rest. Do as many sets in 20 minutes, if you can make it that long!

That is one of my favorites.

Is it bad to do thrusters from a back squat position? Doing them the other day I did them from this position because I have a nagging wrist injury and it bothered me to be in the front squat poition.

Either Hackelman is a giant or that other dude is a dwarf.

Ricky,

As a "scientist", woudn't it be more congruent to discuss specific technical issues rather than just label the debate in it's entirety as some sort of plot concocted by and for the mentally feeble and ill-intentioned?

As I see it, there are three basic issues:

1. What is "normal"? Is there a climactic baseline? Obviously, there has to be a standard of comparison to compare normal to aberrational. Normal, obviously, would be definable as a temperature range that fluctuates, but which is basically stable. This would conform to the proposed flat part of the "Hockey Stick".

2. Are we in fact getting warmer (or colder) relative to this baseline? How is this being determined, one way or the other?

3. What are all the factors in climate change, and how do they interrelate? This is the domain of models.

I will say, creating models is not difficult--"we think this is what happening"--but creating models that actually enable predictions appears to be an insurmountable challenge currently, throwing into question the validity of current models, at least those based strictly on anthropogenic CO2 forcings. From what I understand, an internally consistent model exists based mainly on the interaction of cosmic rays and water vapor--which of course is the principle Greenhouse Gas--that when run is able to work backwards and approximate known weather patterns over the last 100 years. That type of work, of research, is between difficult and impossible to get funded in the current overheated political climate, which wants one and only one explanation of "climate change".

I will add, that I see a definite confirmation bias on the part of many of these researchers, and certainly "secular" members of the scientific laiety, in favor of global warming. If it is unseasonably hot, obviously, it's AGW. If it's unseasonably cold, it's climate change-we're messing with Mother Nature. If it's just right, it's just the calm before the storm.

In my own view, proxy evidence has been produced that documents beyond all reasonable doubt that Greenland--as contemporaneous accounts relate--was green, and that this was not a localized warming, but global, as shown by proxies scattered around the world. This makes the Hockey Stick model wrong, and puts current temperatures below known highs that have existed within the last 1,000 years.

I'm sure I'll have more to say, but that should do for now.

#39 (Hari) -- you're right about shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater -- it's not conducive to moderate and reasoned departure for the exits. However, if I may over-extend the metaphor, if one practices fire drills, understanding the importance of being prepared for an emergency, then one can see amazing things: witness the calm exit from the WTC on 9/11 that saved so many thousands of lives.

By extension (and I know the metaphor is really starting to crumble, now), if we develop the habits of recycling, reducing our "carbon footprint", etc., knowing that an emergency *MAY* arise, then maybe, by preparing for the emergency, we make it not happen.

It's weak, but I think the principle is sound, and it addresses Barry Cooper's point in #33 (someday, Barry, we'll agree on something!): you're right that anything can happen, but as a general rule, you prepare for things that are either 1) likely to happen and can cause you pain or disruption, or 2) are not necessarily very likely, but can cause enormous pain and disruption.

Though I'm not a believer, or convinced by the argument, Pascal's Wager is on these same lines.

Barry # 45

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I am honored to be on the other side of the issue.

Ricky

#33, Barry:

You mean Michael Moore, not Michael Mann...the latter being a director of fine shows such as "Thief", "Miami Vice" (both TV show and movie), "Last of the Mohicans" and "Collateral". You know...admitted fiction from Hollywood.

The former being a "director" of such balanced shows such as "Roger and Me", "Bowling for Columbine" and "Farenheit 9-11". Also works of fiction, but not admittedly so.

Michael Mann = Good Director
Michael Moore = Social Activist

#33, Barry:

You mean Michael Moore, not Michael Mann...the latter being a director of fine shows such as "Thief", "Miami Vice" (both TV show and movie), "Last of the Mohicans" and "Collateral". You know...admitted fiction from Hollywood.

The former being a "director" of such balanced shows such as "Roger and Me", "Bowling for Columbine" and "Farenheit 9-11". Also works of fiction, but not admittedly so.

Michael Mann = Good Director
Michael Moore = Social Activist

#33, Barry:

You mean Michael Moore, not Michael Mann...the latter being a director of fine shows such as "Thief", "Miami Vice" (both TV show and movie), "Last of the Mohicans" and "Collateral". You know...admitted fiction from Hollywood.

The former being a "director" of such balanced shows such as "Roger and Me", "Bowling for Columbine" and "Farenheit 9-11". Also works of fiction, but not admittedly so.

Michael Mann = Good Director
Michael Moore = Social Activist

#10 - SteveL

So you are saying they used ice core samples to prove the C02 levels are the highest they have ever been in the history of earth? Say C02 levels had been higher at some point and all the ice melted, then C02 levels dropped and ice formed again. How could you tell anything from before the ice froze?

Remember the earth has been around for about 4.5 billion years. How long has life been around? How old is the oldest ice sample?

#46, Madman,

"[I]f we develop the habits of recycling, reducing our "carbon footprint", etc., knowing that an emergency *MAY* arise, then maybe, by preparing for the emergency, we make it not happen."

If society is going to bear the costs of "preparing" for emergencies that "may" arise, then it is the obligation of scientists to provide unbiased information on the probabilities of these events occurring.

If the world is truly going to reduce its carbon footprint, most of the cost will need to be bourne by developing countries. It cheap for rich Americans to change light bulbs and buy carbon offsets. It is expensive to tell the developing world that it needs to stop burning coal.

The question is whether these changes (in anticipation of events that may happen)are worth the costs, not only to the rich, but also to the poor. We're asking people who don't have health or life insurance to buy planet insurance, paying their premiums in the form of lost economic growth.

I have a question about the workouts actually. My impression is that if the work out says for time, then I should be shooting for intensity, even if I have to scale the weight back. If the work out says to post load...then I should be going for the heavy stuff, even if it takes longer. For example yesterdays WOD. I could have done all the cleans at 95lbs... but it would have taken a really long time. My thinking is that it would be better to scale the weight as I go and push for intensity. Thoughts?

Madman,

There are two issues. One, it is not necessary to prove--or believe in--man-made global warming to point to the many benefits of recycling, energy conservation, "green" policies, etc. A certification based on sustainability--LEED--is currently gaining steam throughout our free market based economy, on a voluntary basis, by companies who perceive both social and business benefit in it. These policies can stand on their own merits without anyone needing to cook data to force it down our throats by government fiat. As a general rule, what can't be sold is something without value, or priced too high relative to benefit. If and when people without a messianic bias perceive a genuine need, there will be a free market reaction. And it's worth noting all of these projections presume that no technology will emerge to combat Global Warming, if it exists. By the time any of these things come true, remember, projections are that Europe will be 50% Muslim or something or other, and we will have been working with nanotechnology for 40+ years (2050). If anybody can create a computer model that predicts something, we will then be a position to model differing interventions. Since we can't predict anything, we can't do that currently.

The other issue is that you are essentially advocating that scientists fudge their data sets and overreport the certainty of their conclusions, just because they might be right. Where does that end? If they turn out to be wrong, how do we reverse course? Isn't the point of science that it approaches the universe and data empirically, and impartially? Qualitatively, how is the perversion of science in this cause fundamentally different than the use of racist biology and evolutionary theories in the development of notions of Aryan superiority, with all those conclusions led to? Remember, they genuinely thought they were right. Within their worldview, their conclusions were exceedingly rational, as were the death camps. They made perfect, logical sense, within their worldview, which was in no small measure resting on a conceit of scientific veracity.

Should we also pervert the judiciary? Should judges start making decisions based not on the law or facts, but upon their own assessments of the extent of the need, itself arising from data cooked up by "scientists" likewise convinced of the extent of the need? When does somebody start telling the truth? When do we again become genuinely rational?

Socially and politically, what are the effects likely to be of tolerating nonsense like this? One obvious effect is a generalized decrease in trust, and--if these policies are coupled with actual legal enforcement--reduced freedom and economic well being.

TimW,

There are two Michael Mann's. The one I'm talking about essentially took the UN from being concerned about Global Cooling to Global Warming overnight, by cooking up data sets he has repeatedly failed to support since, although people who only look at realclimate.org might believe otherwise.

Queen Latifah introduced Al Gore at the 2006 Video Music Awards and said one generation ago there were 1 billion people of the planet, now there's almost 9 billion ... we seriously messing w/ mother nature. She failed to say which 8 billion she & Al wanted to get rid of.

I don't worry about global warming. Seems to be more religion than science & I'm just not that interested in religion. If it is real, well then mother nature will take take of that extra 8 billion.

It's pretty funny that anyone who jumps into politics would wonder why they're no longer trusted.

Look, even a war-mongering, hate-filled, neo-con like myself (see libs, I listen) is all for reducing our "carbon footprints" where practical. (As you like to say, it's environmentally friendly. Gosh, I'm all for being friendly.) But until science can conclusively, and calmly, show exactly what man's impact on global warming is, exactly how this warming will impact us, and exactly what we can do to reverse this trend, we cannot be expected to passively hand over the keys to our economies.

What's more, the tone of the debate needs to change. When scientists pose their work as dogma that is not up for review, they cease to be credible scientists and their work automatically becomes MORE suspect, not less.

#52
Brian, I agree with your take on the met con WOD. I try to keep these work outs to 30-45 minutes at the most. That being said if the weight is something that will take me longer than that, then I do a Brandx scaled down (generally a pack or porch) otherwise I try to keep the work as rx'd as possible. I won't get better if I don't push it a bit…right?

Ricky, #47,

Barry attempted to engage in thoughtful exchange and you insulted him. Your post is a shining example of why people are resistant to hear your message.

Barry, #53, great post.

On a softer note; I wonder if Jeff Martone could do an article for the next Crossfit Journal on the Turkish Getup like the ones in the Acrobatic Video, any volunteers? Also I always enjoy the political discussions, keep them up

I just can't take the whole global warming thing seriously. I just can't take advice from people who continually scream from the mountain tops that we are doomed. You have people docotring statistics to make their views seem more viable. You have these activists misrepresenting non climate change evidence, and calling it fact. A good example is the picture of the polar bears sitting on top of a piece of ice that looks like it may have broken off of an ice sheet and floated out to sea. The global warming tribe flaunted this picture and yelled "YOU SEE, YOU SEE, WE ARE KILLING THE POLAR BEARS!!! GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL!!!" Well it turned out that their rant on that picture was taken completly out of context. The ice in question was a natural ice formation that can be found in the cold waters of the North Atlantic. Polar Bears have been known to swim for miles out to these ice formations. It is a natural phenomenon.

People like #47 Ricky illustrate this perfectly. Instead of engaging in a discourse with Barry, he folds his arms and says that he is glad he is on the other side of the argument. He makes a thinly veiled rude comment about the "neo-cons" that like to discuss on rest days, and does nothing to try and discuss his point of view. People like him (and maybe I am over-generalizing) remind me of a little child who doesn't get his way. They place their hands over their ears and scream until people relent. To them there can be no argument, because in their minds they are so correct in their assumptions there is no room for argument.

Another reason why I cannot buy into this global warming hype is the people who champion these ideas. Al Gore with his energy vacuum of a house and his fleet of SUVs who says that it's ok when he doesnt conserve because he invests in "carbon credits." I dont know... there seems to be an agenda there that has nothing to do with saving the planet. And my all time favorite, Sheryl Crow. She is another one who is now screaming from the rooftops. Making insane suggestions about only using one square of toilet paper. Saying that her tour bus runs on bio-fuel, but doesnt mention the ten conventional fuel burning 18-wheelers that are used to haul her entourage and their equipment....

Like I said, there is an agenda here, I cannot buy into the hype.

Couple days behind. Caught up with CFT, details there:
Back Squat 295 (PR)
Press 115
Dead Lift 305 (PR)

Total 715 (PR) prev. 665

John #55"...we cannot be expected to hand over the keys to our economies."

John, that is perhaps the most profound, insightful comment I've read in all of the discussions of global warming. Without the implication that proponents of global warming will set the agenda for remediation and redress, doesn't it seem as though this might be a conversation more on the level of the effect of crop rotation on soil quality over the millenia? The notion that global warming is an issue of such paramount importance that it trumps EVERY other substantive issue (excepting war and conflict) for every government smells way too much like politics and way too little like policy. The world is way too complex, economies are way too complex, and governance in developing and developed countries is way too complex for any one issue (besides peace) to drive the bus. Ultimately there is a very complex cost/benefit analysis that is necessary to address this once the science is conclusive, once a model is proven, and the complex interplay between and among nations will force a "solution" that basically adapts the response of the most reluctant nation.

There is a cold, hard, economic discussion that awaits the conclusion of the science. Let the politics factor in then, for the numbers will have political significance then. IMHO, politicians and issue-activists are a part of this conversation prematurely.

#47, Ricky,

Addressed to # 45, Barry: "Thanks for sharing your opinion. I am honored to be on the other side of the issue."

As I understand Barry's post, he sees the "issue" as whether we should use rational thought and scientific method in analyzing the problem. Are you "honored" to be in favor of the opposite approach?

15 Muscle-ups
*****
3rounds of
15 sn balance + lunge r/L
15 pull-ups
10 Burpee
5 Bear Complex
run 200m
******
15 HSPU

There are some very well stated positions stated in this forum. I am just a guy, but it occurs to me, the vast majority of science is in agreement that although climate change may not be completely man driven, the data strongly makes the case for it being accelerated at a great rate.

Would we not be prudent to take steps to minimize, or at least modify our influence on the rapidity of change? I know this analogy does not hold up, but if a strong indication was made that your bank account was overdrawn, wouldn't you modify spending habits? Even if the neighbors down the street continue to overspend? One of the breakdowns of that example is that in the subject of climate change, we are all affected by one another. However, in this case a good example by a "community leader" can be influential in a good way.

I don't mean in any way to be insulting or to oversimplify. I am just a newbie Crossfitter trying to state an angle.

P.S. I agree that there is a lot of institutional arrogance in the scientific community, and other communities that would be better served by a humble, if strongly asserted statement of position.

I finally, FINALLY ran a mile under seven minutes this afternoon - 6:57!!! Just barely under seven minutes, but I'll take it!

Well, the Spiegel article is at least an original criticism, showing that climate skeptics are starting to have to find new arguments as the old ones become unusable. But ask yourself why this article is being run in Spiegel? Is a lay audience really the group that needs to be dealing with this question, if there's any merit to at all? Wouldn't it make more sense to get this published someplace like "Science" (the monthly journal of the National Academy of Science) or its equivalent in Europe? After all, if the IPCC is indeed "harming science" then it would be scientists who have the most at stake in the issue and they would also be the only ones able to fix it.

Perhaps though this just isn't a very persuasive case for anyone but a lay audience. Perhaps climate skeptics learned a long time ago that the people they needed to convince were the people buying the gasoline and paying for the coal-burning power plants. As long as those people can be convinced that global warming is a fiction, the opinions of experts in the field don't much matter. And experts are a lot harder to persuade.

Just something to think about.

Fran as rx'd 7:38

Sporting acrobats, pound for pound the strongest athletes on earth ?

As far as I see it, until it becomes economically advantageous for people as a whole to give a flying turd about the environment (including global warming) they won't. There is still a lot of carbon in the earth right now and as long as it is cheaper to burn it than produce electricity from other means it will continue to be done. If not by one country, then by another.

One comforting thought is that the whole high C02 level thing will shake itself out. Good old Mother Nature is a tough broad and if things become to cumbersome there will simply be a culling of the herd. Would not be the first time. There have been biodiversity bottlenecks in the past and there will be more in the future. Just like the C02 level has been a lot higher in the past.

COACH!!!!
Ease up on starting these global warming debates...PLEASE. The last one I read from the "rest day" sent me into several arguments with a couple of bloggers. These debates eventually led me into a principal driven 2 month hiatis from Crossfit.

As a scientist, I don't need the extra drama and, personally, my body can't take another crossfit vacation. :)

Barry,

I agree with everything you say in comment #53, except your characterization of what I'm advocating.

You can certainly be forgiven for the misunderstanding, however, since I think what I wrote was easily misunderstood. I am not in favor of scientists faking data. Nor am I in favor of scientists over-hyping models that stand on weak footing.

What I was posing as possible to advocate was the "hysteria" in the media. I wasn't saying that it's a great idea, or what I prefer. But I was saying that perhaps it's exactly this hysteria that's generating a market for the free market to respond to. That is, if people weren't worried about their environmental impact, then they wouldn't bother buying "environmentally friendly" products -- especially since they're usually more expensive.

Would you consider a carbon-trading regime, enforced by law, or, say, a revenue-neutral carbon tax, to be something that is "force[d] ... down our throats by government fiat"?

These seem to be strategies that can encourage positive change through the market, without explicitly telling companies or people what they have to do.

To Corey (#67), I agree with you about Mother Nature's resiliency, but I'm not so sanguine about our being part of the culled herd (well, not me, but maybe my kids or grandkids).

Corey, when do you think CO2 levels have been higher than they are today? And why do you think that?

As for "culling the herd," I think you're spot on. That's actually the point of concern about global warming. No one seriously thinks that the planet itself is at risk. But rising temperatures will reduce Terra's carrying capacity for several species, including ours.

Rest day, Schmest day - for fun, Kimo, Drew, and I had a nice little warmup for a full day of paintball (Ops vs. Mx). Our creation?

3 rounds, for time:

100 pushups
100 situps

Good stuff - Kimo got me by 40 seconds...jerk.

#70, MarkM,

"Ease up on starting these global warming debates...PLEASE [...] As a scientist, I don't need the extra drama [...]"

Good thing you weren't a scientist back when then sun was thought to revolve around the earth. The drama during that debate was much worse.

#71, Madman,

"What I was posing as possible to advocate was the 'hysteria' in the media. I wasn't saying that it's a great idea, or what I prefer. But I was saying that perhaps it's exactly this hysteria that's generating a market for the free market to respond to. That is, if people weren't worried about their environmental impact, then they wouldn't bother buying "environmentally friendly" products -- especially since they're usually more expensive."

It's okay for the media to lie to us, as long as it's for our own good (as the media defines it)? You think just maybe the media uses this approach in the rest of its coverage?

#66, Paul S,

"But ask yourself why this article is being run in Spiegel? Is a lay audience really the group that needs to be dealing with this question, if there's any merit to at all? Wouldn't it make more sense to get this published someplace like 'Science' (the monthly journal of the National Academy of Science) or its equivalent in Europe? After all, if the IPCC is indeed 'harming science' then it would be scientists who have the most at stake in the issue and they would also be the only ones able to fix it."

This is like arguing that if the emperor has no clothes, it be best not to bother pointing this out to the public, but instead publish it in The Journal of Modern Monarchs. After all, it would be the emperors "who have the most at stake in the issue and they would also be the only ones able to fix it."

Sorry, Hari, but the analogy doesn't hold. Everyday people don't care whether or not science is "harmed," and they have no real way of judging whether or not the claim is true. To use your analogy they can't tell whether the emperor is dressed or not or whether his clothes are well made if he is. And they don't much care as long as he keeps giving them bread and circuses.

This is just an attempt to exploit public ignorance of the sciences and give people an excuse to avoid making the hard choices they need to make. If it actually had any merit this debate would be taking place in scientific publications. Unless one supposes that the world's scientists are all part of a grand conspiracy.

Paul S.,

I think it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that scientists are in fact human beings. If you have data to the contrary, I would like to see. I think we can infer from this fact that they are therefore subject to all the tendencies described by social psychologists, and are prone to vanity, exaggeration, hysteria, perceptual blind spots, etc. If someone can argue that human beings are capable of being fully objective, I would be curious how that argument would go. Certainly, we can be careful, we can create checklists, we can make every effort to be impartial, but the fact of the matter is that human discourse is a closed system. We can't look down, as non-human beings, on human beings.

We talk to one another about what we see--science is little more or less than a method of sharing experience. If I talk about God, that is an experience that is inherently subjective, but if I talk about the rate of accelleration for an object dropped of a given size in given atmospheric conditions, I am setting out a detailed image--a context--which can be readily repeated by scientists who are African, Italian, Mormon, atheist, Hari Krishna, gay, prone to fits of hysteria, etc. etc. That the experience of one person can be replicated by others regardless of their backgrounds, constitutes what science calls "objectivity". To this is contrasted "subjectivity", which might be the reaction of a reader to a Hemingway novel. It can't be predicted with the same sort of certainty.

Let's be more specific: what we can we say about a given person's likely reaction to a Michael Moore movie? If we know they are NRA members, our prediction will ilkely be accurate, at least with respect to "Bowling for Columbine". That person's experience is still subjective, but objectively, people do tend to behave in patterned ways. My confidence in predicting that person's reaction to, say, an Al Gore movie, is less, but still decent, since our society tends to be patterned along certain lines. Beliefs tend to come in groups, based on differing underlying principles.

Which leads us to the Scientific community. If experiments had been done along the lines of Newtonian Laws of Motion, with respect to AGW, this discussion would not be happening. In point of fact, predicting weather was, historically, one of the principle initial uses of computers, and Von Neumann was one of the most enthusiastic champions. Yet, the failures have been dismal, for any period beyond about 2 weeks.

(Thinking about this, the Farmer's Almanac has been in existence for about 200 years, and is apparently still going strong. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, farmers use this publication--and apparently in many instances rely on this publication--for their business success, and it is still in business. Here's an interesting link: http://www.almanac.com/weathercenter/howwepredict.php
Note that sunspots are a principle factor, as asserted by a number of other climatological scientists. I dont' have time to research this further, but I did find one fairly sarcastic newscast that was pretty skeptical, and ended: "they predict a mild first part of the winter, but very cold February and maybe March. We'll see in a couple months". That news story was apparently never completed, since, of course, that is precisely what happened. They claim 80% in the Almanac, which is, to my knowledge, much better than current climatologists. Whether the claims are so vague as to foster confirmation bias, I don't know.)

If I made a prediction like "this bowling ball will fall at somewhere between 6 and 15 meters squared per second, unless an unexpected event like a different speed occurs, in which case we will adjust our model to include that parameter.", we would with some confidence say that model was incomplete, and quite possibly barking up the wrong tree completely. Yet no one is demanding of the IPCC that they make verifiable predictions. Their process of thought is painfully simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we are putting X amount out per year, it appears to be increasing in our atmosphere, current models show long persistence of CO2--since the atmophere cannot effectively buffer CO2 levels--therefore CO2 emissions must be cut greatly, and given the amount we have already put in, almost anything we do now will likely be too late to prevent major change. Add to this Mann & Co's varied "smoking guns" showing this to be the "hottest period on record", and you have an open and shut question. If you ask questions, you are a denier. A skeptic, although they are mentally inserting "halfwit" or oil industry dupe.

We are told, by people like Paul, that surely if anything even remotely approaching a scientific controversy were in fact occurring, surely we would not be forced to read about it in a "non-scientific" publication. We would read about it in a "reputable" magazine like Science.

Yet this gets into social psychology. Scientists, because of this notion of "objectivity", have a pronounced tendency to conflate their conclusions with truth. In point of fact, within a formal philosophical framework, scientists should never refer to "truth". There can, in the nature of the beast, exist only "as yet unfalsified theories". The Laws of Motion themselves do not constitute Truth. They constitute well verified theories, which have not been contradicted. No pigs have flown. Yet, we don't know why gravity workds. This is an important philosophical distinction, not for functional reasons, since I am not expecting any more than anyone else the repeal of the Laws of Motion, but for psychological reasons.

Skepticism is in fact the hallmark of good science. Obviously, as humans, we believe things. l, which is both fine and necessary. But we can't conflate our beliefs with Truth. This is why this philosophical brake is needed, in my view.

If we look at the IPCC logic, the holes that appear to me are an overreliance on CO2 as the sole significant climatological forcing--ignoring sunspots, for example--ignoring the postulated and well modelled possibility of the oceans acting in fact as a CO2 sink with essentially limitless capacity (discussed here, in a site that should be familiar: http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html)

And it appears that the data being used to make our current temperatures exceptional across all known time domains since roughly the dinosaurs is in fact being tweaked for political purpose. And this accusation is being made in great deal, after meticulous study of the methods used by the IPCC and other groups. Once you start to understand the sorts of things they are doing, it becomes clear--or at least this is my own strong opinion--that regardless of the objective merits of the IPCC's case, they are in fact quite capable of doctoring evidence.

Here is a link with both content, and a good dose of the sort of detailed analysis behind the objections of "skeptics" (which is what all true scientists are): http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

For those who don't want to wade through it, the net is that the data was doctored to make the conclusion appear much more unambiguous than it was.

I'm rambling, but I'll post it anyway. I don't have time to clean it up.

Paul S,

"This is just an attempt to exploit public ignorance of the sciences and give people an excuse to avoid making the hard choices they need to make."

The question is who is attempting "to exploit the public ignorance of the sciences." In a free society, how precisely do you suggest people get information regarding "the hard choices they need to make?"

Hari,

Thanks for the support. I meant to drop you an email, but you had a post within the last month or so that addressed confirmation bias that was brilliant, much better than I could have done.

Rereading my post, there are definite flaws, but I would be curious what folks have to say about it. I'm not even remotely close to being as knowledgable on this as Jeff Glassman, but I try to pay attention, and learn something every time this comes up.

I will add as well, on a highly subjective level, that I have the movie "The Nuremburg Trials" in mind, and specifically the scene where Spencer Tracy tells Gregory Peck (I think) that the judges under the Nazis took their part in the Endloesung and all it's variants the second they knowingly sentenced an innocent man.

If we have scientists doing the same, they have shed their honor--and whatever defense they may have had--at the door.

Barry,

We live in a time when the president of Harvard can be run out of his job for proposing a theory that is consistent with all known data. There is no more honor in science than there is in any other profession.

It may be that a significant contribution to global warming may have nothing to do with human activity. Here is a link to a recent article in National Geographic.

"Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

3 rounds:
50 15# wallball
15 pullups
in 7:17

done on May 13

I posted the same link twice. Sorry about that. I can no longer locate the link I intended, which went into great detail on how a multi-proxy graph showing four "spaghetti" lines was massaged to reduce the effect of a downward trending line. It was on Climateaudit.org, but the one critique I would make of those guys is that they really don't seem to even be factoring laypeople into their discussion.

Here is, however, a good substitute link, covering the "hockey stick", a key piece of the case in favor of AGW.

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf

#88, Mark,

My apologies.

MarkM, as the "scientist" among us illiterati (surely there should be an opposite to Illuminati?), I'd be curious as to why you think this exercise is an exercise in futility. Wait, why you think

"This "debate" is an exercise in futility. . .",

and why the convention of copying over quotes for response is not a rational one, given the many simultaneous dialogues going on.

Please enlighten me. From where I'm sitting, solid empirical evidence has been presented that the so-called Hockey Stick is an outright fraud--that last link covers it well--and that solid alternative explanations for global warming exist.

You have accused Hari--who quite frequently says things I would have said, if he hadn't said them first, including on this thread--of dispursing verbiage that is odiferous and without value. Normally, that's the category into which I would place insult. In his case, he was simply pointing the fact that what "scientists" do is they argue, they debate, and they do their best to throw one another's theories under the bus, using empiricism, and rationality. That's how it's supposed to work. You can yell, scream, hold your breath, stomp your feet, pinch your coworkers, and if you still adhere to the standard of empiricism and rationality, you are a scientist. If you think that discussions should be stopped, for any reason other than the lack of a credible alternative hypothesis, then you are a polemicist, not a scientist. That seems clear enough to me.

http://www.google.de/notebook/public/16721468136203760739/BDQGMQgoQ6N7Q16Qj [url=http://www.google.de/notebook/public/16721468136203760739/BDQGMQgoQ6N7Q16Qj]glucksspiele online[/url] glucksspiele online [url=http://groups.google.it/group/grace447/web/poker-con-bonus]poker con bonus[/url] http://groups.google.it/group/grace447/web/poker-con-bonus poker con bonus [url=http://groups.google.com/group/taylor2109/web/video-poker-strategies]video poker strategies[/url] video poker strategies http://groups.google.com/group/taylor2109/web/video-poker-strategies casino poker on line [url=http://groups.google.fr/group/keith8571/web/casino-poker-on-line]casino poker on line[/url] http://groups.google.fr/group/keith8571/web/casino-poker-on-line [url=http://www.google.es/notebook/public/16507548802873716651/BDQGMQgoQo_Xb16Qj]probabilidades texas holdem[/url] http://www.google.es/notebook/public/16507548802873716651/BDQGMQgoQo_Xb16Qj probabilidades texas holdem

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/05645155337292444443/BDQGMQgoQy7Td16Qj [url=http://www.google.com/notebook/public/05645155337292444443/BDQGMQgoQy7Td16Qj]play 7 card stud poker[/url] play 7 card stud poker video poker on line gratis [url=http://groups.google.it/group/grace447/web/video-poker-on-line-gratis]video poker on line gratis[/url] http://groups.google.it/group/grace447/web/video-poker-on-line-gratis http://www.google.es/notebook/public/16507548802873716651/BDQGMQgoQo_Xb16Qj probabilidades texas holdem [url=http://www.google.es/notebook/public/16507548802873716651/BDQGMQgoQo_Xb16Qj]probabilidades texas holdem[/url] [url=http://www.google.de/notebook/public/16721468136203760739/BDQaSQgoQ1uTt16Qj]roulette systeme[/url] http://www.google.de/notebook/public/16721468136203760739/BDQaSQgoQ1uTt16Qj roulette systeme [url=http://www.google.fr/notebook/public/00358998162004228867/BDQ2NQgoQi8zd16Qj]bonus casino playtech[/url] bonus casino playtech http://www.google.fr/notebook/public/00358998162004228867/BDQ2NQgoQi8zd16Qj

[url=http://www.google.com/notebook/public/12508817695023352610/BDQouQwoQmaTn2KQj]black jack game[/url] black jack game http://www.google.com/notebook/public/12508817695023352610/BDQouQwoQmaTn2KQj play wize poker http://groups.google.it/group/grace447/web/play-wize-poker [url=http://groups.google.it/group/grace447/web/play-wize-poker]play wize poker[/url] [url=http://groups.google.it/group/grace447/web/poker-gratis-multiplayer-2]poker gratis multiplayer[/url] poker gratis multiplayer http://groups.google.it/group/grace447/web/poker-gratis-multiplayer-2 [url=http://groups.google.de/group/clara1329/web/games-roulette-online]games roulette online[/url] http://groups.google.de/group/clara1329/web/games-roulette-online games roulette online eigenes online casino http://groups.google.de/group/clara1329/web/eigenes-online-casino [url=http://groups.google.de/group/clara1329/web/eigenes-online-casino]eigenes online casino[/url]

american roulette http://www.google.com/notebook/public/12508817695023352610/BDQ2NQgoQlr_c2KQj [url=http://www.google.com/notebook/public/12508817695023352610/BDQ2NQgoQlr_c2KQj]american roulette[/url] [url=http://groups.google.de/group/clara1329/web/online-video-poker]online video poker[/url] http://groups.google.de/group/clara1329/web/online-video-poker online video poker [url=http://groups.google.es/group/derk1218/web/polli-poker]polli poker[/url] http://groups.google.es/group/derk1218/web/polli-poker polli poker [url=http://www.google.fr/notebook/public/08452766391187187833/BDSUCIwoQw5zG2KQj]bonus forum casino770[/url] http://www.google.fr/notebook/public/08452766391187187833/BDSUCIwoQw5zG2KQj bonus forum casino770 http://groups.google.es/group/derk1218/web/strip-poquer [url=http://groups.google.es/group/derk1218/web/strip-poquer]strip poquer[/url] strip poquer