beach ,all day ,ha ha

btdt

Great vid...boating with Tony "Put You to Sleep with the Fishes" Blauer

Rule #1, if you kill your training partner, dump the body quickly!

Love it.

Hahaha, awesome :)

hahaha

He had to go with Global Warming.....

http://strongasanoxandnearlyassmart.blogspot.com/2007/01/science-opposed-to-global-warming.html

time for the 5k for me a day behind

I don't believe most of the global warming hype, but that article was pretty bad. Here's a much better review of the McIntyre numbers.

http://realclimate.org/

rest day??? I was just starting to get used to the pain.

Maybe some biking...does that ever get posted here?

great vid.

Here's a blog post that destroys Steyn and his

Mark Steyn returns to his disinformation about the economy and global climate change.

http://austinmayor.blogspot.com/2007/02/steyn-of-apocalypse.html

Tony

I'd be careful, Lake Mead is much lower than it used to be [heck, just look at the high-water marks around you]. I wouldn't be dumping bodies near the dam. Take him a bit farther out. In the short term, you can do a 'Weekend at Bernie's' with the body while you motor about the lake.

Tony Blauer cracks me up

Eric

It destroys Steyn with this comment in that blog:

"Truths including this simple fact:

11 of the hottest 12 years on record have occurred since 1995."

Note that this was before NASA's recent recalculation of temps.

Steyn. Destroyed. Utterly.

Not.

Whoa....people are still trying to argue about global warming? The argument is over. It is taking place and it is caused by humans. Let's talk about what we're going to do about it and end the personal attacks and disinformation.

figured i'd ask this on a rest day... i'm curious to know if there is any benefit to incorporating certain bodybuilding exercises into the crossfit routine. it seems that the increased strength in certain smaller muscles may provide an increase in performance of many of the multi-joint moves. specifically, i'm thinking calf raises may benefit cleans, squats, sprints, etc., and even just a slightly stronger bicep may allow for improvement in pull-ups. furthermore, i know that many of the old-school bodybuilders (arnold, franco columbo, etc.) had developed techniques that they termed "cheating," but in fact were simply using momentum from a knee bend to achieve greater loads on curls - almost like kipping. on a side note, many of these same gentlemen began as rather serious power lifters and recorded some serious poundage. so my real question - is there any benefit to these moves? or is the benefit so minor that it is simply not worth the time? thanks for all of your thoughts...

p.s. - been following the WOD for just over one month, and i already feel more athletic and powerful than ever... i almost hate seeing the words "rest day."

Nice.....ha ha.

tony, you rock. that was hilarious!

That was GREAT...

That video reminds me of last weekend...oh wait, nevermind.

#17 slimbo -
I don't think anyone is arguing if global warming exists. It is fact that global temperatures have been rising. Your sudden jump to it is also caused by humans is the problem. How do you know? There were times in the past when the temperature was warmer than it is now and at that time humans were not driving around in cars or burning fossil fuels (at least not at the level we are now). There were also times when the CO2 level was higher and we didn't even exist yet. Dinosaur flatulence induced global warming? Maybe, I don't know, I don't claim to know, and you probably shouldn't make that claim either.

By the way, I am not saying we should not be environmentally aware, be wastful, or try to not lower our emission of green houses gases and other pollutants. I am simply saying people should not make claims they can not back up.

Tony- love it... keep em' coming...

Resting is actually painful right now, due to destroyed abs,obliques, and lower back from Monday's WOD. That was freakin masochistic, but I loved it.

Thanks for the comments, especially the tips on where to dump the bodies.

Tony

FYI: It turns out T Torres survived the incident.

This is the chart that is referred to in today's article: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif

It applies to the air temperature in the 48 contiguous states. If you look at this chart: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

You will see that although the new calculations effect the hottest year in the US, they do not change the net result globally. Since global warming is a global problem, this recalculation is largely irrelevant. The US takes up 1.5% of the total Earths surface area (2870016 q mi/196940400 sq mi)*100%. I'm a bit skeptical of Human-CO2 induced global warming, but this new finding really isn't very important.

That Bunkai comes from a kata that's older than Buddha.

No disrespect intended at all...so far I love everything I've seen Mr Blauer do and would love to attend one of his seminars.

Gotta say the INFIDEL t-shirt is one of my faves (go to jihadikiller.com for one even better), but what's with all the military chic lately? Seems everything comes in camo.

RealClimate predictably dismisses the corrected NASA data:

"There were however some very minor re-arrangements in the various rankings (see data). Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC. None of these differences are statistically significant."

What I'm wondering though, is how can they poo-poo this as "statistically significant" with a wave of the hand while not simultaneously admitting that had there in fact been an increase (which we now know there wasn't), that the difference would also have been an insignificant. I guess we can all at least now rest assured that there was no significant temperature change (either way) during that 65 yr period.

Nice link AngryG

This shortsited articled ignores the fact that eventually fossil fuels will run out, regardless of the effects of fossil fuels on global warming. Besides, the article fails to focus on one point, addressing the war in Iraq and global warming in one article. Please, next time focus on one coherent issue and recognize the fact that the majority of scientists (a very smart bunch of people) might have the right idea.

Petroleum is also a natural by product of all the activity in the Earths' Core.

I just checked out Tony Blauer's website...SWEEET!!

I rarely hang out on the boards, but everytime it's well worth it.

Man I kill soo many people like that, you'd think I may have learned by now...

I'm not a giant Daily Kos fan, but an author on that blog has a pretty good response to this:

The story began rapidly spreading through the conservative blogosphere. In most tellings, it contained the following elements:

a) NASA was forced to admit an error. (Truth: NASA promptly corrected the error and acknowledged it)

b) The revised data were dramatically different than the unrevised data (false)

c) The error was a Y2K bug (I can't confirm or refute this, but I doubt it)

d) The uncorrected data were a big part of the case for global
warming (wildly false. As noted, worldwide temperature records are far
more important. And direct temp measurements are only a part of the
reason we think the world is warming.)

e) The Mainstream media are burying the story (Er, there isn't a story to report)

Global warming isnt a foregone conclusion, but the political implications of continuing to pay the 'terrorism tax' through importing oil certainly are.

Its time to quit spending trillions protecting access to oil and start spending billions figuring out how to get around the problem. We are smart enough to do it, all we have to do is find the will to focus on it.

And yeah, pollution in general isnt so great anyway, even if it doesnt necessarily cause global warming, it does create a whole host of other problems.

I just want to post my results from yesterday. I have always been a horrible runner. In high school on the cross country team I was never faster than around 7:15 - 7:30 per mile. And in a triathlon I did a four mile run in 40 minutes one year, 44 minutes the next year.

Yesterday I really didn't want to do the 5k, but I decided to gut it out. My previous PR was 22:41 on a course slightly shorter than 5k (about 2.8 miles). Well, yesterday I did it in 19:46! And that was on top of burning calves from double unders on Monday. I've been doing CrossFit for 12 weeks, and I am amazed. So I just want to say thanks. CrossFit works!

redid Grace last night.

5:42

As my new rest day ritual, did 12 x 3 minute rounds of:
jump rope (6 rounds total)
Heavy bag work (6 rounds total)
did it as a superset. 3min bag + 3 min rope w/ 50 sec rest between.
Enjoy the rest.

Just started CrossFit on this past Sunday. My previous 'exercise' was training for the Ottawa Marathon. Motivated by actually completing the marathon - I have joined a friend who has been doing CrossFit for two years.

After 3 days, my abs are tender; my arms ache; my shoulders and pecs are sore ... I love it!

Thanks for an awesome program (and website!!).

.. Mercer

Steyn adds little in the way of knowledge to the world, but at least the GISS temp data correction was news to me. Here's a useful discussion on the temp correction, some of the methods of temp tracking, and recommendations for cleaning up the data (from a skeptic).

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cli.html

One thing he mentions that should be considered is that if the data for the US, which is relatively quite good, were adjusted in error, then the data for other parts of the world may be in much worse shape.

hahhahahha.. nice

Im at a conference away from my usual Gym, so i went to the one the Hotel has under contract. ITS A BIG BOX type gym, I almost met Pukie at teh door at the site of so many MACHINES!!! luckily no one was using the squat rack so i got in and did 135 lbs cleans/pull ups for 21-15-9, after that i saw a guy with a Personal trainer T shirt instructing a member on Kettlebells, so i thought wow maybe this gym is not so whacked after all, they had 5 bells layed out from 0ne kg to 32 kgs. the dude doing the WO had bad form and the Personal trainer just kept counting an jotting down in his notebook. after they left i got on the bells and did 10 reps each going up and down. as i was leaving the personal trainer came up to me and said " i always like to give out a free lesson, you should sign up" i just smiled and walked away.

maybe this guys need to see the Opportunities video where Coach extolls excellence.

off my soap box now

Anyone know of a website for keeping a log of your workouts?

Terrible piece of "journalism".

great article. I was totally unaware of these facts although I have been suspicious of Al Gore's fear mongering for some time. Thanks for sharing Steyn's article with us.

Some day I am going to party with Tony Blauer

Tony B - great video - it made the first 30 minutes at work much more tolerable as i was trying to not laugh so hard as to disturb my cube farm...

LOL! Tony didn't know the camera was rolling.

Welcome Mercer.

Steyn reads more like a book ad than an opinion. I wasn't sure which tangent to follow.

Quite possibly the funniest CrossFit clip I have ever seen! I'm still crying!

did a little max lifting today, just to gauge strength increase.

Deadlift- 365#-PR- i have NEVER touched more than 300 at any time.

Clean- 185#. I tried to get up to 205, but just couldnt get violent enough to get the bar into my shoulders. next time.

#44 CCTJoey- You partying with Tony Blauer, I am assuming, would cause a 1.26C increase in global warming.

On global warming:

- The planet is warming, warming and cooling trends are natural.

- The ice caps are shrinking on Earth, but they're also shrinking on Mars.

- Global temperatures decreased steadily from about 1940-1970, while at the same time fossil fuel burning increased.

- Global temperature fluctuations correlate very well with the output of the Sun.

Conclusion: Global warming is NOT being caused by humans.

/begin rant

Some info on the "thought provoking article"

Mark Steyn (born 1959) is a Canadian journalist, columnist, and film and music critic. In recent years, he has written mostly about politics, from a conservative viewpoint. His 2006 book, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, was a New York Times Bestseller.
He frequently lampoons environmentalists and mocks people he regards as "global warming alarmists".

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

There is a vast amount of information easily available about climate change and global warming. Mark Steyn obviously has had a certain viewpoint on this issue for a long time - and he is going to interpret any new data in a way that reinforces his already set viewpoint.

Don't believe Mark Steyn, don't believe Al Gore, do some research into - well - into the massive amount of research done by scientists about climate change. Exercise your brain - don't just look for somebody who says something that agrees with your current viewpoint.

/end rant

Also, awesome Tony Blauer clip, as usual.

#43 John Wopat-
I sent you an email the other day, let me know if you didn't get it.

The news about the NASA website update was new to me, but the author seemed to not stay with his original topic throughout the article. I, too have been suspicious of Al Gore's fear mongering and pretty much treated global warming as hype. As always, thanks for the article Coach!

Kate

"...Four of America's Top 10 hottest years turn out to be from the 1930s, that notorious decade when we all drove around in huge SUVs with the air-conditioning on full-blast." (paragraph 1)

Did they have airconditioning in the 1930's?
No.

This guy quotes people for messing up history with thier movies, culture, and political agendas... yet we have air-conditioning in the 30's.

Besides that historcal mis-fact, this guy is awesome for standing up for the troops.

LMAO at the vid

Like TimW said, Lake Mead is getting shallower, not only from dropping water levels but rising sediments. I guess Tony figures that what happens on Lake Mead...

As for Steyn's piece, I too felt it was somewhat disjointed and difficult to stay with. There are of course a lot of "facts" out there to defend most any position (except for an arched back on a deadlift - that's indefensible).

I am intrigued by generalizations about those who criticize American citizens or other entities. Being critical about the actions of individuals, non-profits, corporations (e.g., Coca Cola's environmental record in India), or presidential administrations need not imply a general indictment of our whole culture.

Like most overhead squats, it seems we have our strengths and flaws. Addressing the latter is crucial to becoming a stronger society. We need to be able to recognize and address what is keeping us from reaching our collective potential. Can we do this without characterizing any coaching as unpatriotic or indicative of "malignant narcissism?"

Can Blauer ever cease to amaze?

"Killer" video :)

I am in the military. I am wanting to start training with the CrossFit Program WOD. The problem is...the gym on my Post does not offer some of the equipment needed to perform the WOD, i.e. rings, the right equipment to do glute ham sit-ups, etc. The workouts provided by CrossFit seems great. Going to the gym and just lifting weights gets old...quick. Can I swap muscle up rings with muscle up pullup bar and what about the glute ham sit-ups, what can I use to do those. This is very frustrating to me...that I cannot do the WOD, because of lack of equipment. Can someone help?!!

slimbo states: "It is taking place and it is caused by humans." fairly cavalier statement. It is getting warmer here on earth but normal cyclical changes could very well be the cause...i am not saying you are wrong (though you very well may be) but you certainly cannot conclude that mankind is the root of all warming. I mean, the glaciers that use to sit in America started receding long before the SUV came along.

regarding comment 50 by BigAl: well said and well laid out....hurray for BigAl hurray

wow a full-on global warming debate on crossfit? we could be here a while. Just for my 2 cents, Michael Crichton is awesome on the subject. His book "State of Fear" is the best on the subject. You can also google his interview with Charlie Rose where he talks about it.
At any rate, on to more interesting data!

me: 40/male/180

made my own WOD today...been a little off the schedule from traveling...

2 rounds for time of:

20 kipping pullups
20 push jerks 115#
20 deadlifts 185#
20 box jumps
1 minute rope skip

finished in 22:00 and was pretty waxed, I enjoyed this one, nice workout if you wanna basically hit total body

Tony Blauer cracks me up. The previous video about stuff only working once made beer squirt out my nose... "Who the *$+#& punches like that?!"

#51 JK:

>Don't believe Mark Steyn, don't believe Al Gore,
>do some research into - well - into the massive
>amount of research done by scientists about
>climate change. Exercise your brain - don't just
>look for somebody who says something that agrees
>with your current viewpoint.

Roger that - couldn't agree more.

Green

My globo gym does not have GHD or anything like that, either. Check the FAQ for subs. I didn't have rings for a long time, either. If you have a pullup/dip bar, a squat rack, and some weights, and a track or running area, and a 55# dumbbell, you can pretty much do the WODs with appropriate subs.

Green,

For glute-ham sit-ups I've had good results sitting on a fit ball on a 20" box and anchoring my feet so that my legs are horizontal. It's not as stable as the traditional set-up, so you have to focus more on balance, but you can get a full range of motion. Removing the box would make it a bit safer but reduce the ROM. You may have to get creative in finding a way to anchor your feet, but I'll leave that up to you.

Meanwhile, even if you fail to find a suitable substitute for an exercise in a WOD, if you check the website frequently you can borrow ideas for rep or set numbers and apply them to other exercises you can do. Today I got "Linda'd" (not the same as doing Linda, but that is a discussion for another time). Even though I have benched and dead lifted plenty in the past, doing so as part of 3-way supersets (with cleans, which I'm just learning) in sets of 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 reps was new, and surely stressed my body in a new way. The novelty of the format also made it fun in a masochistic way. Good luck.

#18 - esteban

This is a tricky question because almost no one likes the answer. In fact, its so intuitive yet countercultural that people will reject this unless you provide hard lined proof...

In any physical activity the greatest increases in strength and performance are not due to muscle hypertrophy but due to the neural components of exercise (ie, practice). Whatever you do to train must be the same as what you will do when you want to perform. Hence, exercise must mimic the desired movement closely. This is known as the "priciple of specificity" in exercise physiology circles.

While calf raises will increase your strength in a calf raise, it will not increase ur performance in the vertical jump or even the clean very much, if at all. The muscle hypertrophy caused by the calf raises (which can take a long while) will only minimally increase strength. While the max force that can be exerted by the calf muscles will increase due to an increase in muscle cross sectional area, it will not increase strength or performance in the clean or any other activity because your brain does not know how to use those muscles for much else aside from a calf raise.

The best study that illustrates this is one in which baseball pitchers were evaluated for pitching speed in the strikezone before training for a series of weeks and then evaluated after a series of weeks. Group A trained using a ball lighter than regulation; Group B trained using a ball at regulation and Group C trained using a ball heavier than regulation. Group A showed the most increase in pitching speeds due to more neural "rewiring" that can occur just by practicing the movements over and over again.

The shortwinded explaination is, that in my opinion, calf raises would be a waste of your time especially if you are going for functional movement and strength. Additionally, the multi-joint movements will cause more overall muscle damage and will increase your overall hormonal response (Increased HGH, IGF, Testosterone, etc). This will cause more skeletal muscule hypertrophy than a single joint movement such as a calf raise.

Hope that helps.

bklyn

It's hot out. I'm going to mow my lawn.

Hilarious video Blauer!

I have to say my abs are so freckin' sore today from mondays WOD with L-pull-ups and GHD sit-ups. Getting out of bed this morning was painful, and even worse I've got allergies and have been sneezing all morning. Each sneeze hurts so bad! In some sick and twisted way, I kind of love it!

#17, Slimbo,

"Whoa....people are still trying to argue about global warming? The argument is over."

These are apparently the same kinds of stubborn and unreasonable people who kept arguing that the earth wasn't flat, even after the argument was "over." If it weren't for these non conformists, the sun would still be orbiting the earth, and we wouldn't be having all these problems.

I believe we're missing the point of the piece if we choose to focus the argument on global warming.

Both the opening example of the "data revision" and the later example of the completely false piece the New Republic ran by Pvt. Beauchamps, were used to demonstrate the self-loathing in America. Many people are so ashamed of being a citizen of the greatest country on earth that they're immediately willing to accept that their choice of vehicle is directly responsible for GLOBAL climate change or that their Armed Forces are barbaric.

When evidence arises to the contrary, in this case the new data or the conclusive proof that Beauchamps is a liar and a fraud, there's no story because the masses are too busy feeling guilty to have time to hear the truth.

I hope Blauer come to Colorado some day. His system looks far better than the three I've been presented with over the years.

had a twentyfivehour shift yesterday so i did the run today. between the heat and no sleep 31:41 which is roughly 12 minutes slower than the fastest five k i ever ran... given as all my friends are runners and i hate getting dropped on group runs, i am a little discouraged...

Big Al #50,

That's a pretty bold conclusion based on limited evidence. One of the main points of the link I posted discussing NASA's correction of temperature data is that the data describing average temperature is not sufficiently well understood for purposes of evaluating whether global warming is occurring. Our understanding of solar output is even less sound. Actual measurements have only been made since 1978.

The central fact about global warming that is known is that high-wavelength solar radiation (visible, UV light) is not reflected by greenhouse gases as much as infrared light, which is a major component of sunlight reflected/radiated off the earth's surface. The result of this is an increased rate of energy input to the earth as greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere rise. While greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have only been directly measured since the 1970s, the historic concentrations are readily measured in air bubbles trapped in glaciers, which conveniently layer, providing a built-in timeline like tree trunks.

The big questions are how does climate respond to an increase in latent energy and how could other factors (e.g., changes in solar irradiation) affect that response. Models will always have uncertainty, but they can be used to predict what is the range of likely outcomes and to identify which parameters that are poorly understood are likely to be significant to the accuracy of those predictions.

Climate prediction will remain a bit of an art for a long time, no matter how scientifically grounded it is. However, we have to do a bit of a risk assessment. The potential hazards associated with climate change are huge. Even if we give them a small probability of happening, the risk (probability x hazard) will still remain substantial. (FWIW, this is the same kind of calculation that was done to evaluate whether Sadaam Hussein had WMD and whether those weapons would come to do America harm - big potential hazard & relatively low probability, given Sadaam's containment and distaste for/fear of militant Islamists.)

As a policy matter, I believe we have to prepare for the possibility that climate change predictions of rising sea levels, for example, may be true. This has implications for all levels of policy. We can choose which measures designed to minimize the extent of or mitigate the impacts of global warming are the most palatable and will be the most beneficial for our economy (i.e., have a high probability of low damage) and invest accordingly. It may be time to reduce subsidies for oil production, deal with the short-term cost increases at the pump, and invest in (i.e., subsidize) renewable resources. It may be worth limiting investment in rebuilding low-elevation areas of New Orleans, which are predicted to be more and more susceptible to natural disaster. There is a wide-ranging discussion that should be had on how we manage risk through public policy and promote strategic investment, rather than having endless discussions about how we FEEL about the uncertainties of the climate change debate. Right now, there is predominantly hype and backlash in the mass marketplace of ideas. It is time to start paying attention to the facts, the range of likely outcomes given the uncertainties, and possible courses of action to hedge against risk, while allowing the engine of economic growth the freedom to turn.

http://realclimate.org/ - explains the data addendum.

As Craig L #10 posted

A moderate's opinion:

1) Its a column, not a news article. Its this man's opinion, so to call it a horrible piece of "journalism" isn't really fair.

2) The title of this column is "Warm-mongers and Cheeseburger Imperialists." From the title itself, it seems that the author never intended to counter only the global warming movement. Instead, this piece was meant as a "general" critique of the liberal/far left movement. So simply dismissing the article by claiming that its all over th place or doesn't stay on topic isn't fair either.

3) Finally, countering the counter-argument by citing the same sources that the counter-argumet critiques doesn't really solve the problem. Its irrational. The proper counter to the counter-argument would be to bring in additional sources. If you're in a trial and you say that the law says this, and the other attorney finds a case that disproves your argument, you don't say that the law still says this and that's it. You find a case that counter's the other attorney's case and you argue that.

Just a thought. Look forward to reading more comments; there really are some insightful people that post on rest days on this website!

#41 Anon
You can track your workouts by starting a blog at http://www.wordpress.com (they are free). Mine is http://slscrossfit.wordpress.com

Big Al #50

You must have missed the data that showed a recent decline in solar output but a continuing increase in warming?

Note: the NASA error was, I believe, 15/1000s of a degree, not "material" to current working theories about warming. "Material," meaning statistically significant. Remember, we're talking science, not your feelings.

We know the climate is warming. We have good evidence to say that human activity is contributing, even if not wholly responsible. The truly conservative response would be to take steps to mitigate risk, that is, act to moderate the warming because of the enormous potential financial costs and social disruptions it will cause.

Curiously, though, capital-C Conservatives are not conservative about this and related matters. They argue about why they shouldn't have to be.

Does anyone know of a website that lists what year we started recording the Martian temperatures and what the readings are from year to year? There are plenty of sites that state "Yup its warming!" but give no data.

Regardless of scientific theory, a simple analysis of proposed actions to prevent climate change reveal that it is yet another scheme by the left to gain power and redistribute wealth. Instead of proposing increased funding for clean technologies, improving fuel standards for vehicles and other "green" incentives the left concocts a "carbon trading scheme" giving big government total control over the industry by being able to hand out "carbon credits" to businesses that suck at the power teat. If it looks like a rat and smeels like a rat call it what it is - carbon trading is sneaky communism.

33 minutes

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

Thanks Tony. Now I know what to do with my neighbor.

That was great!

D

The Anthropogenic Global Warming argument boils down to the claims that our current weather is uniquely hot in observable history, that our global CO2 levels are uniquely high, that we are causing that increase, and that no other significant factors are at work.

Yet, the data used to make the claim that our temperatures are uniquely hot was cooked. Here is the best summary of the issue: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

With respect to CO2 we are comparing ice cores taken from the pole, to data gathered in Hawaii. We are assuming, without justification, that CO2 is evenly mixed in all parts of the atmosphere, and thus comparing absolute levels. Given that the ocean stores CO2, and that more CO2 comes out of liquid water than frozen water, this tactic is not supportable, or is at a minimum not strong in it's basis.

It also appears that as temperatures rise, more CO2 is released, but Jeff Glassman makes the excellent point that there have been many documented increases in CO2 throughout history--the ice core CO2 amounts go up and down --and if CO2 acted as a feedback loop, causing a spiral upwards every time it increased in volumen, we would have burned out many millenia ago. That we did not suggests, in my view unassailably, that there is a buffering system at work, as he describes in his paper, posted many times. (Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide--Dr. Rocket should do it on Google).

A further correllate to this is the argument that immediate reductions are both possible and should be mandated by government agencies. This seems to many of us to be a principle reason that the fervor with which AGW is accepted on the left so far exceeds that on the Right, business considerations notwithstanding.

Both Cosmic Radiation and Solar Radiation have been plausibly advanced as factors in our climate. It is worth noting as well that weather is inherently chaotic. It is a non-linear system, according at least to any measurements we can possibly make. Thus even absent forcings (extraneous factors that alter further its' natural variability) of various sorts, the weather will vary constantly.

*************************************************
NEVER FORGET
*************************************************
CF Community,
My friend who is in Iraq sent this to me while I was on vacation. It is so compelling that I wanted to share it with you. While I am proud of my time in the Marines, nothing I did compares to what these guys are facing every day.

The pure and simple fact that there is any doubt that this short notice on the passing of a U.S. Serviceman would be published is an absolute shame. I guess our society feels that sacrifice is Paris Hilton going to jail for two weeks and not the life of a young American serving our country.

Dearest Friends and Family,

I hope this finds you well.....it's been EXTREMELY busy the last few weeks.....and unfortunately.....a very hard few weeks at that.

Not sure if you've heard......

____________________________________________________________________

DoD Identifies Navy Casualty

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a sailor who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Hospitalman Daniel S. Noble, 21, of Whittier, Calif., died as a result of enemy action while conducting operations in Iraq. He was permanently assigned to 1st Marine Division, Fleet Marine Force Pacific, Camp Pendleton, Calif.

_____________________________________________________________________

I ask that you keep Dan and his family in your prayers during this time of sorrow. I'm not sure that this has made the headlines back in the states, but rest assured......he wanted to be here, he wanted to serve his country, and he was PROUD to be apart of this unit.

He was young, and enlisted in a program in which he could serve in the Navy for a period of 15 months following all of his training schools (which basically allowed him just enough time to participate in the predeployment workups, come out here, and then get out right about the time we got back). Yes, it was a short term obligation, but it meant the world to him.....he was proud to be out here so someone else wouldn't have to be. I had many little talks with Dan before we came out here, "encouraging" him to extend his contract, enticing him will all of the Navy's benefits and opportunities.....he politely declined each time. He was determined to finish his enlistment and serving along side his father in the California Highway Patrol.

I've pretty much got my pulse on everything that goes on in my BAS......I know each of my 60+ Shipmates EXTREMELY well...I know of their families, I know of their pasts, I know of their personal situations, I know what they're going to do when the deployment is over, and I know each of their plans in the Navy and life thereafter.

What I did not know...was how many lives Dan had touched in the short time he was with us. It would be easier to say who didn't know him versus all that did. This became very apparent prior to "low key"
service we had planned. Word got out, and when I walked out to the helicopter pad to conduct the ceremony, I was taken aback......the greater part of the Battalion had made their way down.

I put together a small memorial service to honor him, to let him know his Spirit would never be forgotten. I made it through most of the day.....trying to hide my own sorrow and present a strong mind and soul for my junior Sailors...... It only lasted so long. At the end of the ceremony, we played Taps. Sometimes...there's just no holding the tears back. I've had the unfortunate pleasure of hearing that bugle one too many times. It's extremely hard to know that I, as his leader, his mentor, and his brother, placed him in that situation.

In all my days here in Iraq....not one goes by in which I don't ask God to keep all of my men safe.

I ask for your help, and your prayers in keeping them safe and strong.
We've got just a little longer to go.....and I know that couldn't bear the loss of another.

We're in the process of creating a small memorial for his family. We were able to obtain some of his pictures off of the internet, a few Marines made a placard for him, and someone else is going use their woodworking skills and fabricate a nice plaque for his family. Delivery of this to his family will be my first priority once we get back.

As a result of certain actions taken by some people out here, we're heading out for a few days. Needless to say, I'll always be the first on the vehicles.

I thank you so much for your time and prayers.......

I think of you often and am so grateful for your love, friendship and support.

#62 bklyn

thanks for your thoughts, and i understand your reasoning. i'm still interested in a few things, though. i guess my biggest question (remaining) concerns the fact that something like training and improvement in a squat is also pivotal in improvement in sport-specific movements like, since you brought up the example, pitch speed. i played baseball through college, and strictly from antecdotal evidence, my all-around performance, including velocity, improved when olympic lifts were incorporated in my training regimen. non-specific training led to improvement in specific movement efficiency, even when the movements are drastically different. this seems to fly in the face of your argument suggesting the brain may not know how to adapt one strength into another. this line of thinking also seems to suggest that a crossfitter will only succeed in competitions involving moves done in the crossfit routine - and this i know to be false.

i am not suggesting that anyone add concentration curls to their crossfit routine. however, i still suspect that heavy barbell curls - the type requiring the whole body to participate in a way similar to hang-clean - would develop biceps strength that would be functional to all pull-up movements.

regardless, thank you for you thoughtful and clear answer, and if you (or anyone else) can clarify this point further, i'm all ears...

#72-

Andy~ NASA and NOAA are good websites for data that has been analyzed and run through the ringer, as well as some raw data, but some of it is hard to find and not all of the analytical approaches are documented. A really good way to look at what is really being done, apart from any and all secondary and tertiary media blitzes and political grandstanding, is to get access to a University journals database, and do a number of searches on key words, and then from the resulting literature list, on key authors. The abstracts of those papers will contain the summary, and are generally comprehensible even if the the math is complex. I highly recommend also checking precisely in WHAT journal or publication the papers were published.

41yo/f/#165
ran 3.2mile on treadmill 1degree incline
31:03

MURDERER! MURDERER! MURDERER!

check this out, from:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708120001?f=i_latest

During the "Political Grapevine" segment of the August 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, guest host and chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reported that NASA was forced "to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record" and that NASA "now says 1934 was the hottest year, followed by 1998, then 1921." But Angle did not inform viewers that NASA's revision affected annual temperature rankings for the United States only; it had no effect on the annual global temperature rankings. According to NASA climate modeler Gavin A. Schmidt, 2005 remains the warmest year globally in the instrumental record, followed by 1998.

Angle further stated that "five of the hottest 10 years on record occurred before World War II." In fact, this statement is true only for temperatures in the United States; according to NASA, all 10 of the warmest years globally in the instrumental record have occurred after 1989.

Angle's report was accompanied by an on-screen graphic reading: "1998 Not So Hot."

From the August 10 report:

ANGLE: The man behind the website climateaudit.org has forced NASA to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record. Steve McIntyre had to reverse-engineer NASA's figures because the agency refused to give him the formula it used to make the claim. And McIntyre found out NASA had made a serious mistake. NASA eventually agreed and now says 1934 was the hottest year, followed by 1998, then 1921. In fact, five of the hottest 10 years on record occurred before World War II.

NASA recently corrected its climate figures after the discovery of inconsistencies in its U.S. temperature data. According to Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a contributor to the RealClimate blog (posting as "gavin"), the correction resulted in a re-ranking of NASA's list of the warmest years in the United States. For example, whereas 1998 was previously ranked as the warmest year for the United States, it is now ranked second, behind 1934. According to Schmidt, the temperature difference between 1934 and 1998 in the United States -- both before and after the correction -- is not statistically significant.

According to Schmidt, the effects of the correction on annual global and hemispheric temperature data are "imperceptible":

Last Saturday, Steve McIntyre wrote an email to NASA GISS pointing out that for some North American stations in the GISTEMP analysis, there was an odd jump in going from 1999 to 2000. On Monday, the people who work on the temperature analysis (not me), looked into it and found that this coincided with the switch between two sources of US temperature data. There had been a faulty assumption that these two sources matched, but that turned out not to be the case. There were in fact a number of small offsets (of both sign) between the same stations in the two different data sets. The obvious fix was to make an adjustment based on a period of overlap so that these offsets disappear.

This was duly done by Tuesday, an email thanking McIntyre was sent and the data analysis (which had been due in any case for the processing of the July numbers) was updated accordingly along with an acknowledgment to McIntyre and update of the methodology.

The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000-2006. There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area).

There were however some very minor re-arrangements in the various rankings (see data). Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC. None of these differences are statistically significant.

[...]

More importantly for climate purposes, the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2002-2006 (at 0.66 ºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ºC - the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 ºC). (The previous version - up to 2005 - can be seen here).

In the global mean, 2005 remains the warmest (as in the NCDC analysis).

I have to wonder if automobile emissions are a drop in the bucket compared to industrial emissions. Perhaps a small percentage of the billions of posted profits of some of these idustrial sectors could be put toward reducing or eliminate emissions, or shifting the cost of production back onto the industry and away from our shared environment.

I know it goes against corporate-peon instinct to spend millions voluntarily, rather than maximize bottom line, but I think this is where the solution lies -- the people causing the problem have the funds to provide the solution.

Perhaps, just like humans, corporations should have limited life-spans, and be allowed to extend those life-spans according to how well they treat the environments ("thier bodies") that support their activities. The immortality of corporations make the needs and concerns of us mere mortals irrelevant.

Really, hybrid cars and recycling programs make chump-change worth of difference in comparison.

Sorry I don't have the research to back it up. But living around the Great Lakes for most of my life and observing the endless saga of polluters vs. local communities, I am confident that industry, so vital to our modern lives, are the only ones with the power and leverage to effect any real change.

Democracy is too simple to save us.

#60 Brkln Chris,

I would have to disagree with some of what you said. You're body is a kinetic chain and is only as strong as it's weakest link. I am not saying that isolation exercises like curls, lat raises, or calf raises will make a huge diffrence in performance but if you have glaring weaknesses in a particular muscle group I don't think it would be a waste to give a little extra attention to that area now and then. I am not saying devoting an entire training session to arms (curl monkeys) but maybe a couple sets of a movement aimed at a particular lagging muscle group at the end of a workout if nothing but to prevent injuries. Athletes are notorious for overcompensating for weaker muscle groups with stronger ones. The higher the level the more prevalent. Over times this often leads to overuse injuries. That being said with all the variety built into a program like crossfit overuse injuries may not even be an issue. Personally I work prehab & movement pattern stuff into my warmup or cool down as an insurance policy.

I think you were referencing the S.A.I.D principle. Are you saying we should mimic sporting movements or basic movement patterns while training? I agree that improvement comes from practice (neural efficiency) but I don't think that exercise should necessarily mimic sporting action. All strength and conditioning is GPP. Specificity comes from practicing your sport. You get stronger, faster & build general conditioning in the weight room, at the track, at the park ect ect and you learn to transfer these gains and build specific conditioning through practice. This is the S.A.I.D priciple as I understand it. If you were saying that strength and conditioning training should reinforce basic movement patterns like squatting, lunging, pushing, pulling, twisting & bending (Chek) I agree 100 percent.

New to CF (first day). A bit about myself. I'm 31yo, 6'3", ~183.

Just did yesterday's 5k Run. 26:27.

Hilly course (1 long slow slope, 1 long steep slope, 2 short steep slopes, various minor bumps along the way). Started too fast and was starting to die by midway. Managed to have at least a slight kick for the last .1mi or so.

Hopefully having CF will kickstart me into actually sticking with a program. We shall see.

Barry cooper,

Your hockey stick article is two years old. It has nothing to do with today's Rest Day article and has been refuted many times. The hockey stick graph has been reaffirmed with new data in the last two years.

Flog,

Please post a link showing this. I haven't been able to find a response from Mann that isn't a year or two older than that summary. I likely don't need to tell you that assertions about facts do not take the place of producing those facts.

With reference to the NASA data, McIntyre himself didn't seem to think it a big deal, other than another example of sloppy and flawed science passing as fact.

The Medieval Warming period is much more germane to the discussion, as is Mann's fraud.

#80 Chad

My comments were made with the assumption that one was not in a situation where there were any "glaring weaknesses." If my stsatements were taken at face value, it might even be assumed that I am condescending on the whole field of physical therapy (since this field is based on isolation exercises for the use of prehab and rehab). That would be absurd and not the case.

I do understand where you are comming from, and yes maybe isolation exercises may help overcome something that has been a trouble area. Most atheletes, self included, tend to attribute poor performance to a "weaker muscle" or "weak point" in their training rather than focusing on improving their overall form. The form is what facilitates the function.

What I was stressing, in general, is that increasing the size of the hammer will not make it more effective if you are not using it effectively to drive nails. The same is true in athletic performance. Your muscles can be tremendous but having proper practice to recruit the right fibers and motor units is far more crucial.

I was saying that your training should mimic the actions you wish to perform. If you are serious about a certain sport you absolutely should practice that sport with equal emphasis on some kind of supplimentary training. Supplimentary training to build conditioning, strength and speed but the primary training should be the desired action you want to acheive. Squatting, lunching, pushing, etc are great to suppliment any training program because they reinforce basic movement patterns (and are, in actually, training you for everyday life...) It is my observation and opinion that this is the principle CrossFit is based on.

Chad, I think that we are on the same page, just perhaps interpreting it slightly differently.

bklyn

louc4r,

FWIW, automobiles are a significant source of greenhouse gases, although not the largest source. In California, vehicle fuel consumption does account for the greatest fraction of greenhouse gas. Across the US as a whole, IIRC, it is coal-fired power plants. Not sure how getting rid of corporations would help. If NiSource, for example, were to go away, somebody else would come along and buy their power plants, because consumers need the power.

A quick google pulled up this chart of greenhouse gas sources. Seems consistent with the data I've seen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png

The next time Steyn gets something right will be the first time.

Whether you believe in global warming or not, don't use anything Steyn writes to reinforce or negate your viewpoint.

The only thing Steyn's columns are good for are lining a trashcan.

Although, on a personal note, I still don't understand why there is so much visceral reaction against the concept of climate change. There hasn't been this much scientific consensus on an issue since, well, ever.

I also had my doubts after reading Crichton's "State of Fear," only to realize after doing a little research that almost every cogent point he made was either a misinterpretation of the articles he cites or an article that has since been proved incorrect.

Finally, how ironic is it that conservatives are accusing Gore of fear-mongering? Kettle, pot, black...

Tony that was awesome!

brkln,

Agreed. I was working under the assumption that the athlete was getting their supplimentary training through drilling. Semantics are a ***** sometimes.

Chad

Off day? Nah couldn't do it today, I saw my chance to introduce CrossFit to a friend. We did the workout full of 50's (Box jump, pull up, kb raises, lunge, kte, etc...) and CFWU. He is in my bathroom experiencing pukie.

States are already developing rules to control CO2 emissions from power plants. MA and ME issued draft rules last week. 10 N'eastern states are participating in the Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to control CO2 emissions from electric generators.

And of course CA has passed legislation to control GHG emissions more broadly, and rules will be forthcoming.

Generally speaking these GHG programs will rely on a market-based cap-and-trade design, like the Acid Rain program for sulfur dioxide, which regulates pollutants from power plants.

26 yom 6'2" 155#

Running a few days behind

50-40-30-20-10

L-pullups (subbed "z" pullups...knees at 90 degrees)
GHD situps (no ghd, subbed regular situps)
Double unders (no jump rope..subbed 6" box jumps)
Back extensions

35:28 Abs are toast even with the false L pullups

Brkln,

Agreed. I was grouping sport specific drilling and practice under "doing your sport". Semantics are a killer.

Chad

Ian, Patrick, Tom,

Was there an argument based on facts and logic there somewhere? If so, I missed it.

Please read the link on the Hockey Stick, and show me how it is either flawed or irrelevant to the argument.

Truth is what it is. It is not a linguistic construct where shared, observable realities are concerned, and to treat the truth cavalierly on an issue of this importance is to treat our Republic and the rights accorded within it with disrespect.

If we stop doing the work of thinking, if we stop taking seriously the responsibilities that come with self government, then it really doesn't matter what the weather does. We will decay and fall.

Even if internal combustion engines and coal operated power plants do not directly cause global warming, who wants to breath their pollution? Anyone who lives in Los Angeles and poo poos pollution reduction has got to be out of their minds. You like inhaling that smog? Mmmmmmmnnnnnn...yeaaaahhh... that's the good stuff...please, I'd rather smoke marijuana cigarettes. Get the heck out of your lame SUV's, don't you know like you look like a complete dum bass scooting around town in a Hummer?

Next they're going to claim that car exhaust is not in fact bad for our lungs at all either, after all, the earth can handle it just fine!

A world with less cars would be quieter, more easygoing, and with clearer views of distant mountains. Who can complain? But yeah, I will concede that there is an excess of warming hype. Let's get real and change the world for very real reasons, not some phantom menace.

Man you guys should really read "State of Fear"
Michael Crichton hits the nail on the head, and has studied the data himself. He personally states that Al Gore does not study raw data for himself but rather relies on the so-called "expert witnesses." I have watched "An Inconvenient Truth" myself, and Gore relies on emotion, fear, and slick graphics to make his point. He boldly makes claims for which there is simply no data. What Al Gore wants is attention on Al Gore, he is an intellectual snob. He desperately wants fame, notoriety, and respect, and I don't think he feels he gets it, so he takes up this whole mantle of global warming, and tries to berate the human race into believing it's all our fault. Easy to fall into that garbage thinking, but let's stay objective and see what real science tells us! Remember, weather and climate is a chaotic system. They can't predict what will happen next week much less 100 years from now! You can't put all your faith in these models!

#86, Ian Jacobs,

"There hasn't been this much scientific consensus on an issue since, well, ever."

Really?

"The only thing Steyn's columns are good for are lining a trashcan."

...and you would prefer whom? Probably Greg Pallast or Maureen Dowd? Someone who presumedly speaks proverbial truth to power?

Agree with Sheepdog on this one. The article was about trying to pull the wool over people's eyes and getting caught.

I would argue that the world is not warming at all in appretiable sense. If it were, I doubt the issue is important. I further see no reason to believe we caused it as compared to solar activity.

Now if you want to talk smog...that is reasonable to begin a discussion. However, to like the two is a weak arguement based on evidence.

oh and Ian...."consensus" on an issue doesn't make it sound. Consensus is not science my friend. Neither is "broad agreement." There have been many thing which scientists agreed on in human history, and things for which there was consensus, only to discover they were wrong. Consensus should worry you. You realize how unpopular it is to disagree on something for which there is "broad consensus." The pressure is tremendous on scientists to produce the popular outcome. You also have to look carefully at the flow of money my friend. He who funds the study gets the answer he wants. Universities are no longer objective sources buddy.

"You can't put all your faith in these models!"

No you can't. Especially considering that no model yet has been made that takes into account natural climate fluctuations. They are only now attempting to do that. This renders any and all current model data useless. Does that stop the scaremongers? Of course not.

#93, CO2 is not pollution. Like nitrogen, it is an important constituent of our atmosphere, and essential for plant respiration. It is to them as oxygen is to us, in my understanding.

If you want to argue that smog producing agents ought to be regulated, I have no objection to that. I think it is in the public interest. Nixon, after all, founded the EPA, and in my understanding the most vocal early environmentalists were hunters.

oh and by the way I love how they call it "climate change" now. Duh..is that because no matter what occurs, you can claim that you were right? We all know the climate will change, by its very definition. Notice how the media has fallen into lockstep with that terminology NO body calls it global warming anymore. Just an attempt to make the words more palatable and less controversial. Did Bill Clinton come up with that?

Tim H

I'm pretty sure Exxon-Mobile recently offered boffo bucks for any "scientist" who would go to bat against the consensus of the scientific community. I agree that universities are not bastions of objectivity, nor have they likely ever been. My understanding of research funding in general (e.g., that related to genetically modified food) is that it is often dominated by big corporations. Perhaps excepting the Weather Channel and Big Solar (hah), there seem to be a lot more corporations whose profits depend on maintaining the status quo when it comes to activities associated with producing greenhouse gases. There certainly is pressure out there on researchers, but you and I seem to differ in our perceptions of how much is being exerted and by whom.

Actually Rob, I would prefer to not read journalists or partisan hacks at all for insight into complex scientific issues. I would prefer to read what actual scientists have to say. However, if your preference is to read people who are more interested in ratings and selling papers than factual accuracy, that's your perogative.

With respect to Barry, your hockey stick article has been addressed here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121

I'll let you do the research on your own.

With respect to Tim, and "State of Fear," here you go: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

Turns out Crichton wasn't that right, after all. :-\ It's ok, I had the same reaction after I read the book.

I think the problem is that many people are still stuck on the "Global Warming" label, without realizing that the scientific community has moved on to "Climate Change." Warming is but one aspect of Climate Change. In fact, as some areas warm, others cool. The debate about climate change isn't about whether or not it happens, it's about how humans are affecting it, and whether or not the change will be drastic enough so as to affect our survival.

Is it just me or is the self defense guy a little suspect? And what is up with the weird "spear hand" thing he does?

RE: Comment #18:

Hi Esteban,

From my experience, the 'bodybuilding' exercises that you mention promote imbalances in the body, which are detrimental to Crossfitting and to the normal movement of the average person.

I came to Crossfit from a powerlifting/bodybuilding exercise background. So, I used to do a lot of bench presses, seated presses, curls, lying tricep extensions, bent over rows, and calf raises. (Man, my neck and shoulders used to be tight and crunchy!)

When I started Crossfitting, my shoulders, chest, and arms were muscular, but this was detrimental because these muscles were trying to do the lifting instead the 'core' muscles. The 'bodybuilding' exercises provided little benefit for the standing press, jerk, overhead squat, etc. that are Crossfit mainstays. I started to make real progress when I sold my bench and my ez-curl bar. Now 6 months later I can clean&press and overhead squat almost as much as the heroes in the Crossfit videos (and so will you!).

I have a friend who's only leg exercises are leg extensions and calf raises and he has horrible knee problems. I'm working on him, so hopefully we'll have another convert in a few months.

And (with the utmost respect) look at the proportionately small calves of Casey Burgener and many NBA players: do you think they do calf raises and do you think this has hindered their performance in any way?

Enjoy,

BrianB

Never posted anything before. Been a crossfitter just over a year. Wanted to thank all of you law enforcement brothers and sisters for your outpour of support for our fallen brothers in Broward County Florida. Burying one today. Sgt Chris Reyka leaves behind a wife and four children. God bless him. Detective Maury Hernandez still clings to life with severe brain injury due to gunshot.
Once again thank you all.
Rob R.

Sorry Tim, just saw your post at #98.

As a scientist, albeit not a climate scientist, I don't think you understand what science and scientific progress truly is.

Science is a method of investigation into the world around us. First, you start off with a theory that has testable implications. Then, you assume your theory is incorrect, and test the implications with this assumption in mind. Only after these tests have failed can you begin to think that you've made progress into a particular area. And only after numerous other scientists have independently affirmed your research through their own, independent tests can you begin to believe that you have scientific progress.

Scientific progress, Tim, IS consensus-building among those who employ the scientific method. And, generally, we stand on the shoulders of the scientists who have come before us when we investigate a new area. Basic assumptions we make when we come up with our new theories are based on scientific consensus - the very consensus you seem to think is counter-productive.

I would be interested in hearing of all these examples of which the scientific community has come to a consensus on, only to find out they were completely wrong.

Finally, like I said, it's not that Climate Change is happening- the debate is about how humans are affecting it, and how drastic those consequences will be. You're grossly misunderstanding the debate if you believe that this whole thing is that scientists figured out the climate changes.

Ian,

Like I said, something from 2005 or later. Your link is from 2004. I've read those links before.

I note that they make the comment in addressing the "myth" that the Hockey Stick depends on one or two studies, then list as support several papers with Mann's name on them. His integrity is precisely the question.

I don't have time at the moment to rebut each and every point they made, but I will, if you think it's needed.

The bottom line, though, as far as I am concerned, is that Mann and Hanson and others put that site up specifically for polemic purposes, following their outing by McIntyre and McKitrick. In my view, M&M present an airtight case in the link I posted, which is made stronger by what I believe is an incontravertible fact that throughout their body of work professional statisticians are almost entirely absent. They do the statistical work themselves, and Ed Wegman, who dropped the dime on them, was or is the Chair of the relevant national society of Statisticians. He is, in other words, quite possibly the most qualified judge in the country, and he found their methods profoundly flawed, and all that appears to have happened since is they have continued to rereview their own conclusions, unsurprisingly continuing to find them compelling.

I tell you what: you generate a detailed critique of M&M's paper, and I'll generate a detailed critique of Mann's site. My link is more recent, so it's reasonable you go first. What do you say?

#105, Ian,

"I would be interested in hearing of all these examples of which the scientific community has come to a consensus on, only to find out they were completely wrong."

http://www.gunnarlindgren.com/nutritionx.pdf

Ian, it's by now a very trite observation, but the Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn describes multiple case histories in the history of science of the consensus being overturned in a variety of scientific disciplines. In these scientific revolutions many scientists never actually change their minds. What typically happens is they die off, and the younger scientists who hold a different view become dominant.

There is a broad conceit among scientists that their field of endeavor is ultra-rational and therefore immune or substantially so from the weaknesses that plague all other human institutions.

How quaint.

The consensus on AGW is greatly exaggerated. As is its probative value. If a point essential to the AGW consensus is conclusively demonstrated to be incorrect, then the continued existence of the consensus is just another example of human folly.

Ian- "You're grossly misunderstanding the debate if you believe that this whole thing is that scientists figured out the climate changes."

Huh?

I stand by statement that consensus is not science. I believe that people can cherry-pick data to suit whatever conclusion they want to. Scientists are also human and are not always objective. They can be influenced, directly and indirectly. The term "climate-change" is cop-out, coined so as to be unassailable. It's purposely vague.
For an example of consensus gone wrong Ian, take a look at the eugenics movement, for one.

#105- Ian, well said.

Regarding primary sources for climate change research, I would highly recommend gaining access to the journals collection of a university and running a series of searches on key words and phrases. From the resulting literature list, you can then refine to look at the works of specific authors. The abstracts of many, if not most, of these papers can provide a fairly concise summation of the paper's conclusion without having to wade through the math, if you're not a mathematician. I would also highly recommend checking the journal in which the cited paper was published.

It's time consuming but definitely worthwhile, and really one of the only options available if someone is interested in avoiding secondary and tertiary warmed-over and politically motivated reports.

On the subject of calves, run without shoes. Up hills. Nothing is better to work the calves, at least in my experience. Shoes throw body mechanics off. There is a whole host of stabilizer muscles in the lower legs that do not get hit unless you run and like barefoot or with minimal padding like moccasins.

Also, this might be old news but everyone seen this:?

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/cheneyvideo.html?r=2879&id=10983-1770328-Vn3eWk

Barry: CO2 naturally in our environment yes, but what about too much? It just makes sense to me that too much CO2 can't be good.

hike barefoot, not "like"

That video was epic.

DANG! My apologies for the dual post- my computer was acting up and I didn't notice. My bad.

Ok, so the link you've been sending out is published as, "Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance." by McIntyre and McKitrick.

Here's a response by a Harvard scholar to that very paper.

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Hockey/Huybers_Comment.pdf

Also, notice that McIntyre is a former mining executive with no education beyond a Bachelor's degree. McKitrick is an Economist (not a climate scientist) from a minor university. Huybers is a climate scientist from Harvard, who holds a PhD from MIT. My apologies if I don't believe the mining executive over the MIT PhD.

"CO2 is not pollution"

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the EPA must regulate it, unless the agency can prove that CO2 does not contribute to climate change. Perhaps some of you guys should help the Administration, which lost the argument first time around.

Jrida,

Is that an example of your idea of maturity? If so, I'll remain just as I am, thanks. As far as your concern about my fitness, it is touching.

I looked at the second link, and here is the money quote: "When incorporating many tree ring networks into the multi-proxy framework, it is easier to use a few leading PCs rather than 70 or so individual tree ring chronologies from a particular region. The trees are often very closely located and so it makes sense to summarize the general information they all contain in relation to the large-scale patterns of variability. The relevant signal for the climate reconstruction is the signal that the trees have in common, not each individual series. In MBH98, the North American tree ring series were treated like this. There are a number of other places in the overall methodology where some form of PCA was used, but they are not relevant to this particular controversy."

The allegation is that they cherry picked the raw data by selecting as representative trees that were demonstrably not representative. That they can repeatedly run their analysis from their raw data and generate Hockey Sticks is not surprising. As M&M noted, they ran random data through the simulation and got the same result.

The basic point, as I understand it, is they essentially set all observable time prior to the 20th Century to zero, as the base hypoethesis, with presumably zero change, then mapped the 20th Century next to it. Their goal was explicitly to assess and measure change in the 20th Century that they viewed as potentially anthropogenic in origin. Towards this end, they looked specifically for signs of warming, and generated their data farming around those parameters.

Inexplicably, in areas where data was available for dozens if not hundreds of trees, they limited what they included to a few "leading" trees. This makes no sense at all, and I can't see that they've addressed this very significant point.

Prior to their reconstruction--which, again, used a statistical mechanism to level out the past 500-1000 years, in my undestanding, there was widespread understanding, based on substantial evidence, that it was hotter in the Middle Ages than it is now. Significantly hotter. Yet there were no cars.

John Daly discusses the basic issue here: http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

In this case, the basics haven't changed much. M&M's main contribution has been to formalize the critique of Mann and Co.'s work. Keep in mind there, too, that his peers are his friends.

Guys, I think you're missing my point about scientific consensus.

I never said scientists were never wrong. In fact, it's amazing how often scientists are wrong. That's why consensus is so important- if one, or two, or five scientists come to the same conclusion, they could very well all be wrong. But the chances of 100 different scientists all coming to the same conclusion, using different datasets and different methods, are incredibly small.

However, its still a statistical certainy that a consensus, no matter how strong, can still be incorrect (no matter how improbable). So yes, you would expect there to be a few rare examples of where scientific consensus was incorrect. Interesting that, in those examples, a new scientific consensus had to be formed before the old paradigm was abandoned.

Furthermore, just because a scientist writes it doesn't make it science. Thus is the problem with Eugenics, which wasn't science regardless of the fact that scientists were writing about it. And I wouldn't exactly call the eugenics movement a broad scientific consensus, purely for that reason- the scientific consensus was that they were a bunch of crazies.

So, bottom line: yes, you SHOULD be able to find examples of where the scientific community is wrong. However, these examples should be few and far between, IF they were based on good science and IF they were truly scientific consensus. You can, on the other hand, find history littered with tons of theories of a single, or small group of scientists who have since been disproved or discredited. And that's my point- only with consensus comes progress. Only when we've proved that nothing else CAN be the reason can we begin to believe that our theory is the reason. And even then, no one should call it anything other than a theory.

M/33/5'9/168#/CFT=870

Caught up with the 5k today. Ran the loop 2x
#1=24:47
#2=25:43

jrida #124 & #126-I've seen Barry and Hari's posts for atleast a year, maybe more. Have you posted in the past under a name other than jrida, or do you really have the stones to call people out on your first day?

Ian,

The question is whether they are right in this case. Self evidently, they may be right, and they may be wrong. I for one am unwilling to place my faith utterly on what is claimed to be the consensus of a secular priesthood. Surrendering my right to make my own considered truth claims is a fundamental part of liberty.

I will add, that insults are always a very positive sign, that of intellectual exhaustion. Some people take longer to get there than others. Frankly, some start there, and never get off their couch. The mental equivalents of Wal-Mart Balloon People. Pity their mouths and fingers still work.

Barry-

I did find some articles that are direct responses to the McIntyre and McKitrick article. I posted them, but the spam filter on the board thought that the symbols in the address meant I was posting spam. I assume that the original post will be approved and posted later.

Bascially, other than citing a response by a Harvard Scholar who holds a PhD from MIT, I pointed out that McIntyre is a former Mining Executive with no education further than a Bachelor's degree, and McKitrick is a professor of Economics (not climate) from a minor university.

So, if I was a betting man, I think I'll go ahead and bet on the Harvard guy being correct over a former mining executive with no expertise in research and a non-tenured faculty from a minor Canadian university.

If the original post doesn't get approved for whatever reason, I'll try to repost the link later. However, the Harvard scholar's name is Huybers, you can go on his website and find the response. There was another direct response to the McIntrye/McKitrick article written by a leading German climatologist, which I could also link if you'd like.

On Rest Days especially one must remember that the spam filters occasionally delay a very worthwhile post, and that the held post will appear in the location it would have occupied had it not been held. I always have to remind myself of this fact.

As you move forward in today's discussion may I invite you to move backwards and read Garth #78.

Garth, we grieve with you, and we hope and pray for your safety and your success.

D.

Ian, you make some great points. The problem I have with this whole global warming/climate change issue, is that dissent is being quelled, and people with opposing views ostracized or ridiculed. Sure there is plenty of rhetoric on both sides, but the popular media is all too ready to frame the issue as settled, and beyond debate. People who espouse a different view are being labeled extremists. That is what concerns me most, when things reach that "state of fear."
So let me ask you something, seriously did you really enjoy "An inconvenient truth." Can you say with a straight face that Al Gore does not use fear as a tool?

Tim-

I've never even seen "An Inconvenient Truth." True story.

And I would completely agree with you, that telling people who disagree that they are extremists or idiots or whatever is also counterproductive. The best you can hope for is cogent, thoughtful debate on a subject, which is something that is few and far between when it comes to climate change.

However, as far as the use of fear by politicians, I know Gore isn't the first, and he isn't even the most eggregious offender.

I mean, what about the "Vote Democrat and terrorists WILL attack" motto espoused in the past election, and presently espoused by Guiliani? Now THAT'S fear mongering. And terribly ironic at that.

"But the chances of 100 different scientists all coming to the same conclusion, using different datasets and different methods, are incredibly small."

Not if they are using flawed datasets and making flawed assumptions about what their datasets are telling them. And when said scientists are in lockstep regarding global warming when they know full-well that future funding from anyone loosely affiliated with the green lobby is tied to their "research" coming out the right way. Let's not pretend just those evil oil companies do this...

The instruction in that video is extremely poor, everyone knows you have to weigh the body down before you dump it in the water...amateurs. I would have expected better from Blauer. LOL

Looks like jrida has disappeared.
Thanks for sharing the letter from your friend, Garth.
Rivera8970-Our prayers are with your entire department, and especially the affected families. What a terrible week for you all. God bless you all.

I just accidentally discovered a new CF workout. It is called splitting Lawson Cypress for firewood. I don't mean to sound boastful, but I am very good with a splitting maul and sledge hammer, and this stuff is nigh on unsplittable (most peices). If someone offers some for free, take a pass unless you are up for a test of wills.

I am afraid I am warming my section of the globe with body heat from swinging the maul!

HA, Awesome vid, good thing they just (happen) to be on a boat!

Just got my AB Mat, Rings, And 1 1/2 Pood Kettle bell, the anxiety of this rest day is killing me. Not saying that it wasn't needed though.

I believe in global warming just like I believe in other so-called scientific facts like:

Global cooling
Ozone layer hole
Eugenics
Population boom
Mass species extinction
The Boogie Man
Santa Claus

#139 BlueCheese - These things you believe in - are they?
Global cooling - ice age?
Ozone layer hole - the one over Chile?
Eugenics - as practiced by Hitler's Third Reich or as practiced by the U.S. against so-called mental defectives in the 1930's and 40's?
Population boom - whether or not the population is booming or is it whether or not the boom is a bad thing?
Mass species extinction - are you referring to say, the dodo bird?
The Boogie Man - isn't that who Tony Blauer teaches us how to fight? Or is it the tooth fairy that we use the Flinch system against?
Santa Claus - he brings me my presents. Who brings yours?

Ah, yes, our completely objective, unconcerned-with-future-funding-from-greenees scientific community. If your foundation rests upon the unswaying objectivity of modern-day science and its nonpartisan-ness, you are definitely in trouble in a big earthquake.

CO2 = greenhouse gas = plant food = ~90% emitted by plants
Yeah, let’s outlaw it. While we’re at it, let’s outlaw the law of gravity and the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamic. We’re legislators, that’s what we do…

I’m all for getting out of the “terror tax” on oil, but since extracting our own oil has essentially been outlawed by green politicians and green energy science is still immature (despite this supposed lack of will we have… please, you think energy companies are not motivated at the potential profit to be had by getting us away from oil?), there is not much else we can do. Pay it or start drilling… today.

“- The planet is warming, warming and cooling trends are natural.
- The ice caps are shrinking on Earth, but they're also shrinking on Mars.
- Global temperatures decreased steadily from about 1940-1970, while at the same time fossil fuel burning increased.
- Global temperature fluctuations correlate very well with the output of the Sun.”

Sir, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Just keep listening to the scaremonger.

The increase in traffic from a link to an earlier post of mine has been nice, and I've enjoyed reading all the comments. The following is my comment on the NASA data revision, and the "Global Warming Naturally" label at the bottom will take you to the latest of over fifty posts I've made on the subject.
http://strongasanoxandnearlyassmart.blogspot.com/2007/08/it-suddenly-got-hotter-in-1930s.html

Drudge has an interesting link to the Washington Post reporting Arctic sea warming, ice loss, and fewer seals, all occurring in the 1920's.

Can made-made global warming be retroactive?

Your website is concerned with fitness, so here is my post on running: http://strongasanoxandnearlyassmart.blogspot.com/2006/10/running.html

“…Sadaam's containment…”

= yet another leftist canard, unless you consider being able to finance and build upwards of 40 new mansions with oil-for-food money “containment”. Lining his pockets as well as certain dignitaries from France, Russia and the United Nations (gasp, say it aint so) with fat, dirty wads of cash that would make those eee-vil Halliburton executives blush.

“I also had my doubts after reading Crichton's "State of Fear," only to realize after doing a little research that almost every cogent point he made was either a misinterpretation of the articles he cites or an article that has since been proved incorrect.”

Really? Almost every one? And to think this has eluded me all this time. Please give me the linkees to these refutations, as I would like to see who did them. By the way, I’ve never heard anyone address Crichton’s plot. Ecoterrorists who cause ecologically-flavored catastrophe to accelerate action from world governments? Entirely plausible in my opinion, given some of the idiots I’ve read about.

“Finally, how ironic is it that conservatives are accusing Gore of fear-mongering?”

Not ironic at all, given that Gore himself said on Charlie Rose that a little exaggeration would go far and was totally justified. Look it up.

Something not brought up very often (not so oddly): The last three or four UN Climate Change reports (IPCC or some such) have each revised downward how high the sea levels are supposed to rise. First, it was 20 feet, then 10. It’s now down to a foot and a half. Oh, but Gore still claims 20… cause it’s OK to play fast and loose with the data when you got a world to save…

#65 Nadia, I am with you on the agony of the sneezing today. It hurt so much I started laughing which only made it worse.

“Truth is what it is. It is not a linguistic construct where shared, observable realities are concerned, and to treat the truth cavalierly on an issue of this importance is to treat our Republic and the rights accorded within it with disrespect.”

Barry, this is wrong insofar as today’s media and news dissemination outlets are concerned. Also for politicians and the overall political climate. “Truth” is battled by opposing disinformation societies. To them, it IS a construct entirely of their own making. Tell the lie enough times in enough different places, it becomes truth to those who hear it and swallow it uncritically. These people know it and use it to their advantage. How else do you go from Kyoto being voted down by 95 Senators in 1997 to today’s “the debate is over”?

Please do not use Media Matters as a reference for anything. As a rule, they are heavily financed (and when I say heavily I actually mean completely) by George Soros, who apparently exists now chiefly to install his own puppet into the White House. Luckily, he’s currently oh for two.

By the way, how are individual countries faring in trying to curb greenhouse emissions via the Kyoto Treaty? Short answer: they’re not. Not at all. None can hit their quota. And what would Kyoto have done if fully implemented and goals met? Nothing, an immeasurable temperature drop. Look forward to more of the same.

Caught up with "Grace"; details there.

Note, did CFWU x 3 MINUS sit-ups...like it was possible to do a sit-up after the L-PU, etc. yesterday...

Interesting article today. And so very true. Our schools and universities are coddle industries that soften our children, and even adults. It's no longer about "What can I do for my country? How can I protect, serve, and care for those I love?" it's "How can I serve myself, have the most fun, and how can I get out of responsibility". "Acting one's age" is no longer important. People just want to have fun at whatever cost with no thought to the well being of others or themselves.

And so war comes, and a hippie-reared culture, taught that nothing is worth fighting for and that we can all just "get along" whines and cries about atrocities and horrors that...never take place. It's as if they have to make things up to legitimize both their way of life and their philosophy (both of which are misguided, deluded, and which have no basis in the real workings of the world).

And because of this, only a handful of people, just a little under 2% of our entire population, have the moral basis, sense of responsibility, dedication, and patriotism (not to mention the balls) to serve and defend the people of our Country, and, it seems, the rest of the world both here at home and abroad in dozens of different countries.

So, to the Ms. Drabbles out there (and I know that many of them are actually men, or claim to be), the next time you talk about hating the war and Americans, remember those who fight constantly so that you have that right to say whatever you want, that right which you take for granted on a daily basis.

thanks Tony ! :] needed a smile today

Roger that, Christopher...

Steyn wrote:
“If Washington were a conventional great power, the intellectual class would be arguing that the United States is a threat to France or India or Chad or some such. But because it's the world's first nonimperial superpower the world has had to concoct a thesis that America is a threat not merely to this or that nation state but to the entire planet, and not because of conventional great-power designs but because – even scarier – of its "consumption," its very way of life.”

Is this statement reflective of Steyn’s idiocy? Something he said about that Beauchamp ninny and his “pre-traumatic stress” incident? How about the “malignant narcissism” in our midst? No, I think Steyn again is right on target. Maybe the problem is that he’s not a “true” intellectual, since even the chattering classes hold him in high regard because of his “simplistic” worldview.

He's pointing to polls taken overseas showing America to be the "greatest threat" to world peace. Yet no one fears us, who is not operating a despotic terrorist regime. The people who fear us ought to fear us. The Europeans don't fear us. Even the Chinese know that whatever the future may hold, any problems they may have with us will be of their making.

It's not the little lies that change political landscapes, it's the monsters, repeated over and over. And they've had traction since the late 60's at least.

I agree with Steyn's assessment fully.