Connor is the real deal.

Watch out world.

WOW Crossfit Men in bathing suits. Doesn't get much better than that!

I am deeply skeptical about global warming, but I simply can’t take seriously an academic who writes a sentence like this:

“Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings.”

Or a conclusion like this:

“Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled . . ..”

Connor is a beast. Excellent work, and good luck at the games!

Rest day- beautiful words.

Blake - I loved this one, thanks for posting this a couple days back.

Bingo - if you are still looking for another read on health care, Porter's book, Redefining Health Care, has at least started out on a fine note.

Time to read a few more "Deniers."

I note that I'm back in the compulsive groove now when it's an act of will to take a whole day off. I know I'll at least work the clean series with a med ball, Burg WU with a stick.

Connor? What are they feeding you?

-D.

Seriously, why haven't we heard of cows causing global warming yet?

(WFS): http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/causes04.jsp

I don't feel bad for being part of the beef eaters. I'm doing my part to stop global warming!

Global warming isn't a lie, but where it comes from is hard to miss. It rises in the east and sets in the west. Oh, and cows. Cows are evil, more beef!

What is Crossfit's agenda for posting neo-con friendly, intellectually challenged literature like that article? If the Crossfit is trying to show its patriotism for the USA status quo, then its not forging any elite thought processes. The USA had better set a world leading example in fuel efficiency and absolute pollution reduction if they're to have any hope of China and India not busting their asses over the world's dwindling oil reserves. You want to be admired around the world? Then wake up and get your ship in order.

It's a tenuous existence we lead.

We can control what we put into the atmosphere and it seems logical to ensure that whatever we put into the atmosphere doesn't harm the protective layers above (around) us.

That said, it seems unreasonable to expect that we could have any effect on what happens on earth at all considering that the sun - at 100 times the diameter of earth burning at 5300 degrees C and a mere 8.5 minutes away (at the speed of light).

We are learning more all the time.
It's complex to me.

Thanks very much for posting a link to our Science Advisory Committee member Professor Patterson's article. I have followed his research for years, having visited his lab and even done some coring with him. I can assure you it is first class research that turned me from a Kyoto supporter into someone who now believes we should continue to work on controlling pollution better (CO2 is not pollution of course) and conserve energy but the idea that we can have a significant effect on global climate seems very far fetched indeed.

I invite you to hear more from the scientists we work with at the Natural resources Stewardship Project by visiting www.nrsp.com, especially the news page.

Sincerely,

Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (thermofluids)
Executive Director
Natural Resources Stewardship Project
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2
Canada
Web: http://www.nrsp.com

OK. So imagine 99% of the scientific community is wrong and this Patterson fellow is correct. What is the harm in doing what is enviromentally correct? Envioromental policy shouldn't be a political issue. It's very clear to me that what is "good" for the planet is good for we humans. If you insist on bucking the supposedly liberal view of global warming. (President Bush admits it is a problem.) Then at least toss in something about recycling or conserving natural resources. You can't go wrong there.

I'm 19 and don't get overly involved in politics, but it kills me to see ignorance about our posterity's habitat.

BJ PENN!!

It seems as if the people who argue against global warming try to discredit science rahter than use science to support their position.

I can see this day turning into a fight over those who can Google obvious information on every subject about saving the planet, and the blanket statement group.

Evan (#12), do your part. Nobody can ask you to do any more then that. But don't call people ignorant unless you aren't ignorant about something (like government subsidized scientific data...a food pyramid that has made our nation obese...scientists who once said cigarettes were safe...). Give us all a chance before you attack anyone.

#9 CrossFit has no agenda. They are only invoking thought and discussion. By linking the two you have shown your own bias. And because of it, I've ignored your argument (showing my bias =D). Don't be so quick to judge why something is up for discussion, how about you give us an educated opinion on the matter so we can have some good debate.

I still say cows are the problem. I need more beef. (That is known as humor, something seemingly lost on Rest Days lately.)

Joe (#14), nobody is arguing against global warming. The debate is about what causes it.

thank. God. Rest day. I may not take it fully as i have to fly back to the states thursday/friday and i don't know if i'll have enough go juice after travelling for 24 hours to do the WOD on friday. Jet lag sucks.

On global warming, i am no expert. I make no claim to know anything about it beyond headline material. because of that, i realize my opinions are subject to destruction, but they're mine. :)

I do believe we should do what we can with conservation of our resources and natural places. Regardless of temperature changes, we have caused extinctions in an ever growing number of species, and in natural places easily accessible to people you'd be hard pressed to walk 50 feet without finding trash. We're slowly (or not so slowly) turning the populated portions of the United states into a giant strip mall... the list goes on. If humanity as a whole continues to destroy natural resources - from oil to water and the trees that give us Oxygen, eventually the balance that keeps us alive can break.

That being said, and to give earth a bit of a personality - Global Warming - Mother nature will do what she wants to in conjunction with the output from the sun. Temperatures varied without us and our "input" to the system in ancient and prehistoric times, and they will continue to do so. The only fact open to debate in my mind is how much humanity can influence the swings in one direction or another - and of course if we don't find other means than global warming to destroy ourselves first. :)

Arnold,

Please use your huge brain to specifically illustrate how the article is incorrect. Otherwise your cry of it being intellectually challenged means nothing. (BTW, an article does not have an intellect and therefore cannot be intellectually challenged. That's a charge against the author.)

You bust Coach's chops for being a "neocon" but offer no insight as to why you are so superior. Buck up intellectually, brother. THAT is the point of rest day topics.

Uh, Joe, #14,

Did you read the article? Taking core samples, solar cycles from up to 1500 years ago, tree ring studies from Russia, river bank samples from the Nile... Gee, kinda sounds like SCIENCE.

What's really interesting about the "few" scientists out there that buck the system and oppose the hypothesis that global warming is based on CO2 emissions, is that it appears that they're looking at a broader scope of data in reaching their contrary view. It isn't that they've completely thrown out CO2 as a factor, but that they realize there are other more significant factors contributing to, and in fact, driving the engine of global warming and cooling. I'm certainly no expert on global warming, but looking at it objectively, I can't quite come to grips with the fact that CO2 is, and please someone correct me on this, only .0004% of the total amount of all atmospheric gases and that that small amount can drive global warming. It just doesn't make sense.

It appears that if you hipe global warming, you can jump on the political bandwagon and go along for the ride; however, if you aren't onboard with the global warming jihadists, you're branded a neo-con.

Hey, for those into CrossFit and who don't like the rest day intellectual reading material and discussions, then don't join in. It's that simple. But if you do join in, then at least provide some input that supports one position or the other and not just a diatribe against whatever it is that Coach decides to throw out there for discussion.

A few of you here have hit the nail right on the head with Global Warming. A few Climatologists and Climate Geographers I've spoken with explained why they doubt Global Warming with CO2 in the following manner:

When the Earth warms up, the Earth releases more water into the atmosphere. This produces more clouds, more clouds means the Earth is more white, increasing its albedo. Albedo is how much the Earth reflects sunlight and sun energy. So the result of this 'Global Warming' is global cooling, because more light will be blocked out of entering the atmosphere, therefore the Earth cools down, not heats up.

Interesting hypothesis no?

But another thought occured to me. What kinds of things have we done in the name of 'environmentalism' in the past? Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring was a travesty of science, and its result has been the deaths of millions of African people because they can't use DDT to kill some of the mosquitoes that carry some of the world's most crippling diseases.

Could it be possible that those people who are so strongly pushing global warming theory have other agendas in mind, other intended consequences? More government programs in the name of saving the Earth, more mass transit boondoggles, more crushing and condensing our populations into urban areas?

What happened to some of the environmentalists crying wolf about Paul Erlich's population bomb? Or the Ozone Layer? Both of those great issues proved to be false, and I feel that Global Warming will soon follow them on the ash heap of history.

Sentinel 507

I don't think anyone disputes that it's a good idea to conserve energy, use renewable energy, recycle, etc. But pushing the idea of man-made global warming based on junk science does nothing to make me want to conserve energy. Does there seem to be a global warming trend going on? Sure, but there's a big glowing orb in the sky called the Sun that is most likely the cause. It's funny how the man-made global warming scare mongers completely discount this. The study of the planet's global climate is complex, for anyone to claim with any certainty they know global warming is caused by human activity is just silly. Stick to an energy conservation message for what it is -A good idea from a financial, environmental and national security standpoint.

Sentinel 507 # 20
The ozone layer proved to be false??? You mean we don't really have an ozone layer? Or are you saying that the public policy reducing CFC's that halted the destruction of the ozone layer is propaganda.

Both sides of climate change "science" have big, big, non-scientific dollars behind them.

Excellent article. Everyone who thought it was good should read "The Skeptical Environmentalist". Arnold, you'll be shocked by that book. It provides plenty of statistical evidence for the author's claims, and --gasp-- he's not American! How can it be? Hmmm... Maybe he's a CIA agent... Or maybe Coach Glassman wrote it under a penname... Dammm these Americans! Right, Arnold?

Comment #12,

It is irresponsible to hide one's true agenda (conservation of resources) in another agenda (global warming). It suggests your more noble aims are too weak to stand on their own merits, and will fall with further pushes against the Greenhouse gas theories.

As for the article, I gotta agree with his intent that the science is not settled. Yeah, you might have "creation scientists" that argue against settled ideas like evolution and plate techtonics. However, there appears more than 1% of the valid scientific community that disgrees at least in part with the greenhouse effect being the major player here.

Again, just because cows and cars may not be causing global devastation does not mean there's no problem with them. Just don't try to fool the public to do the right thing for the wrong reason, it may not work out later on (Removing Saddam Hussein comes to mind).

So what, is this some kind of a conservative website? Because I never see any articles linked to but ones expressing a conservative viewpoint. Personally I can't stand having politics mixed with my exercise routines. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Sorry about the double post, but let's provide some balance to the conservativism here:

An index to climate change denialist's claims:

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

#22 Red

No, there is an Ozone layer, but the Ozone layer repaired itself. The use of CFCs was only lessened in countries where enviromentalism forced the reduction of CFC's, China, one of the world's largest and growing larger, polluters has no pollicies against the use of CFC's. It was a huge scare that only served to make aerosols more expensive. That our, and Europe's propaganda machines that finally removed or reduced our consumption of CFC's was really the 'cure' for the ozone layer is a load of b.s.

I do agree however, that there is large money to be made here, on both sides, but the real question is how. Making money is not a bad thing. The question we need to ask ourselves, is what are these scientists/propagandists/politicos trying to have us do? Does it give us more freedom or more totalitarianism? Does it give us a better quality of life, or worse? How easy would it be for certain groups in this country to turn us more into Europe every day.

The UN in a recently released report, which I appologise I cannot look up for you here at the office, which says that the UN is trying to coordinate a global tax for 'global warming.' What it is, global warming, is just a new angle on an old problem. How can I legally take from Peter to give to Paul? Wealth redistribution of the highest order. Our fathers and grandfathers would have just simply called it Communism or Socialism, and in our PC world we call it Environmentally Conscious.

My favorite part of this whole debate are the celebrity faces promoting the global warming agenda, from Al Gore to Leonardo DiCaprio. Men and women with millions upon millions of dollars, flying around in private jets, telling you and me who struggle paying our mortgages that we now have to pay more for global warming. What it really is, if you know your history, is that global warming has become a new religion. It has everything, a spiritual and philosophical leader, Al Gore. A priesthood, Greenpeace and other global warming organizations. It even has indulgences, so if you're guilty about all of the carbon you've burned in the last year, you can pay Al Gore and his environmentalist groups and he'll plant some trees and make it all better for you so that you can go right on living your life as normal. At least some religions have gotten rid of that rotten practice.

Money to be made and right now, mostly by the environmentalists, third world despots, and politicos.

Sentinel 507

Strange cornflake reading. I don't claim to be an expert in the field of climatology (or anything else for that matter). However I spend most of my time working physics and math problems, reading data, and generally trying to pick the universe apart using nothing else but some fiery electrons contained in my skull. Since the entire universe, the climatology of the planet earth certainly being no exception, is a physics problem, I will put in my two cents.

First, I have read many MANY scientific research papers on MANY different subjects. This article seems to lack one very important tonal quality that I have come to expect from any formidable scientist that I have ever come into contact with. It lacks an overall sense of impartiality about the subject. The doctrine of science requires that at the end of the day, we all defer to the data, and let it go. I do not condemn zealous defense of ones findings, however one must always be careful not to start believing in one's theory so much that they become resistant to entertaining alternative hypothesis. The fact of the matter is that both hypotheses in question may be incorrect. The article talks a lot about correlation. Heaven help me if I have to listen to another person dumb down ridiculously complicated nonlinear thermodynamic systems they can't truly understand, like our climate, and make some simplistic correlations to any one of a million natural phenomena (CO2 emissions, sunspots, the number of grains of sand in the Sahara desert, the Yankees buying instead of building a baseball team, ect...). The first rule of making statistical inferences is that CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION. There are far too many potentially lurking variables. For example, for a moment, imagine that a third force exists and is not only responsible for the increase in our temperature, but is also responsible for the increase in solar spots. Thus instead of a single "dependent" variable, and a single "independent" variable, we have two dependent variable at the behest of one "independent" variable. This is only the simplest structure of a theoretical alternative. I am a math and physics guy. The equations that would definitively describe our climate are certainly scary like a monster. If you were to solve them, the scientific community would almost certainly give you a big cookie. It is not lost on me that we are in close proximity to a thermonuclear furnace as mentioned in the article. What I would say is that perhaps sunspots or CO2 could hold the lion's share of the responsibility for climate fluctuations. We just don't know. As a graduate student of physics and math, people ask me really difficult questions about the nature of the universe. More often that not, I tell them what I think I know and why, but I generally conclude by letting them know that neither I nor anyone else is really qualified to answer their question. Also I find it increasingly difficult to find ways to explain more complicated theories and phenomena in an intuitive way that people not familiar with high levels of math and science can understand. But there you have it, it is kind of like training for fitness or fighting, everyone wants results, but they want you to give ‘em the condensed version. Most of the people I train with tell me math and physics is too hard. Most of the people I study with tell me working out is too hard. It is all about mastering our universe. And no, it isn’t easy. Tough.

Please excuse any typos I may have made in the course of this post.

Ohh just as a side note two things I forgot to include above:

1. I am a theoretical and as such do not so much bear the burden of having to produce conclusive results for my grant dollar. I tip my hat to applied scientists who put in long grueling hours and turn the stuff of my dreams and the dreams of many theoreticals into a reality. Your job is harder than mine.

2. Being that this is my first post I would like to extend my thanks to Coach for kicking my ass in a 3-on-1-off fashion. I haven't seen this much puke since I dated a bulemic girl. Difference is, this time it is my puke.

Simply put, the climate change issue is a scam. A platform for the displaced collectivists to rest their weary heads after loosing their shorts in the economic arena. Follow the money. From carbon credit, to government grants, this issue is about making a buck and reshaping the world's economic structure by changing the rules of the game.

The SMARTEST thing we have ever done as the Human Race was figure out how to use petrolium as a means to build our foundation.

The DUMBEST thing we have done is believe that dumping a commodity such as corn into our fuel tanks will do anything to help the envronment. Instead as all great "enlightened" ideas we have just screwed up the world food markets. Launching even more people into the loving arms of the government's assistance programs to afford milk for their children.

Scam.

Here we got a guy posting above who has worked with the author, yet no one is asking him why he has switched his opinion.

Mr. Tom Harris, please share with us your opinion of the motivations the Global Warming crowd. Have you recieved threats to yourself and your organization?

Hi all, I've been AWOL for about a week, visiting some friends in Tuscany, south of Florence. I was only able to run on narrow, hilly roads, hoping the locals wouldn't flatten me roaring around a curve. The only CFish workout I was able to fashion was to run to a local soccer field (il campo di calcio) where I did sprints, then pushups, squats and burpees. Anything to burn off the pasta and wine. Although it's a rest day, I'm jonesing for a workout, so I'll give the box jump WOD from Friday a go later today. I missed the site, the WOD's, but mostly all of you here. It's really good to be back in the US of A. The best reason to travel is to come home and appreciate how great this country is.

#28, Wesley,

Extremely well argued.

I am always amazed by people have no idea how their cell phones work, but are nonetheless completely certain about far more complicated scientific "truths."

#29, CCTJOEY,

I couldn't agree more with you about the misguided results of the governments funding of ethanol. This Washington Post article sums it up nicely:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/14/AR2007061402008.html?hpid=topnews

Sentinel,
Could you post a link with scientific references supporting your CFC statements.
Thanks

Rest day? Couldn't do it. Deadlifts, deadlifts, deadlifts.

First a quick question before I go for a rest day run. How is it being conservative to have the viewpoint that the Sun is a bigger factor then Man on the climate of the earth?

No, it isn't that hard Wesley. Learn to teach, rather then come up with so common excuse from the scientific community "it is too complex to explain." I'll wave the BS flag on that one. Math and physics aren't hard at all. People lack motivation to learn those subjects, because they generally have no need beyond the simple. And, by telling people that it is tough you work only to curb their motivation.

Retiring from rest day posts. Good luck to all who stay.

#28 Wesley

I believe everything you stated was the intended purpose of this article. The global warming crowd likes to say that the debate is over. They tell us that they have irrefutable scientific evidence that the Earth is warming, and that it is "man" that is the cause. The author was presenting his findings the same way that the global warming crowd does.
As a scientist, you should know that for something to be a proof, it must have a number of steps that come to a conclusion. Anyone should be able to repeat these steps and come to the same conclusion.
The global warming crowd would have us believe that the science has been completed, and that the debate is over. Then they show us a bunch of findings, and computer models that seem dubious at best.
Like someone stated before, this whole global warming scare reminds me of other "fear mongering" trends from the past. In the 70's people were screaming about "global cooling" and how we all had to act now or it would spell our doom. Same thing with the hole in the ozone layer. Or Eugenics back in the 1930's.
It's just like how the hybrid cars are supposed to be our saving grace, but they use more energy in the building of them than a Hummer H2 uses in 3 years of driving. Or Al Gore having a mansion that uses more energy in one month than the typical American house uses in one year.

#9 Arnold

I think it's funny how whenever someone voices an opposing viewpoint the liberals and democrats brand them as a "neo-con" or and imbicil. To the liberals there is no debate, because in their minds the debate is over. They are right, and the masses must suffer because of their rightness.
You come on this website and complain about the content. It's funny how I don't see you complaining about the free training you are getting here.

I believe that we need to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. But to think that we should just stop using petroleum immediatly is not only ignorant, it is dangerous. If, for some reason, we were made to cut our petroleum usage in half without a viable alternative, our economy would crash. The middle east would become even more destabalized than it is now.
So you can go on listening to Al Gore while he gets richer and fatter with his "carbon offset" business. You can believe Sheryl Crow while she travels the country with her fleet of buses and SUV's. You can believe Laurie David as she flies around in her private jet.
I just prefer to think for myself...

Sorry about any typos.. my wife is rushing me to get to church....

Could 95% of climate scientists be wrong? Sure. One of mankind's biggest weaknesses has always been our assumption that all previous discoveries were leading up to a perfect scientific present where we knew everything. The Greeks thought they had it all figured out, too.

Every time in history has an example of some lone "nut" out in the scientific wilderness working away against the prevailing wisdom of the day and being proven, often generations later, absolutely right.

That said, we're not going to live long enough to see many of the questions of our day definitively answered, and we're in a position where we need to place our bets without knowing for sure the values of those cards still face down on the table. We do this all the time with medicine. People started using vaccines long before they knew exactly how they worked. Brain surgeons can't tell you exactly how everything they do works, but that isn't going to stop us from going under the knife if we need it. We put our trust in the fact that medical science has studied these problems and that the vast majority of those researchers have agreed that treatment "X" will provide us with the best chances. Yes, there are always those who will choose to fight their cancer, for example, with nutrition only, or Chinese herbs and meditation, and best of luck to them, but 99% of us are going to bet on the prohibitive front runner, The Concensus Opinion of Modern Science.

Which isn't a bad name for a race horse.

We don't have to bet on the front runner, but in my opinion-and it's just that-when we decide to give equal weight to the 5%-ers out there, we tread out onto a slippery slope with a real, possible danger of falling into the company of other folks with their own 5% bets and suddenly the moon landing never happened, the Mafia killed Kennedy, 9/11 was an inside job and the Earth is 3000 years old.

Red #31

I would be happy to, but I will have to email you privately when I get home. The office will not let me do much of any browsing and it was a stretch for me to get them to allow Crossfit as an 'acceptable' web site. Please be patient and I will satisfy your questions.

Sentinel507

Sentinel
providencehome@theriver.com
Thanks

#14/Arnold,

This one is a laugher: "You want to be admired around the world? Then wake up and get your ship in order."

The first lesson of first grade is pandering gains neither friends or admiration; applies equally well to foreign policy. "There are no permanent friends, there are only permanent interests." Being admired buys individuals or nations only so much, and nothing that would justify prostitute-like efforts.

The last 100 years, the US has twice saved Europe from itself, then held off the Soviets, and all the while defended the Global System of Trade (GST) that has been the only mechanism proven to bring humans out of poverty. The US, evaluated by individuals giving their own money (vice governments), is the most generous donor in the world. Right now, there are fewer war-like conflicts than at any previous time in history thanks to US and invaluable US allies’ efforts to sustain the GST.

What is it that you think we could do better that's going to impress all those US skeptics out there and make them love us forever?

Power creates opposition. It's fundamental. The US is a super power, which naturally generates opposition. US citizens have to accept that, and think most do. Fussy, self effacing world pandering won't change the fact that it is in the interest of many nations and parties to marginalize the US's dominant position.

As for the article of the day - for those that say “even if it may not be true that man made activity causes GW, shouldn’t we just do all these things that supposedly would reduce GW anyway? What’s the harm?” On an individual level, I do. I buy the CFBs, recycle compulsively, let the worms eat my vegetative garbage vice sending down the sewer, drive more slowly to get better mileage, turn off my lights compulsively, don’t leave my outside lights on all night, etc etc etc (how many Americans do this? I think you could gauge the ‘consensus’ about GW of those in our country by looking at these behavior characteristics).

But politically and on the world/national scene, the reason it is important to be willing to oppose the apparent majority of those who believe the four pillars of the GW theology (GW is real and caused my human activity, will cause more harm than good and can be reversed by changing human activity) is that those who advance this theology seek to use it to reduce freedom and trade and will destroy wealth on a wide scale. The destruction of wealth and trade is "statistical murder."

It’s not meaningful to talk about the GW political agenda and their stated goals for control of GW in the context of GW alone. I live with and love many who are as worried as most of you are about GW – my thoughts are not about those sorts of folks but rather those are driving the GW agenda.

The only proven track for a nation to bring itself and its citizens out of 3rd world/chronic poverty status is by establishing property rights and rule of law such that it can engage in the GST.

At this point, those committed to the concepts of peak oil, man made GW, etc, those wedded to the scarcity mentality, find their interests diametrically opposed to allowing additional nations to bring their citizenry into the GST. More individual wealth means more consumption, which these scarcity freaks view as a threat to the good life that most of us in the West take for granted.

As an aside, in a simple analysis, it appears that they like the pie they have and don’t want additional fingers in the pie. I don’t believe that most folks who are part of the GW flock are of this mindset, but that’s certainly the appearance of the agenda from 50,000 feet.

Look at those who argue passionately about the dangers of GW – do they discuss the implications for world trade? Do they discuss the possibility that GW will cause more good than harm – after all, who’s to say the temperature of the present is the ‘best’ world temperature (the case for a betterment of life on the planet with warmer temps is supportable)? Do they mention the studies that show warming will actually benefit human life or even admit to the possibility? Al Gore at least gives lip service to the cost of combating GW by saying his ideas will stop GW at zero cost – but his calculations seem like voodoo math to me.

The GW advocates, the scarcity sheep, they fear the progression of wealth in the world and are working to suppress it; their interests are in direct opposition to those teeming millions, billions, in China and India (for starters) who are on the brink of emerging from helpless poverty. The GW debate will affect the well being of many, many humans. Do we know enough at this point to us US power to diminish their chances of joining the West in the benefits of wealth? I don’t think so.

Bottom line – it’s call cost-benefit. “Do gooders” are all to willing to use the coercive power of government to force other people to do those things they won’t do if given the choice. We don’t know enough to know how much wealth can be justifiably destroyed in order to do those things which might influence GW. We don’t KNOW that GW can be influenced. We don’t KNOW that GW should be influenced. I will oppose those GW faithful (and those who appease them) who act like they KNOW these things and would hijack the US government in pursuit of their faith based agenda.

Paul

What I find interesting with these articles is the simple premise that no one knows for sure what is doing what…a lot of hypotheses and conclusions backing those up with highly intelligent studies and individuals dedicating themselves to finding the real answers….Kudos to all of you…

Think how much of an impact your pet dog has on your backyard in one week if you do not pick-up after them…

The simple fact is we as a human race the world over is a global destroyer in itself…the simple fact we need food, shelter, and clothing…let alone all these cool electronics, medicines, automobiles, etc, etc…

I am by no means a tree hugger, however, we as a human race must find ways to live on this earth in concert with it not continuing to change or attempting to change it for our single-minded purposes…

It is interesting to think, the sum total of water available to us as humans to drink remains constant…whether in its drinkable form, cloud cover (Vaporized) or in ice form the total remains the same…Now add humans…Read “Pollution” in the form of waste, pesticide and herbicide runoff now the water supplies are affected…

Think about the humans living in the Amazon, living there for generations and even longer…living in concert with their world…not much net negative impact…

We all need to do our part even if minor changes…think how different our workouts were prior to Crossfit…subtle changes can make a big difference…

Just adding my $.02 worth, not really knowing what causes what except noticing the changes since starting Crossfit…

Wayne.

Be great to see a debate between Prof Patterson and Dr James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070530/

Whoever is right, I think that technological innovation will make our lives better. Why are we all still driving cars with 19th century technology in them? I'd rather have an electric engine which runs more efficiently from power generated from new energy harvesting technologies (wind/solar/wave).

The movie 'Who Killed the Electric Car' is worth viewing to getter a bigger picture about which interests in America are holding up progress to more energy efficient transportation.

I'm certain that Hugo Chavez, Manmohan Singh and Wen Jiabao are equally uninterested in reducing dependency on oil and furthering technological creativity.

Why is this a Left vs Right issue? Isn't "science" about questioning everything? This article is one of a ten part series, each very excellent in challenging any pre-concieved notions about AGW "deniers".

The Earth's atmosphere consists of 78% Nitrogen, 20.95% Oxygen, 0.93% Argon, 0.038% CO2, etc..

Let's say that we build a campfire. We place a can of Campbell's soup about 5ft away from the fire. Now if we throw another log onto the fire and stoke it so that the fire burns hotter, the can will heat at a faster rate. Conversely, if we let the fire settle, the can will heat at a slower rate or even cool down. Similarly, if we move that can closer to or farther away from the fire, it will heat up or cool accordingly.

Now, in the system above describe what effect the gold ink on the label will have on the heating and cooling of the can.

This of course illustrates the absurdity of the AGW debate - to argue about the role of CO2 in a 1 degree increase over the course of 100 years, while completely ignoring the fluctuations of the sun. Many seem to ignore the larger role of the sun in GW. The radiation eminating from the sun is the primary source of energy going into the system.

Apolloswabbie,

I have to acknowledge the quality of your post. In several months of following the GW debate on line yours is the best, most succinct and comprehensive commentary I have read. I'm saving this one.

Cost-benefit", absolutely the correct context for the argument, and no one should get a pass when they claim omniscience about any part of the equation.

"Global Warming" is the issue of the day to distract the American public while the politicians go about taking money from our wallets while they have us debating about the topic.

We need to get more sources of power for our electrical needs. We need to find alternate sources of power for our jets (we will run out of many fossil fuels within the next century for jets - unless we convert coal into some type of jet fuel). The last tally I saw was the fact that in order to ramp up or keep our electricity supply stable in the US, it will cost $750 billion USD (new power plants, new power lines, etc.).

Look up www.nei.org - headed by Skip Bowman (former head of the Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program - or NAVSEA 08).

Look up www.teslamotors.com - new electrical cars that will replace petroleum cars because the material science is there. We will soon have batteries that can power a car for up to 500 miles.

I love the quote from "Men In Black" by Tommy Lee Jones, "1500 years ago, everyone knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everyone knew that the Earth was flat, 15 minutes ago, you knew that man was alone in the universe on this rock. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." 99% or more of the mathematicians and scientists used the Bible for a record to use for arguments such as the center of the universe and the Earth being flat. They have been proven wrong. 30 years ago, it was global cooling. Today it is global warming. We are going in circles. No matter what, we need to give this subject some serious study. Before politicians get involved (they are politicians no matter what they say unless they are true scientists in the field doing the studies), there needs to be some serious scientific analysis.

UN scientists are claiming that in the next twenty years, the damage that we will have done will be irreparable. These studies for the solar activities are just beyond the range of these global warming forecasts.

And that is just what it is, a forecast of things to come. Someone is trying to predict the future. People want to have some means of making things certain. There is NO certainty except for death and taxes. Life is VERY uncertain and unpredictable. Learn to live as simply and as happily as you can. Learn to analyze as much of your life as you wish to. The rest, leave to a higher power. When your number is up, it's up.

SLR

Thanks Mike.

Geoff, and Wayne (others obviously also articulated similar thoughts) - bringing a nation to western standards of wealth is the only method I know of to slow population growth through freedom. In theory, we could stablize man's impact, whatever it may be, by bringing the "gap" nations to a level of wealth like what we see in the West, after which many populations cease to reproduce at replacement rate. That could be bad, it's just a comment to think on when considering the issues you raise.

Until we're not using predominantly oil and coal for electricity, electric cars seem to offer limited upside, as best I can tell. But technology advances I think will provide workable solutions to rising cost of oil. There are a pile of books on that topic - "the bottomless well" for example - which I look forward to reading.

Paul

#37, Wayne,

“The simple fact is we as a human race the world over is a global destroyer in itself…the simple fact we need food, shelter, and clothing…let alone all these cool electronics, medicines, automobiles, etc, etc…”

I think your statement captures much of what worries me about the GW movement. You begin with the assumption that the human race by its very existance is destroying the planet. If you believe this is true and you believe that the eternal life of the planet is paramount, then it follows that the human race needs to go. Of course, this is not much of a fun argument. Most environmentalists are not willing to give up their lives for the sake the earth. So instead, the typical conclusion is as you’ve written:

“We all need to do our part even if minor changes.”

Of course what constitutes “our part” and what constitutes “minor changes” is subject to debate. Does "our part" include giving up some or your entire list: “food, shelter, clothing, cool electronics, medicines, automobiles.” Does it include celebrities giving up their private jets? Or does it just include arguing that Americans are rich (too rich, and maybe that’s the point) and so they should sacrifice, or buy carbon credits, or at least make “minor changes” as the GW movement defines “minor.”

I can’t help but wonder whether the real agenda behind GW movement is to reduce the haves to the status of the have-nots, a sentiment that seems to come across in this observation of yours:

“Think about the humans living in the Amazon, living there for generations and even longer…living in concert with their world…not much net negative impact…”

Paul,

I look forward to reading your book. When will it be published?

No pandering intended :)

And on 2nd read, 507/#27, Wesley/#28, thanks for excellent posts.

Welcome back John W!

Can't you smell the Aromas in the air...Ahhhhhh the stench of the games is near Nervous but excited can't wait to camp out... tttt-totaly dude. I'm with you on the camping pete crossfit live baby, crossfit live. who evers going to the games good luck. Hope to see you on the camping grounds, thats a challenge in itself..hahahahaha

32m 195#

Last week of school and I've been busy so I've been slacking off (i know, i know, excuses, excuses)

Anyways, I thought I'd make up for it by doing kind of a medley of the last few days in order to make up for it:

CFWU x 3(assisted pull-ups, assisted dips)

In 20 minutes, I did 5 rounds of:

10 box jumps
10 sit-ups (GHD)
10 65 pound thrusters
10 knees-to-elbows
5 assisted pull-ups

Now I get the whole Pukey the Clown thing--I still feel queasy.

uuuurgh...

Navel contemplation 101 "the sky is falling" let's all bite our fingernails and lose sleep. If everyone in the United States gave up there SUVs for bicycles, the Earth would warm up and cool down just like it always has. Its not "SAVE THE PLANET" its "SAVE THE PEOPLE ON THE PLANET". The best idea I have is to live your life the best that you possibly can be good to others and crush people that want to do evil to you and others. Meow, meow, its getting colder meow, meow its getting warmer. what are we going to do. Let's all kill ourselves and save the planet.

Have Fun, Train Hard,

Billy

If we chose to, we could operate our economy w/ far greater energy efficiency on a cost-effective basis, which would have many benefits, including reducing the emission of greenhouse gases and showing the way for less developed economies to advance w/ less waste. We would reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, both petroleum and natural gas, that come from polically volatile regions.

(Note to Appolloswabbie: We use relative little oil to make electricity, but approx 25% of our generation comes from natural gas.)

As an aside about beef: It takes approx 35 gals of petroleum equivalent to bring a steer to slaughter weight. The primary feed, corn, has a huge appetite for fossil fuels. (Planting, harvesting, and transporting all are energy intensive. So is fertilizing, since synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is derived from natural gas.) Paradoxically, steers as ruminants have not evolved to eat corn. They convert it nefficiently and the volumes they are fed in the feedlot routinely make them sick. On top of which the vaste amounts of manure pollute waterways and emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

Sometimes we're not as clever at designing systems as we imagine ourselves to be.

ASwab -
Very nice. As I'm sure you have read here before, Barry, Dr. J. Glassman, Hari, and others have argued this point forcefully, as well. Very well spoken.

Ric (#26) - It's called Crossfit and this is what happens every third day. Feel free to participate, add your intellectual "elbow grease" for others to dissect, or simply avoid. But "no whining" is a good rule.

Wesley (#28) - You're a smart guy, but you've essentially said "correlation does not = causation". Okay, now what? You are right, most people are too lazy to do the work - either in the gym or in the books. But the AGW enthusiasts are trying to force a "solution" to the "problem" that may cause a bigger problem. This article provides an alternative hypothesis - certainly a familiar concept in physics - that competes for our attention. AGW proponents say "thou shalt not critique our theories, else thou shall be blackballed as a loon". I appreciate your admonition that we shouldn't try to oversimplify the necessarily complex. But this guy's article is trying to stem the tide of lemming from plunging into the sea and is necessarily "dumbed down" for his intended audience. That's okay, too.

Resting today - really resting - after NAGA New England Grappling Championships yesterday. Ouch, my toe, ankle, lower back, and everything else, hurts.

Oh come on, people. Diatribes againts "Coach" and his tidbit articles thrown out there for "helpful discussion" on rest days? Give me a break. If a website in the middle east combined militant physical training along with worldview/political articles (which unanimously demonize US opponents), you'd quickly label them as extremist militants...with dangerously narrow minded views and a threat to democracy. There's no veil on CrossFit's endorsement of all things USA, militance included. CrossFit is doing, in its own way, the very same things to galvanize and energize pro-USA mindsets as would "terrorist training camps" abroad. Except that CrossFitters tend to be entitled Westerners with far more destructive power in their collective possession than any "insurgent" group ever will.

CrossFit is a great site for fitness advice. So why construe militancy into the mix?

41yom 180lbs
I am not of a political dude, so instead of an opinion, here is my rest day practice of: Front Squat, Overhead Squat and Push Jerk.

Front Squat: 10 x 95lbs, 8 x 105lbs x 3sets, 3 x 135lbs (bailed), 10 x 105lbs x 2sets.

Overhead Squats: 10 x 65lbs, 10 x 75lbs, 3 x 80lbs (bailed, weight on toes), 10 x 75lbs x 3 sets.

Push Jerk: 10 x 65lbs x 6sets.

I am happy cos I am definitely making some progress with all my lifts atfer 4 months of CF, especially with OHS; last time I did it with just the oly bar. I am aiming at being able to do at least 1 set of 10 reps w 100lbs by the end of the summer. Am I dreaming or is it possible? We'll see...Got soccer practice in an hour. Hell of a nice rest day!...Cheers

John Wopat-
Glad to see you back and that you had a nice vacation.

Kate

Arnold,

The way it is supposed to work, is we use the democratic rights like the freedom of speech that our forefathers fought and died for--which justify the sacrifices they made--in order to better ourselves and our world

We use an innovation which has been pioneered on the internet by CrossFit, which is called "debate". Debate is a form of discussion in which more than one basic position is tolerated, provided each person wanting to argue something, is in fact able to advance some combination of logic and fact to support their case.

Missing in your short diatribe, is the "debate" part, which neglects the topic of the day, which categorizes all members of our community in a broadstroke (and inaccurate--although this would necessarily be the case, unless you think racism, as a tool for categorizing large groups of people without qualification, is useful and acceptable) fashion, and which commits the Magnitude error by equating admiration for a viewpoint, with admiration for a murderous viewpoint.

If you haven't done even rudimentary research, I should add that probably half of the posters are currently in the U.S. military working to support your freedom to be a fool.

I can't resist responding to Tom as well.

It may well be the case that more economically efficient processes can be put in place. That is trendy right now, but the key point is such initiatives are being driven by private business interests for their own interests. Nobody here has any issue with anyone who wants to ride a bike. We have an issue with people who want to enact a trans-national socialistic system based on bad science.

I will add, with respect to our food system and cows: it works. There are always plenty of steaks when I go to the grocery store. The same cannot be said in many other nations. The source of your data is no doubt polemical, and I would hazard a guess well supported by a long history of seeing such "facts" that counter-data exists which either negates or trivializes your claims, particularly that of methane. You state it is a potent "greenhouse gas". Yet, isn't the very utility of this term in fact the discussion for today? Is there actually such a thing in any meaningful way? No doubt, some greenhouse effect occurs, but is CO2 even a shred as important as cloud cover and water vapor?

As Apauloswabbie [sorry] implies in his excellent post above, as do several others, it is very hard to miss the overt misanthropy of many proponents of various green initiatives, who seemingly would prefer that human beings didn't exist at all, and who have little to nothing on their plate of solutions that is designed to address the very real issue of global poverty. Nothing other than free trade in a condition of legal enlightenment (right to property being the sine qua non of any type of meaningful freedom) has ever been shown to produce wealth. How is China earning her wealth? Why hasn't Cuba earned hers?

Stupid economic policies create uniform standards of poverty, coupled with islands of wealth. Intelligent economic policies create uniformly rising levels of wealth through economic growth.

It is a fact of life which seems to bother some people that some people are smarter, luckier, and willing to work harder than some other people, resulting in their becoming wealthier. Yet, in an intelligent system like ours, no one can become rich without making other people rich too. Maybe not to the same extent, but wealthier.

In unintelligent systems like that which Chavez is trying to enact in Venezuela, you make the rich leave, you take their stuff, you give it to people unqualified to use it, and you make the country progressively more poor, since no one is willing to invest anything, if they can't count on their money not being stolen and given to someone else. You create a flight of capital precisely like what we saw in Cuba--which apparently hasn't made good cigars for many years, since the quality producers moved to sunnier economic climes--and you create a populace kept from leaving for America or Europe only by force. It's stupid, and the fact that smart people think it ought to work doesn't detract from the fact that forced income redistribution--and let's make no mistake, taxes to "address" global warming fall in this category--only lead to greater inequities of both freedom and economic result, for all but the party leaders, which in the Global Warming case is the UN.

Caught up with L-sit, etc WOD, details there.

5 rounds + 5 + 5

Followed up with DL 135# 10 reps/push-ups 10 reps, 5 rounds in 10:37. I think I could complete Brendan's 15 rounds of 15, but not after a WOD.

Arnold,

So what are you saying? That somehow we are no different from the terrorists? How is Crossfit militant training?
People like you amuse me. You look down on others when they feel pride for their country and support the American military. When they do, you compare them to the enemy. Yet, while you are making your vague comparisons, you enjoy the very freedom provided to you by the military you seem to look down on.
Do you feel guilty for being an "entitled westerner" as you put it? I guess you decided to live like they do. Are you doing your exercises in a cave somewhere? Do look up crossfit on your computer in a mud hut somewhere?
Don't live the same lifestyles as the rest of America, then look down on the rest of us. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your country. There is nothing wrong with being happy.

It does seem a bit absurd to be shocked at the "militancy" expressed on a site where a very large portion of the devotees are in the...oh yeah...military. Not that I agree with all or even most of the views, but I've got to say this site has made me re-learn something I guess I forgot a while ago:
It is possible to respect someone and completely disagree with them. It can be tough to remember that these days.

Speaking of respecting and disagreeing, I do have a couple of questions for Apolloswabbie:

"The only proven track for a nation to bring itself and its citizens out of 3rd world/chronic poverty status is by establishing property rights and rule of law such that it can engage in the GST."

Is this track really proven or is it just possible? It seems to almost be working in reverse in Russia. This goes to the "The GW's want to keep the little guy down" argument.
If (as it is easy to imagine in China's case) the right to property becomes in reality just a change in semantics, with the same ruling elite now "owning" what they once just "ran" and using the rule of law maintain that status quo, how does that help the teeming masses we're all so interested in lifting up?

And as far as our present or pre-global-warming consumption model spreading its glory across the globe until we all live on the same level, how is that in itself not going to lower our standard of living? No matter the system they live under, it seems to me the only way the masses of India, China, etc. get more wealth is through larger paychecks. What happens if they do indeed go from their present standard of living to say, half of ours in the U.S.? What would have to happen to the price of manufactured goods in this country to put every worker in every Chinese factory on a $14,000 a year salary? Will we really be that much wealthier at that point that we can afford the same products we buy now as part of our Standard of Living?

I'm only trying to point out that both the GW and AGW party lines have, in their rhetoric, some logic that brought to its conclusion can be problematic.

By the way, I should say that even though I don't take it on faith that a property rights/rule of law situation is invariably an improvement for the little guy, I do agree with you it is about the only thing that makes a better life possible.

And I also wonder about this GW Cabal everyone keeps referring to. So far I've seen Gore, Larry David's Wife and thats about it, if you don't count the parade of scientists, who, after all, receive nothing either way. I live in NYC, and if such a cabal existed I am sure I would have passed one of their meetings by now, the aromas of patchoulli and BO wafting from some basement storefront lit only by a single bulb attached to a bicycle generator.

A few points, more about responses than about the whole debate:

#19 (Steve): The reason that a relatively small percentage of the gas CO2 (approx 0.04%) makes a difference in the heating of the earth is the spectrum at which it reflects light; atmospheric gases do not reflect light (and consequently heat) at the same rate as they are present in the atmosphere. Water and CO2 are the greatest reflectors of heat energy in our atmosphere, and they operate at different wavelengths. So when the heat energy reflects off the surface of the earth and loses heat, its wavelength changes and it then is able to be reflected BACK to earth by CO2, Water, methane, etc. This is why such a small percentage of atmospheric gas makes a difference in reflected heat. Whether or not humans are contributing significantly to this number is arguable, as we account for less than 1% of the biomass on the earth.

#39 (Apolloswabbie): "In the last 100 years, the US has twice saved Europe from itself..." Well, there's a nice way to ignorantly start an argument and get every non-American's hackles raised. Yes, the Americans were significant contributors in both World Wars. To say that you "saved" Europe is extremely ignorant and insulting. The Battle of Britain ended in September, 1940, which many scholars realize as a major turning point of the War; and is also basically when Hitler stopped making intelligent tactical decisions and started making decisions based on ego and, perhaps, insanity. In June, 1941, Hitler attacked Russia. This was the beginning of the end, because as Napoleon would be able to tell you, a two-front war in Europe is unwinnable. The Americans joined the war after Pearl Harbour, in December, 1941. And while people like you enjoy believing you were the only country in the war, Russians took Germany. They lost over 20 million Soviet combatants in that War. And while much is made of the D-Day landings by the Americans, the beach which suffered the second-highest total of casualties was Juno Beach, landed by the Canadians, who consequently also progressed the furthest that day and were within 2 miles of their final objectives at the end of June 6th, 1944: at least 5 miles ahead of any other Allied army. So while you enjoy taking credit for everything that happened in the 20th Century, remember: that attitude some Americans have is a contributing factor for the un-American attitude a great deal of the world seems to have. Power in itself does not create opposition. Power wielded arrogantly and self-importantly does.

#42 (Blake): As previously stated, it's not as simple as you've put it. In the article, your example would be like increasing the heating of the can by placing a twig in the fire to increase heating. While sunspots are hotter, the actual difference in heat energy that reaches the earth is what is under argument. So it basically comes down to, what heats the can more: A twig thrown on the fire or a heat-absorbing metal placed on the can? I don't know the answer to that, but it is arguments like yours that attempt to simplify the issue. Scientific hyperbole is more dangerous than anything, because once people feel that they have been either lied or even exaggerated too, they stop having faith in the organization from which the information came.

I personally haven't made my decision when it comes to this issue. There are impressive arguments on both sides. The wavelength "window" of which I spoke about is one argument, but so is the human impact of CO2, which by simple biomass is less than 1%. I just think that anyone who attempts to simplify the issue at hand is hurting both sides. What I do know is that urbanization and fossil-fuel burning can in no way be beneficial to the environment, nor can reliance on non-renewable resources be beneficial for an economy. For an example, look at Alberta in Canada in the next 10-20 years... how will their economy look when the oil sands have dried up?

Just a few arguments, hope they encourage some responses and critical thinking.

Kate,

If you have a minute, pls give us a progress report on your recovery. Paul

Arnold,

To make sure I understand you correctly. You take issue with a website ran by Americans being pro-America? Just to clear up the confusion in your posts of alleged American turpitude towards the rest of the world and the environment.

On Global Warming- According to a link on drudgereport 4th graders in London now agree GW is an issue so I guess now is the time for concern. (e-sarcasm)

LJD,

You wouldn't be the first to point to my arrogance. And while I'm on that point, I forgot to mention that US intervention twice delivered the S Koreans from oppressors and I'm proud of that too (I never met a S Korean who's company I didn't enjoy).

If in an effort to make a piece that was at a least a bit potent and concise I gave short shrift to the patriots of Canada, the UK, Australia and the other Western powers who gave their sons to win the wars of Europe - I beg their pardon, it was not due to ignorance or lack of respect for their heroism.

What the Russians suffered at the hands of their brutal, ineffective, inefficient tyranical leadership, which led them to sacrifice 20 million to stop the Germans ... it's a horror and should not be forgotten.

Nonetheless, the US intervention saved Europe, and if your point is the war would have been won anyway, the Marshall Plan should have qualified for whatever admiration we would get from the world by 'being nice.'

Keep in mind the context of the discussion was Arnold's challenge that the US should work harder for international approval.

I stand by the observation (not mine) that 'power creates opposition.' Whether or not the US govt has weilded power arrogantly - fair game for discussion in my view. As to what difference it would make in the US's "international standing," or whatever it would be termed, I can't think of why I should care.

Whatever significance it has pales in comparison to the real anti-capitalist forces out there and the other international powers that seek to marginalize US dominance.

Barry Cooper--

Thanx for responding.

You are free to debate whether methane is a greenhouse gas (GHG). Those in charge have already decided. In the climate-change regulations that are now being put in place in multiple states, methane capture from animal operations and its destruction are an approved GHG control method.

Those in charge, as today's series of articles alleges--and in my view entirely corroborates--are being fed bad science by people with various political agendas.

Now methane capture, if it can be used for fuel, is an excellent idea, and, again, overreacting based on bad science is not inherently bad except to the extent that it is bad economics, unnecessary, and increases the overall authority of government in an unhelpful way.

With respect to WW2, I will repeat my frequently reiterated plea that those who want to at least not play the role of willfully ignorant, please read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". It is a thick book, but well documented, and the author lived in Germany from about 1925 to about 1938. He saw many of Hitler's speeches live, and over and above that had a knack for sorting through voluminous piles of documents.

Relative to your comments, you are forgetting the Lend/Lease, and that Churchill's entire, articulated strategy was to hold on until the Americans got there.

It should also be noted that the Germans should have won the Battle of Britain. When they finally started taking out the radar installations, British effectiveness tanked badly. It was Goerring's decision, in my recollection, to discontinue that policy, and I don't remember why.

The Germans also should have beat Russia. They took them fully by surprise, and it was only their late start (a result of Hitler's decision to punish Yugoslavia), coupled with some bone-headed strategic decisions by Hitler, that prevented them from driving through to Moscow in the initial offensive. That, and the fact that the Russians are some tough SOB's, when defending their homeland.

Yet, anyone who wants to argue that America was not the deciding factor in either World War, the Korean War, or the Cold War cannot be called anything but ignorant. I am sorry that history does not support your efforts at building national self esteem (an American export the rest of the world can keep, as far as I'm concerned) as much as you would like, but as we've seen with respect to global warming, the facts tend to persist, somehow, even in the face of inconvenience. I will add, stating the facts is called history. Reworking the facts so as to make oneself feel good is called revisionism, and was quite the popular art under pretty much every totalitarian regime of the 20th Century, and it is much in vogue even today among the aspiring autocrats of our own left wing.

Harry, I am still in the game bro.

Saturday I did 20 rounds of 5 pull-ups, 100m sprint, 5 push-ups and 100m lunge. Danie did it too!!! Man, that was a BURN of a WOD in Fredericton.

No camping this weekend. We celebrated Sainte Jean Baptiste. Vive le francais!!!

J'espere que ton epaule va mieux.

Jay le sac Penney

Here is what I see every time we have these discussions.

People, normally on the left, turn the topic into an indictment of America, "Neo-Cons", or corporate greed.

On America. If you are going to bust on America get in line elsewhere. You will find no free ride here. Throughout this country and the world as you watch the demonstrations againt America, the same type of clown emerges. Basically, you don't like us, I can bet why. You consider yourself a "have not". Poor baby. It is your fault. They put straps on boots for a reason.

On "Neo-Cons",. So far I have seen myself, Coach, Barry and others labeled as a "Neo-Con". If you knew the meaning of the term, you would not call us that. However, since foolishness is your nature, inaccuraccy is your legacy. Do some research.

Corporate greed. Get over it. Outside of oil, corporations are the coolest thing ever. Corporations are people, risking the fruits of their labor. Employing the masses, they attract and produce talent. Any national or World agency would do well to have a pinch of the talent in successful corporations. The best part, they are and should be allowed to fail. They get devoured by the market place, through either take-overs or los of business.

On to "Militancy" on the CrossFit site. You are kidding right? Nowhere on this site is their an advocation of waging violence or glorifying needless violence. However, if you believe that all violence is indeed needless, than you are a putz. May you live for ever in your weasley existance.

LJD #61,

You are absolutely correct in the simplicity of the model I provided. That is not to say it is incorrect. I have provided far more complex examples in the past and would be willing to provide them if you please.

The analogy still stands! The primary source of heat is the fire. That source is not constant. The label is an insulator, the metal a conductor. Each color has specific thermal radiative propeties. Arguing over the gold ink is superfluous in comparison to the intensity of the flame.

Even complex systems are broken down into simple models. Physics, Engineering, thermodynamics, aircraft dynamics, materials science, satellite thermal controls, etc.. From these simplified models, we can expand into the more complex.

The collection of articles also includes a study on GW occuring on Mars, coincidently matching that warming trends here on Earth. What might be the driving factor on Mars?
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0

Some excellent points here, thanks for the intellectual stimulation.

@ Don #50: I'm not expert, but I think a critical element of nations achieving lasting prosperity is property rights, not just monopolies, but in some kind of balanced fashion. For a very compelling and insightful look at the phenomenon and history of national prosperity and wellbeing, read "The Birth of Plenty" by William Bernstein http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Plenty-Prosperity-Modern-Created/dp/0071421920

@ #24 Nuke-Marine, you stated "It is irresponsible to hide one's true agenda in another agenda". Thanks for that! This is an excellent general point, and one I've overlooked often in grouping together common beliefs for conveniece' sake (or perhaps in the misguided belief they would be more potent together). Certainly, untangling my motivations, opinions, and beliefs on disparate issues has been more powerful than being as if they were all under the same agenda.

@ #64 Apolloswabbie, I quote "As to what difference it would make in the US's "international standing," or whatever it would be termed, I can't think of why I should care." Just a thought as to why we should care about the behavior and attitude of the USA or any global power: Peace. Same goes for any individual really, and I think you can approximate international politics and behavior quite well to interpersonal relations and behavior. Bullies don't create peace. Peaceful people do. Am I calling the US an international bully? I won't go there. But the case has been made, on this messageboard and elsewhere, for similar sentiments, and I simply address your question (paraphrased) "why should I care?" I answer again: peace.

Looking forward to whatever response this may generate.

"Peaceful" people do not make peace. They enable bullies with their inability to think past fear. People of action make peace. Sometimes that means roughing up bullies.

Gahndi, was an excellent example of one who would have peace at any cost, forsaking those who would be enslaved.

Peace as many would have it can not exist in the world. This is the problem with "peace" activists. They would have us a share a coke and smile and keep it company. This pathetic pipe dream has lead to the slaughter of millions of sheeple. Peace as they see it has never existed, nor will it in this astroplane. America and more importantly the American People have a better grasp on tis than most, throughout the world due to our love of liberty.

Mike, please go "there" and explain why America is a bully. You left it hanging out there.

Peace through strength, no other attutide will do if you value your liberty.

I understand your point Joey. I said I wouldn't go there (the conversation which exists in the world that America is a bully), I won't, and I haven't - I brought it up in light of LJD's comment in #61, and in the space of the hypothetical Apolloswabbie created in #64, quoted respectively:

"that attitude some Americans have is a contributing factor for the un-American attitude a great deal of the world seems to have. Power in itself does not create opposition. Power wielded arrogantly and self-importantly does."

"Whether or not the US govt has weilded power arrogantly"

My main point to Apolloswabbie was in regards to the question or attitude of "it doesn't matter what attitude America has, or what the world thinks of it" (paraphrased again). And the answer I presented is Peace.

As I said, I understand your point Joey. "Peace" as a concept or ideal has often existed as weakness, fear, or disregard for realities of life. That is not where I'm coming from. Again I'll bring this to the realm of the interpersonal. I've been around people who have strength and power in some sense of the words; they control others by virtue of that, generally out of fear or base self-interest. I've also been around people who seem to possess a different quality of power, different in some way I'll leave indistinct. They inspire and uplift others simply by who they're being, by the power of their character and actions. They lead by example. That is what I mean by "being peaceful." It is most definitely not coming from a place of fear, weakness, or fantasy. I'm sure yourself and most everyone here can identify with that. We've all encountered people of both types. That is my simple, qualitative distinction between "being a bully" and "being peaceful."

I'm glad you brought up fear. I think that may be the crux of this distinction. Acting from fear, or acting from awareness. Do you get this critical difference? They may sometimes yield similar actions in the moment, but for different reasons, and ultimately will yield wildly differing results.

We could go into more detail about self-interest, ego, self-awareness and enlightened action and such, but I think fear will serve well as a key distinction.

I invite you in reflecting on this to make use of my analogy of nations to people; the relationship dynamics seem very similar, and people have an innate tendency to personify anyways, which in my opinion yields many of the over-general characterizations people make about nations.

what kind of motivation do you guys respond to while exercising?

CCTJoey

Once again you've posted what I had planned on saying, albeit more succinctly than I might have. But I wholeheartedly agree, it's not about Global Warming. Or, back in the 1970's, Global Cooling (which was our most immediate threat, for those Post-Elvis Crossfitters who don't remember this...).

As Mark Twain (aka Samuel L. Johnson) said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

I am/was in the market research and competitive intelligence field...basically a glorified name for someone who kept tabs on what a company's competitors and market/legal/legislative trends were doing that would affect my employer's ability to be and remain competitive.

Mark Twain was a genius.

Anyone with any modicum of ability can take any set of data, or develop a research questionnaire that will give whatever result the designer wishes.

However, this ultimately gets down to a simple philosophy....one of control.

Those who are driving the whole "Climate Change" agenda are the same folks who deride profits from large corporations, who want to continue to give entitlements to those that would keep them in power (read voters), etc. Basically, anti-capitalists.

Yes, of course, there are those "in the trenches" of the movement who truly believe this stuff, but they are merely pieces in the redistribution dance choreographed by the likes of the Al "Carbon Offset" Gores of the world, where one group wants to tell the other how to live, and will legislate, tax and redistribute the assets of those they want controlled.

This whole situation is just like the gun-control debate, which IS an area I know about. While I am a fervent believer in the right to keep and bear arms for anyone, I can produce studies and statistics that are being used to further the idea of gun control and how guns are bad. It's all about what agenda I wish to promote.

But what it boils down to is control. Those that would seek to disarm me and my wife, and you and your family, want to control you. Want you to be dependent on The System for your safety and...whatever.

Those in power absolutely HATE that there are people who do not, and will not, depend on them and would rather that those controllers just go away.

It's not about climate, it's about control. Plain and simple.

Have you guys seen this interview with a Navy Seal about his new book Lone Survivor? He details the mission that took Mike Murphy's life. (ala WOD "Murph")

Family/worksafe
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=1774

Oh my goodness, we need to open up a Celestine Prophecy Study Group. Can't we all just feel the brown yuckies coming up from CCTJoey? Can't we all just see that if nations are like people then all people can be reasoned with, and peace will break out? Obviously, it is our own negative energy preventing it.

Now, Ted Bundy was just a lonely, lonely man who just never was able to make contact with someone who properly boosted his self esteem. If we had just been able to do that, then he wouldn't have needed to cry out for help almost a hundred times, would he? And we wouldn't have had cause to put him to death either.

Now, Saddam Hussein: can't we all just see how his father must have been overly demanding--you just have to kill all your enemies, son--rather than being a supportive soul, who encouraged young Saddam to fly kites, paint, and nourture his inner self.

I feel the love. Now doesn't that look like a sound foreign policy?

Or is something along the lines of a sober and dispassionate appreciation of history missing?

Goodness, I try to avoid sarcasm, but on occasion I indulge myself. The nation as person analogy doesn't hold, nor does the "fundamentally rational". Some people in this world, like it or not, accept it or not, are not rational. They will never respond to reason, and will pursue what they want to do, even if it is demonstrably contrary to their own self interest.

Obviously, it helps us if people like us, but conducting our foreign policy on that basis alone is idiotic. The word, I believe, is codependent.

Many nations have interests contrary to ours, and that they oppose us is a natural outgrowth of this, not a fundamental flaw in our objectives. There's no reason to annoy other nations unnecessarily. Nor is there reason to tip toe around like we need to apologize for existing either.

Todd, thanks for posting that link, very interesting.

saulj

#60/Don, Great questions, muchos gracias for the challenge of trying to answer them in the time I'm willing to give this before I go and lavish all the attention I can muster on my lovely bride (and all in all, I have found today's posts to be most enjoyable).

Proven or possible - I think I get your point, it's easier said than done - my point being, the only nations that have made the journey in the last 50 years from 3rd to better than 3rd world status did so with property rights and rule of law. Hong Kong, Taiwan, S Korea, Singapore, etc. Note that democracy is not a requirement, but sometimes results from the process of joining the GST. It's easier said than done because the institutions that support ROL/PR are not easy to legislate, will, or wish into being.

Here's my frame of reference for that - you can google 'the freedom index', there are several - and the clear relationship is that nations which allow economic freedom have wealth, and it is proportional to their economic freedom that they have wealth. Essentially, that means enough law (and the supporting institutions) to have ROL, but otherwise, the govt stays out of it. You can't donate enough money to a country without ROL/PR to make it wealthy, because such countries destroy/consume wealth vice creating it by investing in capital goods.

Your question goes to the heart of why there's more wealth in the world now, and what is wealth, how is wealth created. The answer is gains through trade, specialization, competition in free markets resulting in a spiral of creation of capital goods (technology, machines, know how) that allows more product to result from less human time spent. It's a huge topic; can't cover it fully, I hope that's enought to cover the idea.

Look, practically speaking, I question whether China, India and others will make the leap to join the GST fully and become the wealth creation engine that the West is. The point is that those driving the anti capitalist agendas would use the co-ercive power of govt to deprive them of the chance.

The "cabol" - funny stuff. The brevity necessary in this sort of board prevents fully complete answers. I have not seen the cabol either, but will immediately post the photo when I find them. I hear OJ is looking into it, too. But the voices of socialism, the voices of statism, those who would use the coercive power of the state for their ends and have no hesitation in taking your freedom and mine in process - they're out there; do you doubt it? And they are already weighing in to do things like preventing 3rd world nations from opening mines and justifying it with pap like "People in 3rd world countries smile more than westerners."

What's the implication of more and more nations joining in the GST? Unless the growth happens too rapidly to allow adaptations to the necessary changes in energy and other raw materials issues, more people in more free trade (wherin each side gets what they want from cooperative behavior) means more wealth, as has been demonstrated since the GST was resurrected after WWII. Are there limits to this? There must be, but I don't trust govts to 'save' me from those limits.

First of all, Todd #73 - That was a compelling interview. I found it both insightful and moving, thank you very much for posting that.

#74 Barry - You've gotten carried away. Perhaps you're trying to make a point that needs to be made - but not in that tone, and not to me. You've clearly misunderstood me, and if you want to understand, I'll be happy to take the time and effort to explain myself more clearly. And I stress, that is if you do want to understand. I'll exchange respect for respect, and give respect until I have reason to otherwise.

If you say that post wasn't directed at me specifically, I'll say fine, but pay attention to where you fit your diatribes into the conversation. By the subject and the placement of your post, it certainly appears you're ascribing a number of opinions and positions to me that frankly, I find repugnant.

If your post was directed at me, you let me know if you'd like a conversation of understanding or none at all.

By the way Barry, I do agree fully with the statements in your final paragraph, both for myself and for nations. This also seems to be the only place you wrote without a sarcastic tone. Give respectful dialogue a shot, you may find you have more common ground with the likes of me than you expect.

Goodnight everyone. Looking forward to my rest day tomorrow after a two-day Olympic Weightlifting course.

If anyone wants to continue this conversation personally, email me WarriorsNow@gmail.com
Of course, I'll check this board tomorrow after work as well

Evan says: "So imagine 99% of the scientific community is wrong" - where do you get the idea that this is even remotely true. The IPCC includes only a tiny fraction of the 10,000 plus scientists that work in the field and many of the IPCC scientists disagree with the highly politicized summary reports the IPCC burocracy put out (written by gov't reps).

I guess you missed the part of the above piece about the poll of scientists in 2003.

Tom Harris
www.nrsp.com

Sorry, late to the party.

No offense to the scientists in the crowd, but it's all theoretical, isn't it? Conscientious conservationism aside, the fact that such a large number of America’s “leaders” have jumped on the GW bandwagon is frightening. However, I’m not sure that it is motivated purely by selfish, political agendas as much as gullibility, after all the best lies are wrapped in truths.

Scientists toil at explaining the unknown, thank God. However, each new discovery just leads to many more questions. To say that scientists have proven the causes of GW is absurd. The CO2 argument is just one theory (and not very compelling in my opinion) that has too many unanswered questions and not enough verified facts.

Politicians toil at standing for something and the CO2 premise is a virtual fire that is begging for a hero. Scientists, often paid by grants and other federal funding, make their most compelling arguments to the possible causes and solutions to this apparent, impending disaster while the gullible public (of which I am sometimes guilty) takes these theoretical arguments as fact. After all, the scientists are smarter than me. They must know what’s going on.

If you were to go on a Smithsonian tour tomorrow the guide would confidently tell you that the T-rex skeleton standing before you is 400 million years old. But I’d bet if you held a gun to the head of the scientist that dug him up and asked if he’d stake his life on that he’d refuse and offer that it is only a best guess based on current dating methods. I’m not saying they are wrong, only that we don’t know for sure. At least we are not contemplating tossing our fossil fuels out the window because of our carbon-dating theories.

Global Warming not the first quandary that has created a similar vicious, self-perpetuating cycle. It’s news. Do you think we’d even be discussing this if these gradual temperature shifts were known to be caused by the sun’s own factors? Nope. But because it is true that our culture has become so wasteful and irresponsible we “must” be responsible for these global shifts in temperature.

We do need to be better stewards of our planets resources. We do need to continue to study our world and the factors that affect our future. What we don’t need is to have a knee-jerk reaction to a hot new theory and cause more problems in the long run. Drastic changes in national or global spending could do just that. Why go there? Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” told me so, and I don’t have the time to form my own educated opinion. Geesh.

I thought the article was a nice change to the standard propaganda. I tend to agree with the authors sentiments and I appreciate the scientific foundations presented. But it just offers another theory that may not be verified for a long time. I trust all of the author’s findings to be verifiable, but all of his conclusions are his own. My family is from Missouri so as they say, “show me”.

Mike,

To the extent that you are coherent, you appear to be calling the United States a bully, and implying that those who would seek war for any reason are fearful, and that wars principally derive from fear. The impication you draw from that is that to the extent we are perceived as a fearful bully, we are reducing the actual chance for peace. This makes no sense to me, because it ignores the simple reality of irrational human evil, and necessity of physical, coercive force to combat it.

Am I missing something? I will apologize for using sarcasm, but not for calling you out on the carpet. This sort of mindset has killed literally millions, and people that think like that are trying to get millions more killed.

Mike, I think I get where you are coming from. Unfortunately, that quality is not reveared much throughout the world.

When you say you wont go there about America being a bully. It struck me as saying the following something like this.

"I won't say who the most annoying blow-hard, egotistical, foolish, fat slob on television is.. but her initials are 'Rosie O'Donnell'."

I just happened to disagree with what I thought your statement meant, though it is clear now that your intent was not as mine above.

Illustrating the absurd! Now worms are to blame for GW.
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63227

And... Our old friend Al Gore. Does anyone want to answer what Al Gore is getting out of all his crusading? Misery loves company!
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2701314.ece

"The history of our race, and each individual's experience, are sown thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal. " --
Mark Twain

Paul I agree that new automative technologies are insignificant without a large scale shift toward household and industrial energy usage being derived from wind, wave and solar et cetera.

The huge area of how the materially poorer countries of the world can catch up with us requires analysis of numerous factors. Some years ago while studying politics I recall arguments which concluded that Americas economic success was largely derived from protectionist policies and not from championing free trade. I heard a former head of the World Bank arguing this too.

Geoff,

It may be too large a topic, but I wonder if a day of disucssion on what wealth is, where it comes from, and the in depth understanding of what capitalism is that would be useful. It reminds me of the 'farmer that killed the goose that laid the golden egg' parable. Since most Americans appear not to be able to think through where our relatively (to anyone else but US) high wealth comes from, we're at risk of killing the goose.

From that we could expand into what would most benefit 3rd world nations; it's clear to me that 'charity' isn't helping to change the fundamental functions of those countries.

It's entirely possible that US protectionism impacted world trade negatively - however, I think most are on to the idea now that protectionism is a knife that cuts both ways. US trade with Japan, S Korea, Singapore, and the other nations that have moved into high standards of living for their citizenry is evidence of what can happen when a nation gives itself rule of law/property rights and economic liberty.

Mike, from your post way back #70 - if I thought that being concerned with how individuals perceive our nation was connected with peace, I would concede it is something I should pay more attention to. I'm sure it plays some role, but a small one. Primarily, I think nations interact on the basis of interests. Humans on the other hand can develop emotional bonds that allow them to act beyond their interests on behalf of others. Huge topic - but if nothing else, I'll join you in a pursuit of peace and in looking for the best way to produce it (noting as I have before that there is more peace now than has ever been in the past, according to one group that researches such things).

Congrats on getting to the cert, I hope you find today restorative.

Paul

Wilson, #81 - "not the first quandry that has created a similar vicious ..."

The way the GW debate is being carried out brings to mind the "chicken little" story, no? These theories of impending destruction requiring immediate action are obviously not new and not even the child of the 'modern' media circus; it appears, as Michael Crichton describes well in the end of his book on GW, humans need to have something to be really worried about.

Nice post, thanks.

This is a good example of pure capitalism, with an environmental focus: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_sc/mushroom_insulation

Examples can be multiplied indefinitely. The market is calling for green products, and green products are emerging.

Another example of capitalism at work: http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/stories/2007/06/18/daily28.html?f=et67&hbx=e_du

Nobody has brought up "Who killed the electric car" yet, but I thought I might proactively post the GM response to it, which makes a lot of sense:

http://fyi.gmblogs.com/2006/06/who_ignored_the_facts_about_th.html

Bottom line, they spent $1 Billion of their own money developing the thing, making the allegation that they somehow wanted to squash it ridiculous--why spend the money unless there was a hope of profit?--and discontinued it because they only sold 800 of them in 4 years. The cost/benefit ratio was too high.

And yet, a for-profit, capitalist enterprise spent $1 billion, and is even today reaping technological dividends from it. We will start seeing more alternative energy vehicles soon, for the simple reason that demand is increasing. That's why the elasticity of free markets works so well.

It's realy tragic that global warming has become a political issue, with the American left and right wings picking sides semi-arbitrarily. (note, I'm a physicsist, not an environmental scientist by training.)

A good chunk of the real science behind it is that there is going to be a hell of a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere in the very near future than in a very very long time (if not ever, I don't have my data at hand right now), and no one is quite sure what is going to happen when that occurs. So humanity can try to limit that carbon, or it can just do the experiment to find out what happens. What treaties like Kyoto should (and mostly do) aim for are ways to avoid just doing an experiment with the planet as the test tube. To hold off on dumping all this carbon into the atmosphere until we have a better idea of what it will do to us.

But far too many people make far too much money pulling carbon out of the ground, through cars and power plants, into the atmosphere for the idea to go forth unopposed. From an environmentalists point of view it's not a big deal. On geological time scales a bit of an ice age or a bit of global warming is just an opportunity for life to evolve on this planet in new and interesting ways. But from the point of view of humanity rapid climate change is going to be rough. Warmer or cooler nations stand to lose populated coastlands, or agricultural area, at a minimum.

Maybe all the extra carbon in the atmosphere will help? Maybe it'll hurt? The movement to modify our global energy habits simply seeks to hold off on doing the experiment until we have a better idea of what it might mean for all of us.

I've seen this basic argument, but absent a baseline it's hard to tell just what the experiment is. For example, the article alleges that we are in danger of global cooling, in which case the CO2 might actually be beneficial. Obviously, we have had numerous Ice Ages. Canada used to be covered by a solid sheet of ice. It was global warming that melted it.

The fact of the matter is that our lives currently revolve around the use of fossil fuels. There are movements under way to alter this, and this is all to the good. All I and others are arguing is that there is no need or call, currently, for the sort of governmental crack-down that would be needed to alter substantially emissions in this country. Everyone that is worried, can demand and purchase more fuel efficient cars. I drive one myself.

Further, it is not at all clear that developing nations like China and India would adhere to such a policy in any event. It would have far-reaching civil liberty and economic consequences, and is currently unjustifiable with respect to the science.

It doesn't hurt anything if I bring an umbrella to work, even if it doesn't rain, but it will hurt a lot if we mandate the sorts of cuts that would be needed to hit the targets, and if those cuts are unnecessary, then the policy is stupid, because it has no upside, and a considerable downside.

That means the accuracy of the science matters a lot, and honest climatologists are admitting en masse that they are only beginning to piece everything together.

Here is another alternative view about all this CO2 build up. Some scientists have pointed out the flaws in the graphs depicting CO2's correlation with global temperature increases. Instead they say that CO2 lags behind temperature increase by approximately 800 years. Why is that?

As illustrated by the core samples in Patterson's research, marine life surges when the solar output increases. This effect is not limited to marine life. Vegetation also benefits from the solar energy, thus we see an increase in plant life and the food chain plays its role. With time, bio-matter builds up on the forest floors and elsewhere. Still, it takes more time to decay and rot, eventually releasing CO2 and other gases into the air. Thus the cycle begins and more plant life draws nutrients from the sun, the soil, and the air. More vegetation increases the productivity of the cycle.

If the solar output drops, it will certainly impact the cycle. But the oceans have a long memory. (This I believe is what Dr. Glassman has, in the past, explained far better than I ever will.)

This is not to discount other significant sources of CO2 and other GHG's.

Yet another perspective... Why are water vapor and Methane more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2? A few posters have mentioned that CO2 absorbs at specific wavelengths. But what does that really mean? If we look at the molecular model of CO2 we see that O=C=O is a linear molecule - looking down the axis we see a small target O. When looking at H2O (bent molecule) or Methane (tetrahedral) we see larger targets. As well, solar radiation has a larger surface area and more angles from which to heat up the molecules. Of course, each chemical reacts at various wavelengths. The lower the wavelength, the higher the energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2O
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane

I was reading this one and found the 'cabol.'

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/06/25/european_unity_leadership_on_climate_change/

I can almost hear them saying, "See, we really were right about big govt all along being better than free markets - sucks for economic growth but (assuming we have any idea what it is or why it happens) we can sure put a lid on GW."

That report, by Sir Nicholas, is discussed here:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=1d78fc67-3784-4542-a07c-e7eeec46d1fc&k=0

The interesting point is that one of the scientists used to develop the report repudiates substantial portions of the conclusions.

"Because of his immense reputation, the Stern report itself relied on Tol's work in coming to its conclusions. But Sir Nicholas twisted Tol's work out of shape to arrive at unsupportable conclusions.

As one example, Sir Nicholas plucked a figure ($29 per ton of carbon dioxide) from a range that Tol prepared describing the possible costs of CO2 emissions, without divulging that in the very same study Tol concluded that the actual costs "are likely to be substantially smaller" than $14 per ton of CO2. Likewise, in an assessment of the potential consequences of rising sea levels, Sir Nicholas quoted a study co-authored by Tol that referred to the "millions at risk," ignoring that the same study then suggested greatly reduced consequences for those millions due to the ability of humans to adapt to change."

You absolutely cannot divorce politics, and the need for a "war that isn't a war", on the part of the Europeans, from this discussion. They don't want to think about the very real problem of their demographic decline, and the ascendancy of radical Islam throughout their continent.

OK, that's it. I promise no more posts until tomorrow. Sorry for my obsessiveness today.

This has been interesting - I've done a lot of thinking about this conversation. And discarded a number of completely different drafts in the process.
Here's where I've ended up, as succinctly as possible.

First of all, thanks for the level response, Joey. We're getting closer to the same page. You said previously "Peace through strength, no other attutide will do if you value your liberty." I agree completely. Let's just make sure we don't confuse strength with violence. The strong may be violent; but the strong are not necessarily violent. Peaceful strength is not fearful strength; peace is not fear. Yet a peaceful man may act violently.

Issues I have: incorrect assertions about what I've been trying to say.
1. From Barry, that I've been "calling the US a bully": nope. I understand that what I was sayign implied that, but you've misread the context of my saying it. I brought it up NOT as an assertion of fact or opinion, but so I could make a point (peace) about a statement (apolloswabbie) relating to that sentiment (LJD). I used an analogy and so cannot say that was LJD's assertion either, it just seemed perfectly useful and relevant to a popular conve