yeah rest!!

HAHAH! Again - Sevan as annoying as you can be You make me laugh my butt off and I Love You.

Carey You're Awesome Too. Great editing. Call Me Up I Miss You.

Matt Hunt #74 From yesterday: I don't play with dolls. I prefer the real thing ;)

DAY 1 of the Olympic Lifting Cert down. There's an all star cast helping out and hey put on a crazy show at lunch. I can't believe the weights they were tossing around. It's amazing. My shoulders are fried again from that PVC. YAY BURPEES!

"None of them are." Tony's funny.

Go Sevan! You can beat her... or maybe you can just resort to writing "1st!" in the comments section.

Crossfit needs to do a comedy tour and have Sevan headline it. Can't wait for part three.

Ref the article, I'm gonna have to think and do some research, especially since I'm living in the North where this has real life implications to a lot of people.

I tell ya... the volume of beatdown in the last two weeks has not gone unnoticed.

I love this SH#% but MAN......!! Much respect and awe to those who can continue to take the medication as prescribed. I am trult clawing my way through these workouts of late.

Thanks Coach for keeping it "elite firness"

I love the Ass Whoopin' videos!

This past cycle was killer!

Sevan you wanna headline the East Coast Challenge with a comedy show?

You know, I would spell that "whooping", but maybe it's just me.

I'm downloading the vid now, should be good.

Don't let down the guys this time Sev or maybe they'll start having you take on some of the crossfit kids.

m/5-8/150/45yo

CF Newbie, since 18 april.

Hands are torn up, legs ache, abs screaming - but I can't wait for the next WOD.

Goin to Disneyland w/the kids next week to teach Mickey CF.

Go CF!

sevan, you rock.

I'm curious how many of you caught the media blast about how we might have ten years of cooling before the warming starts again:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=aU.evtnk6DPo&refer=home

Not so many, I'll wager. The blast was, uh, lacking. One would think this was good news, but alas, good news for the planet is bad news for people trying to ram their policies down our throats.

This statement was necessitated by the fact that that all of the scenarios concocted by the IPCC require much more warming than appears to be happening. Since they couldn't find it in the air, they said it must be happening (preferentially, for reasons they were unwilling and unable to make clear) in the oceans.

So sad for them, but an extensive thermographic (I think that's the right word) survey of the oceans, which measured temperatures from top to bottom, found not only no warming, but slight cooling. The warming had disappeared into a wisp of, uh, moderate air.

All of the extreme scenarios have been thereby falsified. This does not mean man has no effect on the earth's temperature, but that it is mild.

Moreover, what no one wants to state is that every CO2 doubling halves the greenhouse contribution. It is not a linear process, by which one unit of CO2 creates one unit of warming. The more we put out, the less each added unit matters.

Assuming we are warming the planet, the lion's share of the contribution has already been made.

Moreover, the scenarios showing massive dislocations around the world neglect the current problems in the same places, and the current steady preventable deaths that result from poverty that can be corrected with industrialization.

People are dying of hunger and neglect now. What would be ethical or intelligent about preventing their nations from going through the same industrialization process we went through, and that China and India are doing through now?

I'm starting my 7th week of crossfitting. I bought a ton of cf items and have completely revamped my garage. I scaled a few things but only because I didn't have the equipment.

I've never felt better or more fit and I'm a pretty fit guy.

But two days ago the WOD kicked by tail so hard that I quit after 3 rounds.

There I feel better just telling everyone that. I'm going to try and avoid that from happening again.

I am truly loving this new sport.

I'm liking the videos keep them up!

Awesome video!

Great gaming on the WOD Sevan, lookin good!

Just watched the videos. That must have been a ton of work, but the result is top notch. Keep up the good work.

#12 Barry Cooper: Excellent point about industrialization being beneficial to humanity's needs. You really said well that the emphasis should be on people instead of a non-factor (polar bears). The issue is really a neo-Marxism seeking economic centralized collectivism.

A free market stands as a threat to elitists who claim to know more than the great unwashed masses (tongue planted firmly in cheek). Why is it Americans are the ones to be blamed and not other societies? Why do we have to accommodate someone else's agenda? A free market is dangerous to those who want to control people's lives, making them sacrifice while they don't have to.

This "science" of Global Warming is nothing more than a dogma that cannot be questioned. If you don't kowtow the party line, then prepare for Inquisition.

Global Warming rocks. Too bad this winter was the longest on record for many parts of the country and the coldest too.

Cold bad.
Warm good.

Come on Sevan, Win one for the good GUYS...

Wow, Wow, Wow.

I love George Will's ability to get to the point and tell it like it is.

I love George Will!!

One of the only authors who will blatantly tell it like it is about what the motives of the left really are. Any author who will quote Hayek has his head on straight. Amen brother.

Given the media frenzy that surrounded the global cooling scare of the 70's, we should definitely look at global warming with a massive, boulder sized grain of salt. Seriously, I mean like a grain the size of a small car.

That said, I think that this article is the same sort of meaningless politicization of environmentalism that got us into the green mess in the first place. The fact is that this is a scientific problem first. Do we have enough data, with good enough correlations, to support the link between human carbon emissions and global temperature fluctuations? That is the real question. The statement that the green left is using environmentalism as a tool is as trite as the statement that the coal-black right is using turmoil in the middle east to profit from rising oil prices. Nobody cares. Nobody wants to be warned about the political monsters in their closet anymore. We can all see the bullshit that covers our proverbial windshield, let's just start wiping it off already.

Environmentalism isn't a bad word. It means caring about the environment. Any sensible person does that when they clean their home, or pay their bills-- they care about their environment. The earth is not a stagnant rock, it is a dynamic system that reacts to stimuli. What we need to do is stop arguing over polar bears (and I agree that making them endangered is really, really stupid) and try to accurately quantify our effect on the planet. I guarantee that if all the people arguing over the green movement put their efforts towards actually looking for accurate data on the environment, we would have a comprehensive environmental theory that would answer all these questions. Until then, I'll just remain jaded and disillusioned. And I'll keep trying to get mad fit!

Today was the first day of the 2008 USS Highland Games at Costa Mesa, CA in the fairgrounds. The B and C class went today and tomorrow is the the Pros (A), novices and Masters. Imagine my surprise not to find any SoCal Crossfitters competing in the Scottish Heavy Athletics. If anyone did compete, post and comment on the event. These were my first, and had an absolute blast and by the end of the day I was smoked!
Still time to get your kilt and head over for the second day. C'mon and represent! Great cameraderie.

Yeah Hayekian economic policies in our financial markets has worked out so well for us recently, by all means, let's continue to exalt Hayek.

/sarcasm

Best part of that video? 'Taste the Pain' by the Chili Peppers.

George Will as always gives us something to think about.

The problem is that he links a debatable environmental issue to U.S. politics. We Americans tend to see things in left and right, right and wrong. We fail to look outside our borders and consider what the real issue is.

Whether or not the polar bear is losing his environment as a result of the ice regressing is not as important as humans understanding what the impact is that we have on our envirnoment. Like any other living thing we do have an impact. Given that we number in the billions and have the abilty to knowingly affect our environment we should at least recognize that our presence and actions do make a difference.

As an American I most definately do not want someone telling me what car to drive or when to charge my cell phone. But as the same American I have seen what happens when: Acid Rain affects fish population in Minnesota; Sewage affects water availability in Olongapo, Phillipines, Failure to control water supplies affects fishing along the Euphrates River in Iraq. Each of these are human driven/controled events.

George Will's article implies that government controls will lead us towards communism - complete control of the government. Come on....is it really wrong for a government or governments elected by the people to take responsibility for something beyond the edge of their noses?

#23

Although I don't want to get into the whole economics debate, Hayek is also well known for his general principles of freedom, and the dangers of an intrusive state- his most well known classic "The Road to Serfdom is more about he dangers of the state and principles of liberty than about down to the numbers economics. This is why I commend his mention in the article. Authors like Will, who mention people like Hayek are the ones saying . . . .

"hey maybe there are these principles of freedom and liberty that our country was founded on and that maybe the state shouldn't be controlling how high my thermostat is"

So yeah, his economic policies may be disputable, but in typical liberal fashion, those on the left will deny that freedom and capitalism contributed anything to our nation. Authors like Will smack us up side the head and say "look around dummy"

George Will, you are the smartest man ever. I mean I was up in the Arctic and it was really cold there, I mean I even had to wear a coat and boots, so obviously global warming is a green-communist lie invented so that people will buy products made of hemp instead of SUV's. Americans were put on earth by God (BTW God bless America) to do whatever they want without having to think of others (both humans and those smelly other creatures that inhabit this earth). Responsibility and thoughtfulness are for the weak.

#23 Mark M: Actually, we don't fully implement Hayek's principles because we have Government intervention in the economy too much. The situation we're in is the result of an unsound currency policy, especially with the Fed not getting a control on inflation.

Also, are economy is focussed too much on spending, not saving. Give the market a chance to correct itself. Fully-implemented Keynsianism cannot help a free market, but will lead to disaster.

As far as Hayek is concerned, Von Mises as well expounded individual freedom. It's not Hayekism that's being exalted, but freedom, especially in markets.

When our country was founded, did our success come as a result of collectivism? Every time it failed. Only when our founders had the freedom to make a profit in the market, charging a fair price for a fair product, did the colonies succeed economically.

When the colonies instituted some sort of Ivory Tower Utopianism, this led to disaster, but when they had free markets and private property rights, they thrived. The government cannot efficiently manage labor in the marketplace, so the government must let people be free to take risks.

Aside from the actual focus of the article, it's nice to see that even conservative intellectuals have abandoned support for the "preventative" war. Heh.
Also, #25, WP 6 - "is it really wrong for a government or governments elected by the people to take responsibility for something beyond the edge of their noses?" - bingo, my friend. As we've begun to realize the effects that our actions have upon the environment, it does become our duty to attempt to control these effects. Balancing this, of course, against the benefits that industrialization offers - as Barry points out - and a respect for personal liberty is also necessary, but tension between various considerations cannot alleviate our responsibility to the rest of humanity and future generations to seek to understand and minimize the impact we have upon the planet.
# 17 jNeal, you wrote "Why is it Americans are the ones to be blamed and not other societies? Why do we have to accommodate someone else's agenda? A free market is dangerous to those who want to control people's lives, making them sacrifice while they don't have to."
First, China recently surpassed the U.S. as the world's largest producer of (I believe) CO2. We should take actions to get them to control this. Does that acknowledgment satisfy your complaint? Granted, it'll be difficult to follow up on, considering that the Chinese own most of our debt, but calling them out on their production of CO2 is a start.
Second, do you realize that some control of the free market is necessary? You do understand that, right? Otherwise, what would stop Big Chemco from dumping toxic waste in your backyard? What would stop Insurers Ltd. from ripping you off and laughing all the way to the bank? (Well, they do that anyway, but imagine it being even worse.) In any case, the whole point of regulation of the free market is to force it to account for the externalities it produces. Now, regulation isn't always perfect - it's a constant process in which we need to continually balance needs and adjust policies - but it is a necessary one.

I'm waiting for the EXHALE TAX.

Should crossfitters be heavily taxed or need special permits to breath so heavily? Or purchase carbon credits for ourselves to offset the extra CO2 offgassing from Crossfit?

how can an economy that is only considered healthy when consumption increases be sustained? when the costs of consumption are not included in the price, we don't have markets. every time there is frost in fargo, is that proof that the planet is not warming?

#29 Nick: Government always starts off giving a regulation with the best intention, but totally ignoring what impact they will have on the market. Do I believe in compliance per a legal agreement? Yes. I believe if someone doesn't honor a contract, then he should suffer penalties.

As far as big Chemco dumping toxic waste in my back yard, he violated my property rights, which is guaranteed in the Constitution. So if I can show direct harm on my property without my giving them permission, then they are exposed to liability. This is my private property, an example of personal freedom.

The Constitution is an agreement the Government has with the citizens. The Constitution guarantees personal freedom. When someone causes direct harm to someone, then the person is to face the consequences.

#12, Barry:

Way to misrepresent the Bloomberg article, man. Maybe you didn't read this part?

"Natural variations over the next 10 years might be heading in the cold direction,'' Wood said. ``If you run the model long enough, eventually global warming will win.''

The world will become at least 2.5 degrees Celsius warmer by 2100, compared with the pre-industrial period, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said in March."

Also, did you stop to consider why the oceans might be cooling? Might it have to do with the massive chunks (1,000s of square miles) of polar ice cap that have warmed enought to break off into the ocean? Think about a glass of water outside on a hot day. Add an ice cube, and it cools the water, but only for a bit. 10 years is nothing.

As for Will's article, I usually find his arguments to be much tighter than they are here. From the article:

"The Interior Department, bound by the Endangered Species Act, has declared polar bears a "threatened" species because they might be endangered "in the foreseeable future," meaning 45 years.(1) (Note: 45 years ago, the now-long-forgotten global cooling menace of 35 years ago was not yet foreseen.) The bears will be threatened if the current episode of warming, if there really is one(2), is, unlike all the previous episodes, irreversible(3), and if it intensifies, and if it continues to melt sea ice vital to the bears, and if the bears, unlike in many previous warming episodes, cannot adapt(4)."

1) This is meant to sound sarcastic, but when you consider that humans have been on the planet for around 200-250,000 years, 45 doesn't seem so long, does it? In that sort of time frame, 45 years is nearly tomorrow, and Will sounds naive.

2) Ignoring the evidence, again to sound sarcastic and belittle the (possible) problem

3) Mabye not irreversible, but does Will want his descendants to live with (again, possible) catastrophes for thousands of years (time scale again) while the planet's climate stablizies? Again, naiveté on Will's part.

4) Misunderstanding of evolution. Currently living bears will not adapt. If offspring are born with traits that help them survive and reproduce in the new climate, their genes will be passed on, and seen from the 'long view' of a few thousand years, the species can be said (after the fact) to have 'adapted.' Otherwise, the species will go extinct. 45 years is the blink of an eye on an evolutionary time scale.

Overall it's a very weak piece, and it's based on misunderstandings and political bias.

BJ Penn and CrossFit own! What a fight! I'm surprised they didn't roll considering they are both world class (well Sherk is a wrestler, but whatever). Oh well, I'm stoked either way!

#33

You took one piece of the article, misrepresented what was said and then based your entire argument on that. The point was that "global cooling" was the harbinger of doom 35 years ago and the theory and/or prediction never surfaced. Now we're faced with a "global warming" theory that will certainly be the next harbinger within the next 45 years. The premise and motivator of both arguments is fear, which is a weak position.

If you have a clear understanding of evolution, what percentages of species die off versus adapt to global climate changes? And wouldn't the weaker species be considered a viable loss within the theory of "natural selection?"

#35 Phil

You're mixing the Bloomberg article mentioned by Barry in #12, and the Will article posted on the main CF site. Go back and read #12 and the article and you'll see what I mean. But in case you already have, and still think I'm cherry picking, here's more from the Bloomberg article:

1) "Those natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the next 10-year period,'' Wood said in an interview. ``Without knowing that, you might erroneously think there's no global warming going on.''

The Leibniz study, co-written by Noel Keenlyside, a research scientist at the institute, will be published in the May 1 issue of the journal Nature.

``If we don't experience warming over the next 10 years, it doesn't mean that greenhouse-gas warming is not with us,'' Keenlyside said in an interview. ``There can be natural fluctuations that may mask climate change in the short term.

2) Scientists debate how much carbon can be pumped into the atmosphere before the effects of climate change, including droughts, floods and reduced fresh water supplies, become irreversible. For every 1 million molecules in the atmosphere, about 384 are carbon dioxide, according to NOAA.

Global temperatures can't rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) without risking the worst effects of climate change, according to the European Union. A scenario to stay below that limit suggests that CO2 levels must be stabilized between 350 and to 400 parts per million.

Long-term climate changes in the North Atlantic region affect ``hurricane activity in the Atlantic, and surface temperature and rainfall variations over North America, Europe and northern Africa,'' according to the study.

Any more and you're getting practically the whole piece. And 'Global cooling' is never mentioned in the Bloomberg article. My response was to Barry's lazy reading of that article. My critique of Will's article doesn't misrepresent anything.

Finally, I'm not sure what you're asking when you ask me to consider a certain amount of species loss 'viable.' Viable in what way? Is this a way of trying to ask a moral question? If that's the case, then the thing to remember is that nature, and evolution by natural selection, are not 'good' or 'bad.' They are simply there, and indifferent to my wishes or yours.

i don't understand the comments, Sevan was in the video? You know I suddenly want to move to Pittsburgh.

great as always. enjoying some warmer temps in the southern Phils now, can't wait to get back to Oki

Whoever decided that polar bears are in peril because of global warming obviously didn't watch Lost. Those bears were on a tropical island that was probably at least 90 degrees warmer than what they were used to. For them the largest threats were 9mm bullets and a redneck. Another modern threat facing the polar bears are coca cola bottles that are just out of reach and may be dangerous to pursue. Obviously the scientists haven't thought this one through...let's hope they put some more thought into the next one.

Sevan was in the video? You know Pittsburgh is looking good this year.

great video, always enjoy the entertainment.

enjoying the temps of the southern Phils now, can't wait to get back to Oki

Sevan is a funny dude. I'm looking forward to Part 3.

I think that global warming will stimulate pornography production, destroy US families, and cause us to lose the war on terror.

I'd like to believe what George Will says, but, alas, he's a Cub fan.

Love these videos! Sevan is hilarious, great comedic timing. Good work gents (and ladies).

Great Vids....looking forward to more!!

As rx'd:
Walked (crawled out to get the morning paper) 00:57. PR!!

Did "Murph" today, for a Memorial Day tribute to our fallen.

55 mins.

So I just started Crossfit a week ago and I love it. I thought I was in good physical shape starting it, but quickly found that I am not as good of shape as I thought. I love the daily ass kicking.

I was having some trouble kippin while doing the pullups yesterday. I seem to use more energy trying to kip than just doing a normal pullup. Any advice from anyone? Is it just practice to learn to coordinate together?

Between the 125 dumbbell swings on Friday and the gazillion pull ups yesterday - my shoulders are toast...

I had a nightmare, where I woke up to see a Murph here. Phew!

Well, i'll try to go for a short jog and take som pushups, maybe a bit shoulder stuff as well. Need to work on my shoulders, breasts and biceps, to weak there

Happily recovering today! My wife wakes up and says, "Did you check?" I thought she was wondering about the weather. I say, "Check what?" She says, "Crossfit." "Yep," says I, "It's a rest day." Followed by a "Thank God," from my beautiful bride. Phew, we made it, less than 24 hours to starting again!

Superb video. Looking forward to future episodes!

To those saying the left is playing on our fears about the environment, consider that this article is all about fear that the government will start restricting our individual rights. I agree that there are costs associated with both sides of the arguement, that is environmental protection vs human quality of life. Consider too that Easter Island was once a tree covered tropical island with a thriving civilization, but the Easter Islanders did not live sustainably and thus couldn't sustain their way of life.

"Is my ball heavier than hers?"

"No. (Pause). NONE of them are."

Coffee all over my computer on that one.

I now have a severely sprained core from this last cycle. I will attempt to join this latest GW discussion when I can sit upright without spasms either front or back...

Doesn't evolution play a role in all of this? I mean if we or life evolves over time, then these species who are in danger either change or die right? Survival of the fittest? I'm surprised the people who have the global warming bumper stickers and the Darwin fish with legs on the back of there cars, don't see a possible problem in there rationale.
"And all Gods children are insane"-The Doors

George Will is a bright guy, but this is not his best work. The Endangered Species Act will not be perverted in this instance in the ways he warns, and it's silly to even suggest it. Anyone familiar with implementation of the act over its life (and through every federal administration since Nixon) can see this.

Sevan is the man. Go get some. I wouldn't want to compete against these awsome ladies. I don't know if my ego could handle gettin' spanked.

Cheers All
Chris

OT - Another Medal of Honor

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08145/884523-52.stm

A troubled adolescence, then found a purpose, and gave himself to protect others. A man to be remembered.

Jeff and Barry -

I don't know if you are still interested but a couple of points on taxation.

First, it is not simply that it could be that bases were expanded as rates dropped. This is standard practice. Now it would be informative to see a detailed analysis of rate change by change and I think I remember an artcile that did this back when we were debating the 2003 tax cut.

More generally, using the top tax rate as proxy for the tax burden faced by "the rich" is not usefull because, deductions, inframarginal rates and brackets are adjusted.

Also, the iterative process between data and theory goes in Social Science in essentially the same way as natural science.

Typically we begin with some observation we want to explain. We then create a hypothesis. We then find some way to test the hypothesis.

Its here that things get tricky because we are usually not allowed to do controlled experiments (though we do in some branches of economics that are less personally intrusive).

Without being able to do controlled experiments we either have to look for natural experiments or we have to attempt to statistically control observational data.

Obviously there can be significant disagreement over the appropriate use of controls and so it can take decades to settle a simple empirical dispute.

This is the essence of the difficulty associated with social science.

As for supply side - the idea that in the US economy decreases in marginal tax rates will yield increases in revenue. I am not aware of public finance economist who holds this view.

Now if you want to argue that the difference between the theoretical and experimental yield increases as tax rates rise then that is relatively agreed upon.

The question is at what rate. Feildstien would argue that the rate is relatively rapid. Goolsbee that it is relatively mild.

My personal take is that at this point there is not enough evidence, though I tend to think that the yield decline is probably fairly moderate among high income groups and probably much higher among very low income groups.

That is large increases in taxes at the upper end seem to have a much smaller effect on behavior than at the lower end. This is probably because as income rises a larger and larger fraction comes as a return to talent rather than a return to effort. It is much harder to adjust talent than effort.

What an idiotic article. Too bad the "debatable" nature of global warming is only "debatable" to half-wits, scientifically uneducated and people that would rather continue to live their lives out selfishly and with no regard to other beings on the planet. The whole "its not warming and not because of us" was a counter argument funded by oil companies and other interests. No real scientist with any expertise on the climate thinks that global warming or our causation of it is "debatable" anymore. Fortunately vast destruction and utilization of resources (which are finite, not infinite) will bring about a chaotic realignment of the current order. If there is something that I would be willing to reign in my unquenchable desire for possession, destruction and consumption what would it be? Let me think...well i'm not coming up with much but maybe... just maybe I could cut back on all the useless crap that I consume and waste in order to help protect the future survivability of the planet. On second thought, nah! forget it, pass me that big mac while I work on the plans for my power plant in Arizona. The reality is that societies DO collapse, mass extinctions
DO occur and there is absolutely no guarantee that our physically weak, but mentally cunning little species can survive any sort of environmental armageddon. Ask the dead people in Kansas if they think that storms are getting a bit worse lately (or maybe some of the folks in your town who came from New Orleans), ask them if tangling with Mother Nature when she's pissed makes for a fun weekend. The entire "we don't have to do anything that decreases our fulfillment of our desires cuz god is gonna take care of us" camp will get exactly what it deserves (along with the rest of us) a big fat "environmental" stomp in the face by the real dominant "species" on this planet--the cold, hard impersonal grinding of the machine created by the physical realities of this existence. And by the way, the 1970's was quite a while ago, and I don't know if anyone else has been paying attention, but I seem to remember a few scientific, heck maybe even technological advances since then. And possibly we know things now that we didn't know then. Or maybe not, maybe we should all stop crossfit and go back to nautilus equipment because back in the seventies those guys knew what was up! Just because in the past scientists were wrong doesn't mean they are wrong today--that's stupid! what a bozo! anyway, we can continue to try to crush this world into submission and try to take our "happiness" from it, but maybe the world is gonna crush back, and maybe the world is stronger. see you in hell!

I am not the intellectual George Will is, but this much I know. Perhaps under the pressure to publish regularly to maintain his standing as a leading "thinker", Mr. Will has lost his way.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

We are the Earth's shephards, and into our hands rests the well-being of all the Earth's creatures. How well are we meeting this responsibility?

We get most of our meat from animals confined to the point where they are not permitted to move and are denied the touch of a single human hand their entire time on this Earth; we blast advanced sea mammals like dolphins and whales with low frequency sonar; many of our fellow Americans consume to gross excess in all things -- they see cheap material trappings of wealth on television and mail order it even if they don't need it; and their are many CEOs and supposed leaders who boast of their trips to African to shoot a lion, elephant or giraffe like it is a badge of honor.

And like those other bad shephards, Mr. Will holds out a drowning polar bear, a spotted owl, a wild salmon as the means to serve his economic agenda. Given history on this Earth, I do not believe we need to fear the polar bear or any meager restraint we may summon in its name. Perhaps we should fear the lesser angels of OUR nature and those like Mr. Will perhaps, but not the lesser creatures of this Earth.

"How do the beasts groan! The herds of cattle are perplexed, because they have no pasture; yea, the flocks of sheep are made desolate. O Lord, to thee will I cry ... The beasts of the field cry also unto thee; for the rivers of waters are dried up, and the fire hath devoured pastures of wilderness."

Enjoy this day of rest CrossFit nation.

Love the videos, very high quality production lately, great content as well. Thanks to all of the folks who contributed to it.

It looks like Sevan might win this one, can't wait until the next installment!

About global warming, I'm in with the group, which is too bad because I love to dissent but global warming is just another avenue to control the population and I am very much in favor of individual freedoms.

Someone should post a link to today's rest day discussion on a left leaning global warming blog just to stir up the pot. The opinion is too homogenous.

Have Fun, Train Hard,

Billy

Go, "Girl Crusher"! hahaha

these vids are thoroughly hilarious. i think they really show what Crossfit is all about: the camaraderie, the humor, the burn...

Go, "Girl Crusher"! hahaha

these vids are thoroughly hilarious. i think they really show what Crossfit is all about: the camaraderie, the humor, the burn...

"The green left preaches pessimism: Ineluctable scarcities (of energy, food, animal habitat, humans' living space) will require a perpetual regime of comprehensive rationing. The green left understands that the direct route to government control of almost everything is to stigmatize, as a planetary menace, something involved in almost everything -- carbon."

Seriously, you're arguing that a basic understanding of, not even economics, but life - that most goods are limited, and that there are a lot that, once used up or destroyed, won't come back - is just inherent evil of the left bent on destroying America? Seriously? Let's accept some basic facts - both conservatives and liberals are people, and, in all probability, not serial killers or child molesters, so not evil.

So we should be discussing our views on the proper role of government in market failures, which is, as far as I can tell, what he's actually talking about. Many industrial practices have effects beyond their own market, such as polluting the air (which is not a private resource, and can't protected under property laws, as far as I know). These are externalities which negatively affect that population in some way, which are not taken into account during production, and so the actual cost of producing a widget is much higher than just materials and labor - it includes the cost of externality as well. Personally, I think that these "social costs" should be taken into account during production, but that's just not something that happens by itself in a free market, hence, market failure. And that's the purpose of an emission tax, or credits, or regulation, or whatever we decide on. So I want to know from conservatives, in terms of climate change - do these externalities exist? Our government has admitted that it they do, finally aligning itself with the scientific consensus. Should governments be involved in correcting market failures? If they should, what would you prefer other than regulation? If you could not condemn every liberal on the planet into everlasting hellfire for disagreeing with you, that'd be pretty awesome, too.

#57 Annlee - classy post

Tony B and Sevan - great video - keep up the great work

I had a friend, with multiple sclerosis who, flat on his back, stuck irrevocably in bed, once said in response to someone whining about having to go back to work on Monday: "I'd give anything to go dig a goddamn ditch tomorrow morning, and I'd do it all day, everyday." He's dead now.

That's for the noise about sore this, owie that, that comes up in the comments sometimes. Maybe just do your workout, post your times, reps, etc. Or just say how much fun you had--else why do it? Sorry, I was raised to not talk about my health unless it's good. (There's always health practitioners to complain to...)

As for global warming. Who knows everything? For some reason the glaciers in Glacier National Park are melting. Kilimanjaro's snow is disappearing. For some reason tree line keeps creeping higher up mountains in Colorado.

It could be a lot of things are contributing to these phenomena. Deforestation seems to (may) be a culprit on Kilimanjaro... Who knows, really, what's going on...?

Could it hurt, however, to just live a little lighter on the planet?

This last cycle of WOD's were among the most fun rounds of exercise I've ever done.

Also, the "Ass Whoopin(g)" videos: great stuff.

Thanks Coach, for one of the best things going. What a deal!

Comment #23 - Posted by: Mark M

Mark - first, we'd have to actually follow hayek's advice before you could criticize the results of it. The Fed is to blame for our current woes, the Fed, govt regulation of banks, the assumption by all involved that, even if something totally inimaginable and unforeseen happens (like home values flat lining), what's the worst that can happen since the govt will bail us all out to prevent any suffering by anyone responsible?

If you think we're practicing Hayekian policy now, I challenge you to demonstrate you knowledge of same. Paul

Paul

Sevan, Tony, and Carey....great work! I'm always impressed by the 3 of you.

Re: Affirmative Action for Polar Bears (PBAA)

1. Polar bear extinction would not validate the United Nation’s (IPCC’s) anthropogenic global warming (AGW) conjecture.

(By the way and especially for BrettL #33, adaptation occurs most often without genetic changes. E.g., polar bears adapt to life in a zoo. Species grow thicker or thinner fur to adapt to weather changes. Conversely, during prolonged periods of stable conditions, species lose robustness and will succumb to changes their ancestors could have survived.)

2. Possible consequences of a few degrees warming would not validate AGW.

3. The current cold snap does not invalidate AGW.

4. The fact that Earth is overdue for development of an ice age does not invalidate AGW.

5. Neither the number of major storms or the number of record hot or cold days, whether more or less, nor other regional climate effects can validate or invalidate AGW.

6. The presence of powerful and commendable science within the AGW model does not validate the model.

7. The presence of ethical scientists within the IPCC community does not validate AGW.

8. Neither publication of a model nor peer review validates a model.

9. Neither the motivation of a scientist, nor the source of his funds, validates nor invalidates his models.

10. The existence of a competing climate conjecture can neither validate nor invalidate AGW.

11. Nevertheless, the AGW conjecture is invalid. It is a fraud of unprecedented proportions, perpetrated by unscrupulous and incompetent people in the name of science. The model has gaping holes, and contradictions at its critical junctures. Moreover, AGW is structured in a way that it cannot be validated. The fact that AGW is a conjecture about unmeasurable phenomena is not invalidating. Nevertheless, it’s a boat that won’t float, except in Congress.

Our direction is to take billions of dollars and divert trillions more from the public good for nothing but the creation of a novel counterproductive industry. A good model for the PBAA effect is the tens of millions of human lives lost by the banning of the production and distribution of DDT. Another is the human consequences of the prohibition of drugs, aggravated by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Unintended consequences are not necessarily unforeseeable.

Lastly,

12. The possibility that an invalid model might someday prove valid in the mind of a tyro or nincompoop is not a rational basis for anyone to act on the model.

Yes, post 66, we must control ourselves and each other as posts reference our physical feelings after a WOD are put up. No one should EVER say they hurt, or were shredded, or torn up, or wiped out, or in pain after a workout! EVER!! They should post their time, say it was fun, and log off. Anything else MUST be deleted.

As for the myth of global warming, I found it funny that Nathan and others would, with a straight face, try to paint George Will of all people as idiotic and half-witted, and losing a step. You're grasping at straws.

And who knew Salma Hayek was a respected Economist?

"Man these bags of gold are heavy..." #66 R.E. I like your perspective...

As for our ability to predict, see The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb for some challenging thought on inherent errors in the process. While his main thrust is economic and mathematical, his conclusion is that prediction falls apart horribly with increasing complexity of the system.

I'm thankful to live in a country governed with a system of checks and balances which permits open discussion and iterative adaption to the challenges we face.

The Dude abides...

I'm loving this video series.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Benjamin Franklin

Ask your local hippy to put his money where his mouth is. If you want to regulate peoples production and consumption start with your own. Regulate yourself into the wilderness with the critters. When it gets cold/hot (take your pick) snuggle up with the polar bears. I hear polar bears are gentile creatures.

Seriously though, I'm all for ending global warming. I've begun a savings for the planet. Next year I will buy a Suburban with it.

Good little hippies, so nice of you to always tell me how to live my life. If any hippies out there want to start giving up the benefits of civilization I'll be happy to drive you into the wild with my Suburban. While your out there you can pet the critters into your bellies and lecture the beavers on the damage there damns cause to the little fishies.

Always, Leon

Karl Smith #58,

Compare climatology with macroeconomics and you’ll find that access to experiment on the real world does not distinguish science from social science. Sometimes either branch of knowledge must simply wait for an event to occur. I suggest that what makes the big difference is that social science is not compelled as science is to have their models fit all data in their domain.

You said,

>> As for supply side - the idea that in the US economy decreases in marginal tax rates will yield increases in revenue.

What you describe is the Laffer curve. Supply side economics comes from supply and demand, and the theory promotes putting more money in the hands of the suppliers as opposed to the hands of consumers as a better way to stimulate the economy.

Adjustments to the tax code may not have produced any significant change in federal revenue. Ranson may be right. But his article falls far short of validating his hypothesis. His errors include relying only on the tax rate (and, as you point out, not the base) of the top bracket, and to conclude from the ratio of revenue to GDP something about the magnitude of the revenue.

did 3 rds 800m and 50 pullups in 18:10

#73 Leon

I would suggest you learn how to spell, but it actually goes along nicely with your incoherent rant.

#69 Mr. Glassman,

I must say I'm honored to be in a tangle with you.

In your specific response to me, you very obviously confused the adaptations available to us because of our current physiology, and those that occur as a result of environmental pressures.

"polar bears adapt to life in a zoo" Yes that's true, in the same way that if I have stable conditions (9-5 job, more food than I need, no big emergencies) and stop exercising I'm going to be out of shape.

"Species grow thicker or thinner fur to adapt to weather changes" Individuals grow fur to accomodate the weather, in the same way that I now have calluses on my hands from all the barbell work in crossfit. However the current problem for the polar bears is that they're drowning. If things continue as they are, my guess (and I my ego is strong enough to call it just that) is that they will die out, because 45 years, or even 450 years, is not long enough for evolutionary adaptations to deal with that.

"Conversely, during prolonged periods of stable conditions, species lose robustness and will succumb to changes their ancestors could have survived" I'll admit I'm in shallow waters here, but what do you mean by 'prolonged?' Tens of years? Thousands? If the first, then we just have another example like the one above.

As to your points about the 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' (AGW) model, I'm confused a bit. The scientific method basically goes like this: Hypothesis, rigorous testing, conclusion, conclusion clarifies hypothesis, further testing, etc. until the hypothesis is either disproven or enough evidence has been accumulated to call the hypothesis Theory, or for practical purposes, fact. The 'model' of AGW has a lot of evidence behind it, 'powerful and commendable science' as you say, yet you're more concerned about circumstances that 'validate' it?

I'm just a jazz musician, but the two big hallmark of a scientific theory, it seems to me, are its accurate description of the world, and its predictive powers. Both of those are satisfied pretty frequently by AGW, even the current oceanic cooling trend. If you're going to claim fraud, back it up. Where are the 'gaping holes?' The 'contradictions at critical junctures?' What are they, exactly?

Nathan #59,

Good grief! Pretty offensive stuff.

You say,

>> Too bad the "debatable" nature of global warming is only "debatable" to half-wits, scientifically uneducated and people that would rather continue to live their lives out selfishly and with no regard to other beings on the planet. The whole "its not warming and not because of us" was a counter argument funded by oil companies and other interests. No real scientist with any expertise on the climate thinks that global warming or our causation of it is "debatable" anymore.

You misunderstand science altogether. Skepticism is a virtue in a scientist, and its absence would be fatal to his credentials. Scientists who challenge a belief system posing as science are fully witted.

What would you have an industry do that is under attack solely for populist motives, or based on false science? Did the oil industry respond by doing anything improper? Or do you just presume to rely on your readers' hatred of corporations?

Scientific principles transcend any particular model. One does not need expertise in the domain of a model to point out its self-contradictions, its crucial omissions, or especially its lack of validation and lack even of a prediction which can be validated. This is peer review, if you will, at the level of science, not just climatology. It is what climatologists have earned for urging public policy based on what at best is a conjecture.

In an unintended way, and except for your use of the word debatable, your last sentence quoted is true. Global warming exists today; the cause is entirely natural.

Lastly, science advances by hypotheses validated to become theories. All science is perpetually debatable. Science never relies on consensus building. These are elementary principles of science literacy. Unscrupulous and unethical scientists do rely on consensuses for recognition, for control, and for funds from the public trough. There, and not in corporations, is where the contemptible behavior lies on this issue.

#59, Nathan, writes,

"Just because in the past scientists were wrong doesn't mean they are wrong today--that's stupid!"

Nor does it mean that they are right today.

Sorry Dan Diego, I guess a pulitzer prize and a writing career doesn't really qualify someone as a mental giant in my book. Maybe others are impressed by clever vocabulary and fancy writing, but for most people that just means he's good at a craft, not necessarily a brilliant thinker. And yes, I still...with a "straight face" think that guy is a bozo. Do a google search for "advances in climatology" the second hit starts talking about how great advances in satellites and technology has improved the field vastly...blah blah blah. whatever. its not my job to make sure that meterology hasn't made great advances in the last few decades but if your genius-boy george will is going to compare the current level of science with the theories of the guys in the 70's and write an article (and get paid) you'd think he might just double check and make sure that its a fair comparison. actually he obviously didn't and alot of morons will believe him. so you stay in awe of his majestic "intelligence" and i'll keep doing stupid google searches. "oh yes, yes George Will says that the meterologists in the 70's made a mistake, so clearly anytime these meterology guyz have any new theories they just have to be wrong... you know cuz they were wrong before, that one time, at band camp" who cares? that guy is dumb. my grandma smoked, and had a spot on her chest xray the doctor said was cancer, it was biopsied and was not cancer, a few years later she had another spot on her chest xray and again the doctor recommended biospy, my granny was a stubborn ol' cow and refused "doctor you were wrong before!" she died a few months later. he was wrong the first time, but not the second. see you in hell!

Oh! and yes Hari it doesn't mean that scientists are right today thank you for pointing that out, how advanced of you. but what if they are? just what if? is it too much for us to give up our mass consumption? probably. but it doesn't matter because our ability to mass consume will be taken away shortly anyhow. And if there is anything that we might want to risk being wrong about, and maybe be a little more safe than sorry. its the environment! its all good though, altruism is far from inherent in humans (or any creature) and I don't expect you or anyone else to believe that humanity is now a force powerful enough to destroy our environment and willingly stop the destruction. unfortunately believing that humanity can't destroy the world doesn't make it reality.

Some months ago we had a Rest Day devoted to the topic of AGW. I posited that it must be possible for an economist to look at the known costs of reducing the "carbon footprint" at any given time and show what the effect of that intervention would be on the economy at that time and into the future. My point was that the downstream "benefit" might be so slight, and the potential decrease in the standard of living for human beings across the planet so substantial (from the diversion of assets into the effort) that to divert assets now, with present technologies, might be counter-productive. I offered that a "sensitivity analysis" wherein critical variables (amount of warming, presumed amount of human contribution, economic impact of resource allocation, etc.) were varied and the analysis repeated could provide some sense of the power of the analysis.

I was essentially ignored. Ignored except, that is, by the Chinese and the Indians. In both of those countries the adults on board have concluded that to slow their growth in order to prevent some downstream situation that was based on conjecture (ie., the effect of GW, and the effect of any modulation of presumed AGW) would have a totally unacceptable downward effect on their citizens and their citizens' respective quality of life. I have since found some examples of this type of analysis; sadly, they are on my work computer while I, happily, am home this holiday weekend.

I further opined that the brunt of the quality of life "pain" in the West would be borne not by the folks clamoring for these draconian economic interventions, but would rather be borne by those already at the lower end of the quality of life scale in whatever Western country in which they might abide. Note that the basic strategy in all of the proposed "solutions" to AGW is to make utilization of suspected causes more expensive in an effort to alter behavior. And yet, some behavior (eating, heating one's home, clothing one's body) is rather mandatory; those at the lower end of the "quality of life" scale seem to have rather less flexibility and choice now. It is a rather cynical group that would enter into this with the foreknowledge that the cure would cause pain disproportionately within this particularly disadvantaged group.

In the discussion of GW and more specifically AGW, even if we grant for the sake of the discussion that both are real, it is naive and intellectually dishonest to discuss an effort to reduce the "A" of AGW without explicitly acknowledging the economic effects of said effort now and in the future. It is disingenuous for those who favor making this economic effort to do so without entering into a discussion of the proper use of scarce resources (money) when the goal is some sort of benefit decades in the future, and so many serious problems exist TODAY that would benefit from that money TODAY (potable water in the Third World, Malaria, smallpox and polio in the Third World, insufficient food in Africa, and on and on).

For the record, just in case the above is not clear enough, I am much, MUCH more concerned about childhood illnesses in the inner City in the U.S. than I am about the reproductive health of polar bears. I am much more concerned about the one million people who die each and every year from malaria than I am about a polar bear succumbing to heat stroke. I think about the >one million people each year who die from dysentery due to the lack of potable water, not about the fact that a polar bear may have more arctic water in which to swim and somewhat more crowded living conditions on a shrinking ice cap.

I'll bet the cab driver, struggling to scrape by on $21,000/year will find the cost of saving the planet to be rather dear when he is buying $6/gallon gas, his carbon charge for "polluting" off to some organization more interested in polar bears than his heating bill...

m/37/182

Did yesterday's WOD in 21:40 as rxd.
followed up with 1000m row and 3x20 ring dips

R.E. #66:

Hmmm. Might it be that some among us (perhaps bingo #53, or bingo yesterday) use terms such as "sprained core" or "ouchy" as a proxy for "man, I really worked hard on those GHD's the other day," or "wow, I really pushed the limit on that WOD--I'm that good kind of sore only Crossfit gives me?" Perhaps such discourse is simply part of the experience here, a way to bond in the virtual gym of the main page comments.

Given a particular frame of reference (eg. watching a friend die from MS, among countless others) one can almost always find offense in that which has no designs to offend ("ouchy"). One need not look quite so hard when one is on the receiving end of an unsolicited and unwarranted rebuke.

#79, Nathan, writes,

"Oh! and yes Hari it doesn't mean that scientists are right today thank you for pointing that out, how advanced of you. but what if they are? just what if? is it too much for us to give up our mass consumption?"

Your ad hominem attack on the writer misses the point of the article, which is that it makes no sense to declare the polar bear to be an endangered species, simply because scientists might be right about global warming.

The politicization of the awareness of how we consume our natural resources and hence our climate is an attempt to manipulate our fundamental behaviors.

Whether a "conservative" agenda or a "liberal" agenda, both sides seek to further their own power through the "politics of weather". You couldn't invent a more random and selectively interpretive process with which to influence people. Hundreds of years ago weather was thought to be an expression of the anger of God (or gods as in Greek, Roman, etc). The "new god" now is science and like a cancer it has infected everything we know from the poisons we put into our food (pesticides) to the poisons we put into our bodies (drugs, prescribed or other), to our own thoughts and actions (global warming) all in the name of science.

I like and benefit from the societal advances of scientific ingenuity and do not seek to eschew from the obvious. Unfortunately, some bad mistakes have come from science. It is up to our own judgments and moral code to dictate how we live our lives. But, there are many too ignorant to fully comprehend or too complacent to care (examine obesity rates in America for an example of complacency). The "liberals" would have us be "children", whose every thought and action would be controlled by fear. The "conservative" agenda would have "free market" rain supreme and turn all of us into ravenous "consumers" devouring the planet like locusts, in the name of profit.

Here are my thoughts for anyone who cares: Both of these perspectives are merely 2 sides of the same coin of ONE government. Just like we have only 2 political parties (to give us the illusion of political choice), we have only 2 views to a multifaceted, complex problem such as global climate changes and our effect on it. You can't recycle without being judged a "Nazi-Ecologist" any more than buying an SUV makes you "Capitalist Carbon Pig". Peoples consumer choices and behaviors are being politicized in an attempt to control us all.

Why? I believe the "Emperor has no clothes" (Government, Business and Social/Religious leaders throughout the world)!

They all seek to confuse and confound us so they can live, thrive, continue to control and preserve their own establishment. Oil companies are not going to go away regardless of if we do or do not have ice caps. A hundred years ago electricity replaced oil lamps in homes and on streets to light our way. The oil companies told us we would all burn up and die from having wires in our walls. The oil companies tell us today that electric cars will cause more pollution and we will all burn and die in car crashes in light-weight, un protective and polluting electric cars. (There kind of propaganda is the most asinine and nonsensical of them all)

The government tells us we need to go to war to make piece (the worse kind of doublespeak from a Orwellian nightmare out of "1984") only to see the invaded country fall to pieces and private business flourish from the profits of so many suffering.

Don't even get me started on Societal/Religious institutions, when they were last in control it was called the "Dark Ages" for a reason and it lasted a thousand years or so.

Bottom line: we have not mentally, socially or spiritually evolved enough to raise ourselves up to coexist with each other and our surroundings in a way that transcends our own physical limitations allowing true growth. Instead, we have what we have around us today, a "big fat chaotic mess". Some of us view the mess as good, some of us view the mess as bad, some of us could care less because were all going to die anyway.

How do you deal with it?

I recycle where I can and drive a gas burning car, I eat organic foods and drink domestic beer, I watch Fox News and read The New Republic (then line the bird cage with it LOL), I take the bus/train and fly on jet airplanes, I hike in the woods to breathe fresh air and been known to crawl the urban landscape with a cigar in hand, I laugh at "body builders" playing with machines and sweat like a stuck pig PRing my previous "Eva" time, I love, sweat, cry, cringe, laugh, play, work, fall, get up, and live my life to the fullest of my ability. My crossfit scores fall in the middle of the pack and it's unlikely I'll set any crossfit records. But, I will keep trying to improve myself, my body, my intellect, my spirit and my environment for the better. Not because I have to, or because some government or religious talking head told me, or some body builder (with degenerative joints and bad knees) thinks so.... no I want to continue to improve and evolve and keep my mind open for more because life is too short to do otherwise. One day we will all be gone and all that will be left are our memories, our accomplishments, our offspring and our crossfit scores.

I appreciate you and the opportunity to share, may your run be swift, your pull ups effortless and your KB swing a breeze. Have a wonderful holiday weekend in remembrance of those who made the supreme sacrifice for us all, for God, for Country, for Freedom.

Interesting to see the CF Games site pimping a video with a former NFL player, and blog entry entitled "Be Afraid...Be Very Afraid."

The video goes on to boast his CrossFit Total of 1383…

Not impressed, sorry.

Came across this looking up info:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2150559

To quote Rippetoe: "There are no shortcuts."

Hope he's clean now.

I hate to see the acrimonious personal remarks made on this great site. An intelligent response to which ever side you are on must take into consideration the very real fact either side could be 100% wrong. I remember "Global Cooling" in the 70's and don't buy into "Global Warming"; it doesn't make me right and you wrong, get your ego out of the process, worry about what you personally can do and let everyone else have their direction. Name calling is for the school yard not this forum.

#77 Jeff

sorry jeff i didn't mean to be offensive.

I don't think I'm misunderstanding science altogether and indeed skepticism is necessary for true scientific exploration. Either side of the anthrogeniticity of the global warming debate can be called a belief system. Labeling one side as such, does not establish the validity of the opposing side. Evidence does.

Yes, I do believe that the oil industry engaged in improper acts and censored data from the public. But no, I would not expect them to do it any other way.

I agree that scientific principles transcend particular models. However, I am unaware of any self-contradictions, crucial ommissions or lack of validation or prediction in any in the current theories of global warming. Perhaps they exist. I'd be interested to hear of them. Climatologists urge the public policy toward less pollution, less deforestation. Those sound like good things to me, whether theories about global warming are correct or not.

Although I appreciate your reassurance that global warming is natural (and hope you are right), I will continue to believe people that have spent their lives studying the climate. And maybe you are right, humans are "natural." The current atmosphere and surface temperature of Mars are very "natural" as well.

Lastly, perhaps all science is debatable. But utility in debate is a different story. Debating whether or not gravity is real is not very useful. Debating anthrogenicity of global warming is perhaps useful. However the consequences of these debates are very very different--One ends with a barbell in the head, the other with mass extinction and a planet that can no longer sustain life.

On unscrupulous scientists (and corporations): they both act on their own best interests, like we all do. However, institutions like corporations have the power to effect vast numbers of people. The corporations that act in their own self interest at the expense of a greater number of people do indeed earn my hatred, but so do the scientists. Corporations and scientists are also responsible for a great amount of good and happiness in our world. And as is true of most things, likely each is responsible for a little good and guilty of a little evil. such is the world.

Three days ago I awoke to find snow in my backyard. The locals around here say this has been the longest winter in over 35 years. Could use a little "warming" around here. By the way last year we had temps of -17 degrees. Here being Lamoille, Nevada.

#85 David @ CF Chatt

OUCH!

Truth hurts, hey?

Did yesterdays wod as rxd
3 rounds in 32:10

Hari, maybe you are right and that was his main point, if so then that's pretty interesting. I mean if the polar bears live on ice caps and the caps are melting and they can't eat. it seems fairly reasonable that they'll die. but maybe not, maybe they will do something else for food. that'd be cool.
but come on? comparing 70's technology with today?
thinking that the judges or whatever will actually stand in the way of somebody trying to make a buck? i don't know. maybe.

it's been fun. love you guys. i gotta work. go crossfit!

#80 Bingo,

With all due respect (and I have a ton of respect for you and would love to meet you some day), I think it's misleading to say that those who want to lessen our environmental footprint aren't concerned about the economics of the issue. Many, if not most, of the solutions I've seen proposed do actually try to deal with that very thing. Getting cleaner cars at decent prices, more efficient appliances that cost less in the long run, etc. Honestly, I think you're ignoring the bits that don't support your argument, but I could be wrong.

As for the bears, I honestly don't care about the bears for the bears' sake (I know, I'm a bad hippie). I care about them because what happens to them could be an indicator of what is going to happen to us. Therein lies the point (IMO) of talking about the damn bears.

Question: on the 800 meter run & 50 pull ups for 3 round time?
M/34/225/6'3"
I can normally do 12 to 15 regular pull ups. Kipping pull ups are new to me and actually seem harder to do than regular, I attribute that to my weight, 225, my lack of grip strength especially at the bottom of the pull, and my length of arms which is 6'6" wing span arms outstretched from tip to tip of middle fingers.

Should I suck it up at this point and do all 50 pull ups rather than finishing with jumping pull ups or not?

"Daniel"
17:07

29/f/112

made up yesterday's wod

3 rounds of 800m run
50 pull-ups

31:31

was still kinda drunk from last night when doing the workout this morning. didn't push too hard, but hard enough to get a good workout. :-) for some reason drunk running is easier. ha.

pre: wux1
post: water + stretching

It is more important to be "right", or to pursue the truth?

My hamstrings have been hurting me since 'Michael' when I sub'd Good Mornings for Back Extensions. My hamstrings didn't start to hurt until the following day. They've been sore now for the last nine days. I can still squat, jump rope, jog, etc. with some pain and tightness, but I can't do standing hamstring stretches. Normally I can put both palms on the ground during a standing hamstring stretch, but now I can barely touch my toes and there's a lot of pain and tightness when I do, especially down the insides of my hamstrings. I'm deployed now and don't have much access to ice, but I've been elevating my legs when I have the opportunity. I worked out the first couple of days after Michael (did C&J's and 400s), but I've been taking it easy on my legs since then, b/c I'm worried that I could injure them further.
Does anyone have any advice or know what the injury could be and how long the recovery is? Thanks for your help.

Nothing is more important than the Polar Bears... NOTHING.

Can't you see, Gaia is crying.

She can only be happy if we adopt a psuedo-marxist agenda that eliminates the middle class. Don't you understand, only some of us can have comfort and wealth. Do your part to make yourself small and pathetic, for the good of the planet. Air Travel, plastic bottles, and cars that you don't have to cram your knees on the dashboard, are for the Chosen. The "Goreacal" hath said it, so it shall come to pass.

Obama '08
Hope
Change
Something

#77 Jeff Glassman

sorry Jeff i didn't mean to be offensive.

I don't think I'm misunderstanding science altogether and indeed skepticism is necessary for true scientific exploration. Either side of the anthropogenicity of the global warming debate can be called a belief system. Labeling one side as such, does not establish the validity of the opposing side. Evidence does.

Yes, I do believe that the oil industry engaged in improper acts and censored data from the public. But no, I would not expect them to do it any other way.

I agree that scientific principles transcend particular models. However, I am unaware of any self-contradictions, crucial ommissions or lack of validation or prediction in any in the current theories of global warming. Perhaps they exist. I'd be interested to hear of them. Climatologists urge the public policy toward less pollution, less deforestation. Those sound like good things to me, whether theories about global warming are correct or not.

Although I appreciate your reassurance that global warming is natural (and hope you are right), I will continue to believe people that have spent their lives studying the climate. And maybe you are right..after all, humans are indeed "natural." The current atmosphere and surface temperature of Mars are very "natural" as well.

Lastly, perhaps all science is debatable. But utility in debate is a different story. Debating whether or not gravity is real is not very useful. Debating anthropogenicity of global warming is perhaps useful. However the consequences of these debates are very very different--One ends with a barbell in the head, the other with mass extinction and a planet that can no longer sustain life.

On unscrupulous scientists (and corporations): they both act on their own best interests, like we all do. However, institutions like corporations have the power to effect vast numbers of people. The corporations that act in their own self interest at the expense of a greater number of people do indeed earn my hatred, but so do the scientists. Corporations and scientists are also responsible for a great amount of good and happiness in our world. And as is true of most things, likely each is responsible for a little good and guilty of a little evil. such is the world.

(sorry for the repost but I just had to correct my spelling/grammar errors... at least the ones i could find. please do not consider this as a denial of anyone's right to make fun of me for spelling or grammar errors.)
see you in hell!

#85

Touche

I have grown so tired of the neo-conservative blindness to our environmental problems.

Even if global warming wasn't scientifically proven as taking place, the OBVIOUS pollution problems related to our AIR, WATER, and LAND are clear.

Wake up and stop making excuses to continue in your self-absorbed consumeristic blindness.

Don't think we've got pollution problems? Come to California and try to breathe or surf.

rest day run, driven by guilt from skipping a couple workouts.

8 miles, 1:09 and change. guilt assuaged.

>>I suggest that what makes the big difference is that social science is not compelled as science is to have their models fit all data in their domain.

I don't know about this. At least in economics we seek academic models that fit any available data. Having counter-examples is taken seriously.

I would also note that in nutrition and climatology for example, debates over basic empirical points also rage for decades.

Also, I think it is important to note that there is a huge arena of pop economics, in which the standards are lighter of course.

For example, supply side economics comes out of pop economics. As this conversation shows there is not even general agreement on terms.

When I say supply side economics for example, I mean the notion that decreases in marginal tax rates (US federal marginal tax rates typically) could produce increases in revenue.

Stimulating the economy using business side tax cuts I would simply label as Keynesian accelerater policy. Though, I think the notion of fiscal fine tuning outside of a crisis is pretty much dead in the academic circles.

#101
Yes, we do have pollution problems. And what is the cause? Too many people. When can we start talking about overpopulation?

Comment #21 - Posted by: Alex84

Thanks - saved me a bit of typing, iow 'well said.' Paul

M/53/6'2"/230 lbs.
Didn't feel like rest day today so I did Christine completely as Rxd (maybe for the first time)

3 rounds for time

500 meter row
12 body weight deadlift
21 box jumps

1st round 6:04
2nd round 7:16
3rd round 7:08

total 20:28
It was hard but I am starting to feel just a little bit stronger. Maybe I can actually do this stuff

Nathan #87/99,

By “natural” I mean from nature as opposed to man.

Science does not accommodate belief systems. No isms allowed. Science is based on models with predictive power, and when, among a few other things, its predictions are confirmed by measurements (facts), they become validated.

Can you give a specific of oil company misbehavior on the subject of AGW?

You said you were unaware of any self-contradictions, crucial omissions or lack of validation, etc., in the AGW conjecture. So that you will be aware of them, here’s a sampler.

(1) Self contradiction. The AGW model requires, and so claims, CO2 to persist from decades to centuries in the atmosphere. (This is necessary for atmospheric CO2 to become well-mixed, making the increase in CO2 at Mauna Loa representative of the whole globe. It is also necessary for ACO2 emissions, being one fifteenth natural CO2 emissions just from the ocean, to have a cumulative effect in the GCMs.) The IPCC provides a conventional formula for the global atmospheric lifetime of CO2. Depending on which of several ambiguous fluxes the IPCC provides applies, the lifetime is about 1.5 to 5 years.

(2) Crucial omission. The reason Earth’s climate remains so stable is the negative feedback from clouds. It regulates the radiation from the sun, so is far more important and powerful than greenhouse gases, which only regulate the radiation from Earth. Cloud cover increases as the surface warms because of increased specific humidity. The GCMs do not make the dynamic calculation of cloud cover, and instead the IPCC treats cloud albedo as a constant with respect to temperature.

(3) Lack of validation. Before a model advances from hypothesis to theory, it must have at least one non-trivial prediction confirmed by measurements. The only prediction advanced by the IPCC on behalf of the GCMs is the ultimate prediction of a 3.5ºC increase in the global average surface temperature in a century or so. Therefore, validation cannot occur for a century or so. Meanwhile, the IPCC claims that this increase has been, or is being irreversibly set in motion by present day ACO2 emissions. The climatologists have a delinquent duty to create a non-trivial prediction from their models which can provide validation before the models are ever used ethically for public policy. You may recognize this as Popper’s falsifiable criterion in the language of scientists.

Now you are aware.

Few things in science are as debated as gravity! Cosmology is in turmoil over this problem, and physicists have resorted to hypothesizing overtly phantom mass and energy in defense of their current belief system.

You speculate that the one consequence of the AGW debate

>>ends … with mass extinction and a planet that can no longer sustain life.

This is not a consequence of the debate, but instead is hysteria fostered by which AGW proponents to put infinite weight on their side. If the AGW forces prevail, we will embark on a huge waste of resources and power which might have been used for the good of our nation and the world, a journey that will be abandoned for the foolishness that it is long before the model could be validated.

This is not to say that mass extinction and less than a Class M planet are not probable, given sufficient time. Man just cannot achieve this result by any practicable emission of great gobs of a benign, beneficial greening agent.

BrettL #92:

I'll be at the Crossfit Games, Coors Light in hand, under the Skyvision Centers hat and sporting the "Feel Your Boobies" T shirt, waiting to shake your hand!

The economic challenge presented by the proponents of massive, macro-intervention to reduce or reverse the "A" of AGW is not what you have noted. It is the demand for gross reductions in the creation of so-called "greenhouse gases" from all parts of the economy, by whatever way possible, and they do not, in fact, examine either of the questions I pose. They do not acknowledge that there are significant societal costs to reducing "greenhouse gas" emissions, both in real costs to citizens (increased heating costs, increased costs of all goods that utilize petroleum in any phase of production, increased cost of food), nor do they acknowledge the real costs of NOT using those funds for other humanitarian issues that will bring a benefit to real humans TODAY, rather than some difficult to predict potential benefit to whichever humans survive their present day challenges (famine, hunger, preventable disease, thirst) whenever some effect of GW comes home to roost, whatever that effect might turn out to be.

Nowhere in any of my posts on this topic have I ever said that it is foolish to make an effort to tread lightly on our planet. It is rather obvious, don't you think, that some government intervention (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act), has been of benefit? Are you old enough to remember what the roadsides looked like before the anti-litter laws came to be? These seem to be reasonable.

What does not seem reasonable to me is to legislate a downward force on improvement in quality of life on the citizens of any nation without a more rigorous evaluation of the true costs, or even a more rigorous evaluation of the true effects of the problem (GW). What is the predicted effect of GW on human life in 50 or 100 or 500 years? What is the predicted effect of GW on GDP in various countries? What is the predicted effect on GDP and quality of life of the draconian measures so loudly proposed (carbon taxes, etc.)? Given relatively predictable improvements in technology what is the effect of examining all of these questions BEFORE instituting said measures?

Make no mistake, the examples that you cite are worthwhile goals, but they are very small parts of what is proposed. Even at that they will have a disproportionate effect on those far down the economic food chain. And citizens of Western democracies will bear a disproportionate load because the adults in developing countries will do the calculus and decide that economic development trumps reducing carbon emission.

Anyone notice a correlation between this article and eight days ago, "Defend Our Porn"? This one posits excessive government intervention based on "unintended uses" of the Endangered Species Act. The other one posits the same based on the Patriot Act.

What's the central issue here?

A thought occurs to me, "which of the two seems like a real concern", but that might just promote divisive rhetoric.

#95 Nadia - Considering you seem to do WOD's hungover a lot, it begs the question - where does alcohol fit into all these diets i read about here? Isn't that a carb? & shouldn't you only be having 20%carb if you're doing the zone, or the neanderthal diet or whatever?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, just asking. I'm just not as funny as Sevan...sorry if I offend

Couldn't rest, so I did 3 rounds of:

50 box jumps (24")
50 Double unders

12:50

#110 MDmelissa I'll respond as I just learned a bit about this and found it quite interesting. Alcohol itself is not a carb and apparently has a neutral hormonal response. Dry alcohols like vodka, dry wines, have none or negligible carbs, while "sweet" alcohols (eg. beer, sweet wines) do contain carbs. The alcohol itself contains 7kcal/g, and is apparently burned preferrentially over other fuel sources, so has been posited to reduce fat-burning in that regard (as fat-burning is the usual context for discussing these things). However, alcohol also has important circulatory and therefore metabolic effects which lead to so-far undetermined outcomes.

Quantity is a factor of course, as well.

I can't wade through all the morons for long enough to even think about posting today - the mystery of why anyone has any faith in govt doing good still fascinates me. Love Will's perspective - clearly, govt will expand as much as we let it. Each intervention creates an unforeseen negative eventuality that becomes the justification for the next intervention - for example, the Fed's creation way back in 1913 or so was supposed to lead to reductions in financialy disruptions; but has instead lead to greater unpredictability as a result of Fed interventions. Those events justify still more Federal control.

But the 'meat sticks' still love love love the idea if that if 'the government could just get more power, more control, we could fix it all.'

The Fatal Conceit indeed.

Good day, Crossfitters. Paul

#12 Barry Cooper: as BrettL mentioned, your summary of the Bloomberg article missed some key points. The article said that the Earth will experience "regional cooling" not global cooling, meaning only certain areas. Plus, this cooling is due, in fact, to changes in current caused by global climate change (AKA global warming). That is the point of the article, not that global warming is a leftist conspiracy, as you seem to have interpreted it.

Thank you Nathan for pointing out the those in the know are in complete agreement that global climate change is an eminent threat (though not your words). Realize, people, that just as tobacco companies hired corrupt "scientists" in the 1980's to announce "findings" that there was no evidence that smoking cigarettes could be harmful to health, the oil companies are doing the same with the environmental issues today.

Some think that a few degrees might not be a big deal, but just 8 deg. C could be enough for a mass extinction, as has occurred on Earth before. There was an excellent article in the latest Scientific American about the ethics of global climate change. One must take into consideration suffering, death, and discomfort of present and future peoples in order to approach this problem. If billions of deaths (hypothetically, from enhanced intensities of natural disasters, lack of fresh water, etc.) in 100 years can be prevented by slight inconveniences in the near future, is this justified?

And for CenterHorse # 54, you said: "Doesn't evolution play a role in all of this? I mean if we or life evolves over time, then these species who are in danger either change or die right?"

Well, the time scale of evolution might be something like millions of years, but the concern is more for our great grandchildren and their great grandchildren, i.e. in the next hundreds of years. Of course creatures adapt even in their own life spans, but adaptation for the human race is something we would like to avoid, because it may involve famines, huge death tolls, wars, forced migration, epidemics, etc. Yes, life adapts, but do we humans want to have to adapt?

#101

Who's doing the polluting? I can't imagine the neo-conservatives in California could do it all by themselves. How many liberals are clogging the highways?

In his article 'March of the Polar bears', George Will fails to note that Kempthorne included an 'administrative guideline' that makes it such that the listing of the polar bear as an endangered species cannot be used to create back-door climate policy outside the normal system of political accountability. This has the effect of making the listing symbolic more than anything else.
In addition, whether or not global warming is real, moving toward sustainable energy and agriculture is the right thing to do to ensure survival of the species and national security. As previously mentioned by other bloggers, moving toward sustainability must be done in an economically sound fashion (i.e. turning food crops into fuel is a bad idea).

In his article 'March of the Polar bears', George Will fails to note that Kempthorne included an 'administrative guideline' that makes it such that the listing of the polar bear as an endangered species cannot be used to create back-door climate policy outside the normal system of political accountability. This has the effect of making the listing symbolic more than anything else.
In addition, whether or not global warming is real, moving toward sustainable energy and agriculture is the right thing to do to ensure survival of the species and national security. As previously mentioned by other bloggers, moving toward sustainability must be done in an economically sound fashion (i.e. turning food crops into fuel is a bad idea).

Bingo #82

You're correct, Bingo, about finding something bad when nothing bad was intended.

...stupid on my part.

My apologies to anyone else I might have irritated...

There's a great community here.

Talking about the pain of a WOD, or a series of them, or calluses ripping, or sore abs, or whatever injury, ache, or pain is really no big deal. It's just talk.

And I agree, it is just another way of "bonding" or of saying, "goddamn, that was a fun workout today."

Blame my first post on a not enough coffee and leftovers from a bad dream...

I'll stay out of that global warming mess.

Science/opinion/facts/statistics/stories.

I expect Truth will out. Or, it won't.

#115 Bob in NoVA: True enough but you missed my bigger point regarding those who dismiss global warming as fallacy.

I wasn't commenting on the article or whether global warming is scientific truth or not.

The reality is EVERYONE is clogging the highways; pollution should be everyone's concern.

Me? I'm just a moderate independent who bicycles to work some days and drives his little Ford Focus the other days.

24/m/5'7"/155#

Took my rest yesterday and did the workout today. At pullup #144 I ripped off three calluses in spectacular fashion so I figured I'd save the remaining 6 reps for a rainy day. Forgot to stop my watch, but it was about 35-40 mins. This seems like a good opportunity to take an extended series of rest days, since I've got a practice PFT on Wednesday and I want to give it 100% so I can see what 6 weeks of crossfit does to my score.

Just started working some of the crossfit workouts. Always been in pretty good shape and I can always to low reps of the Rx'd lifts, but not up near the Rx'd reps yet. I've devised a rating system for myself to track my progress as I get more into it:
10 - complete sets/rounds Rx with high performance no breaks
8 - complete sets/rounds Rx with okay perf or some breaks, or complete with 75% Rx
6 - complete sets/rounds with low perf or many breaks, or complete with 50% Rx
4 - mostly complete high perf, at least 75% Rx
2 - partly complete, or mostly complete with at least 50% Rx
0 - incomplete

For the WODs with high reps I do the worst, generally around 1-3. For the WODs with low reps and/or running, usually get around 6-8.

Curious how others have tracked this while still working up to consistent WODs as Rx'd.

#95 Nadia...

Anyone who can do a workout like yesterdays still drunk is a freaking rockstar!! And yet somehow you still managed to post a good time... I've got to try that!

R.E. #118:

I suspected as much :=) ! Thanks for getting back.

" I expect the truth will out. Or it won't"

True that, friend, true that.

#113 Paul:

"The mystery of why anyone has any faith in govt doing good still fascinates me."

Good point. Like how ethanol from corn was supposed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce CO2 emissions, but it takes something like 129 gallons of oil to get 100 gallons of ethanol and there is a negligible savings on CO2, if any. The most pronounced effect that ethanol production from corn has done is lower the world's supply of corn.

Back to the main topic, I'm confused as to what people are afraid of in terms of quality of life being sacrificed. Really I would like to know what specifically people think will happen if the govt intervenes. Often times it helps the consumer (financially) to save energy, as when using compact fluorescent light bulbs or driving cars with better gas mileage. I don't think people need to stop flying in planes altogether, but is anyone really concerned that this will ever be enforced? I can't see this ever happening...but intervention such as subsidies for buying solar panels makes a lot of sense to me. Similarly, taxing CO2 emissions sounds reasonable. If anything, it will help lead us to a more sustainable economy wherein we do not have to import as much energy, and energy companies will not be hurt in the long term. They will be the ones coming up with the new, sustainable technologies after all.

21-18-15-12-9-6-3
#135 Deadlift
Push-up

Greg as rx'd
7:04

Coop as rx'd
7:22

23m/66"/160

Five rounds for time of:
25 KB swings @ 55lbs
25 GHD Sit-ups
25 Back Extensions
25 Knees to Elbows

33:12

I'm two days behind, and thought I would double up fri/sats workout....

.....then I finished this one and just collapsed into the fetal position. I'll double up tomorrow. Great workout!

Anyone doing Trevor tomorrow?

anyone doing trevor tomorrow?

David
M - 32 - 5′10″ - 177 BW

Recovery Day

Full Rounds of:
Dynamic Range of Motion (DROM) Warm Up
Active Isolation Stretching (AIS)
Foam Roller Rehab
Inversion Hangs
Contrast Showers

Notes: I feel like a new person. WOW!

Beckett once asked "Who knows what the ostrich sees in the sand?" Today, I got a little glimpse of what the ostrich is looking at. Cheers.

Strong people are harder to kill than weak people....but stupid people are easier to kill than smart people.

David @CF Chatt,

I don't want to be the one to break this to you, but, nearly everyone in the NFL, certainly every one who plays in John's position, is engaged in exogenous hormonal therapy.

The testing for banned substances is not a zero tolerance deal, but for each banned substance there is an upper limit that is tolerated beyond which there's trouble.

Elite cyclists, football players, body builders, throwers, sprinters, ...ALL on steroids. This cannot be rationally denied.

It is mistaken perception that the ones "caught" are cheaters and the others "clean". The ones caught have erred in dosage, masking, or metabolized abnormally slow the outlawed substances. They are more unlucky than anything else. These athletes are no more cheaters than stepping out of bounds accidentally on the one yard line before crossing the goal line is cheating.

The best reading I've seen on steroid use was written by Malcolm Gladwell (Yeah, the author of "Blink"). You owe it to yourself and the Chatanooga affiliate to school yourself on the subject!

on't know why I did it, but ran to st17 and back...7.25 miles, 1:06. Biceps, lats, forearms, abs, very sore. Now knees, ankles and legs are too.

6 weeks in and loving it!!! Until CF I thought I was in shape... nope. A little discouraged , but overall am psyched everyday to see what's next. Kind of a love/hate-thing going on. I desire and dread to see the WOD every morning. Anyone know of/recommend a CF gym in Pasadena, CA? Thanks everyone.

m/37/195

as Rx. Rest for 24 hrs. My DOMS from "we don't do enough abs" day thanks you.

If only there were a way we could improve PB fitness across broad modal and time domains...

But then with their reduced BF%, they wouldn't be able to swim as far.

#131 - COACH...

"It is mistaken perception that the ones "caught" are cheaters and the others "clean". The ones caught have erred in dosage, masking, or metabolized abnormally slow the outlawed substances. They are more unlucky than anything else. These athletes are no more cheaters than stepping out of bounds accidentally on the one yard line before crossing the goal line is cheating."

Would it be considered "acceptable" for one of the Crossfit athletes to be "on the program" participate in the upcoming games, excel/dominate, win the competition and subsequently be revered as one of "The Immortals" as long as there is no testing?

I am saddened and dismayed, albeit "naive" to think that all elite sports has some element of steroids. I am glad I never crossed the line and participated (Fear) having grown up near Lyle Alzado (Spelling?)

Oh well, it just makes me feel better about my non-enhanced performances and being a mere mortal...

I have popped my muscleup cherry, 1st was very slopppy, next set I did a solid 4. counted 8 sets of 1 before the night was over. thanks CF. I'm so pumped I don't know what else to say.

muscleups in the mournin.

3 mile walk

5 rounds: 19 mins
Deadlifts 3 resp
20 pullups
50 pushups

I feel a hero workout, or a hero blender

#138 yeah me too

On the performance enhancing drug issue:

"Steroids are for pussies"-coach Mark Rippetoe
When I first saw that quote on the message boards I was so happy to see that crossfit (atleast Coach Glassman and Coach Rip's stance, but I have a good feeling it's also the community stance) shares my feelings on performance enhancing drugs. Personally I'm even against creatine, but then again I never played sports on a professional level, so who am I to say anything, but I did play high school football with guys who had taken them and even though they got stronger than me; when the $%^& hit the fan I was the one who could mentally handle the situation while they crumbled.

Bit of an O/T post, but it's too exciting not to mention!

JPL has successfully landed the Phoenix Lander on Mars!

Pictures at: http://fawkes1.lpl.arizona.edu/index.php

wtp #135,

CrossFit doesn't allow steroids. We're against them. Any athlete tested and found positive OR denying a request for testing will have their performance listed in some kind of "on drugs" ranking.

MLB, NFL, and the Olympics ALL approve of steroid use. You just can't use "too much". That is not the CF policy. Ours may be the only truly zero tolerance in sport.

The problem is immense and tragic. There are no good guys or bad guys. Those "caught" are more truly unlucky than dishonest or cheaters.

Here's a great steroid primer:

http://www.malcolmgladwell.com/2001/2001_08_10_a_drug.htm

How about BJ Penn's victory last night? It was a "fight gone very good" for him!

Hi All,

Catching up on the reads from today's discussion topic.

I see Nathan is catching some heat for his initial post. Nathan, I used the word debatable which you placed in parens on your first post #59 so I am assuming you are refering to me as one of the half-wits. Bad call on your part.

I am not a half-wit. I chose my words carefully as I understand that the topics discussed in this forum can be polarizing. The fact is that the environmental issue being discussed is debatable. We need to look no further than the newspapers, internet, and other media to realize that the topic of global warming is a topic of debate.

I have learned quite a bit from reading peoples posts on various topics in this forum. I will be the first to admit my actual knowledge on many of the topics is rather thin, but given that I have the capacity to learn indicates that I am no half-wit....whatever that is.

I have no issue with being told rather directly that I am wrong, or my point of view is without merit. I do have an issue with name calling....a technique often used in e-mails by those who do not have to courage to state their position face to face. Given that this forum is one which face to face interaction is unlikely I suggest that in the future you refrain from the use of name calling to make your point. It is unnecessary and undermines what may be an otherwise intelligent arguement.

Semper Fi.

Oh Oh... Even though I haven't contributed can I be today's designated half wit?

In regards to Will's article I would agree with his assessment that the left is changing tacts on how they go about controlling others. They realize that communism has lost. So they are changing gears and taking more of a fascist approach.

Yes your house and job is still yours but we will now regulate it to the point that we have effective control while still maintaining the illusion of freedom.

Didn't rest today. Shame on me.

Was reading on Gym Jones about breathing ladders.

Did a 1-10-1 ladder with 50# KB swings. Didn't time it as I was really just messing around and it's a more aerobic conditioning breathing exercise than a metcon.

But damn if you've never tried them they're pretty tough coming down from the peak.

Essentially as I understand them you do this:
Take 1 breath
Do 1 KB swing
Take 2 breaths
Do 2 KB swings...

etc until you reach 10, then work your way down. And yes, you are allowed to breathing during the set, you just limit your breaths inbetween sets.

Therefore if you can find calm and not panic breath you get to rest longer. The reason it's tougher coming down is because you're somewhat fatigued and now you get less of a break in between sets because you're taking fewer breaths. Pretty ingenious I think.

Hrm.. just the left is fascist? Our politicians in general are ushering in an unprecedented era of corporate involvement in government.

Everytime you hear think tank think this: unaccountable and usually corporate groups writing policy bills and giving them to friendlies in the senate/house.

Ever seen pictures from a defense convention? Talk about corporate involvement. But why not? The US's defense budget is above 550billion a year. What corp. wouldn't like a piece of that pie.

If you play this left/right you/me game you're blinding yourself to the fact that all politicians play the game of politics. Nobody is in it for altruism. Nobody, especially not the politicos, are marxist, communist, socialist... they're all capitalists.

It's a terrible mixture of corporate money, policy makers, unaccountable think tanks, and humongous government budgets.

Oi. Did my best after a very long and tiring day to read through everything. Jeff is on the job, and he is the man when it comes to AGW guesses. Bingo had some good posts too. I at least remember you coming up with that idea.

I will say simply that I did read the article, and find it genuinely amusing that people would read it and not understand the profound irony and intellectual dissonance contained within it.

Nobody predicted cooling. They are saying that "cold ocean currents" might create temporary cooling. Yet where did the cold ocean current come from? For that matter, why isn't the Earth warming according to the predictions of their models?

They got caught f@#king up. They were wrong. They didn't predict this. The only possible conclusion--repeat, the only possible conclusion--is that they do not currently understand fully the dynamics of the climate. If they did, they would have predicted this cooling prior to finding it then rationalizing it.

When you see a progression like "It's going to warm between 1 and 5 degrees in the next ten years", "It's going to warm between 1 and 3 degrees in the next ten years" "It might cool for the next ten years, but then for sure it will warm again", you have to wonder about the veracity of the whole package.

Self evidently, those tools were pooping in their pants. They presented a range of options, from mild to awful, not one of which came to pass. They were wrong. The outputs of the computer models they want us to base billions of dollars in public policy on were flat out, unambiguously, wrong. There is no debate here, nor disputing this.

You can tell me we should limit carbon emissions. From a foreign policy perspective, I might buy that. We should reduce our reliance on Saudi Arabia, first and foremost by drilling in a godforsaken wilderness only hippies and the NRDC care about. It could all turn black tomorrow, and I'd never know. I have no plans to travel up north, nor do 99% of Americans.

When you really study this issue, as I have, and really come to understand what has been done, you realize that Goebbels had nothing on Hansen and Mann. They lie through their teeth, and call it science. It's disgraceful, wrong, and it gets my Irish up.

#141 - Coach...

Thank you for the clarification...

I was truly "believing", hoping that is the stance of Crossfit.

It is good to hear and hopefully all of the younger amongst us will see that enhancement is a vicious circle...

WP 6 #143
I am not afraid to tell people what I think face to face...that being said...
I did pick up on your term "debatable" but I envisioned the term "half-wit" to apply to those who truly are "half-wits" and debate things that they have no knowledge about or can't be bothered to think about and research (the population in general.) Not to you directly.

I apologize to you for the misunderstanding and my poor choice of words. In fact I apoligize to anyone who was offended by my spirited name calling today.

You are right--it does detract from intelligent debate.
I don't think you are a half-wit and I apoligize.

thanks for the tip. your posts are spot on.

Jeff G #107
I realize that you meant "natural" as not man-made. I was attempting to draw attention to the fact that this is often a man-made distinction in itself. man does not exist separate from nature--anyway just a interesting sidepoint.

I will find examples of oil companies misbehavior. I will research your crucial ommission, self-contradiction and lack of validation claims and email you about it. Interesting, but I'm skeptical... :)
(and tired)

its been fun! good luck to all on the WOD tomorrow! see you in hell!

#147 Barry Cooper:

"They got caught f@#king up. They were wrong. They didn't predict this. The only possible conclusion--repeat, the only possible conclusion--is that they do not currently understand fully the dynamics of the climate."

Obviously no one, even with the best computers possible, will ever be able to fully understand or predict the dynamics of the climate. Models can only be based on empirical data. You ask why there is regional (not global)--repeat regional (not global)--cooling, look at (1) the fact that massive amounts of ice is now being mixed in with the rest of the ocean and (2) as the article clearly states, changing currents are causing it.

Think about the effects that currents have by looking at the temperatures of areas in Canada vs. Europe at the same latitude. The current flow contributes to the warmer climate in Europe than in Canada.

Science is wonderful because it urges people like you to be skeptical. I, however, am not convinced that the scientists' models are "flat out, unambiguously, wrong". I would like to hear some more concrete evidence than the regional, short-term cooling, which is quite easily explained, before jumping to the conclusion that scientists have an agenda and want to force some wacky policy onto the world. Do you have any specifics to back up your claim? You said you have really studied the issue. Thanks.

Eddie M.

Will do when I have time. In the meantime, please provide a shred of documentation for your ice cube hypothesis.

Rolling out the door, but one other quick thought.

I find it between amusing and depressing that people are so feeble minded as to be surprised that--in a nation whose success and wealth arose directly and unambiguously from capitalism--the agents of capitalism would want a say in their own governance. Newsflash: that's how democracy works.

You know who scares me? GE. They own Nbc, and they have invested heavily in green technology, and stand to make a killing on it. For that reason, we should expect many stories on Nbc about the dangers of Global Warming and the benefits of green technology.

Who employs those of you who have jobs? If you're not self employed, it's a corporation. The only alternative to including the agents who create our wealth in the democratic process is removing liberty, and instituting a totalitarian State like they have in China. Then you get the same problems, but you can't say anything about it.

Think before you speak. Free speech is our right, but that doesn't mean every utterance is created equal.

Karl Smith,

"When I say supply side economics for example, I mean the notion that decreases in marginal tax rates (US federal marginal tax rates typically) could produce increases in revenue."

You attribute this notion to "pop economics". I found it well articulated in Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations". Is Adam Smith a "pop economist"? If so I appreciate the information and now I can acurately call myself a "pop economist" rather than a "supply sider".

Coach –

In retrospect I think I could have certainly posted more clearly/intelligently my thoughts, opinions, and knowledge on the subject. In thinking on it some more, the topic is certainly served better through discussion than the remark I left.

Points taken to heart and apologies for the curt comment.

Speaking of exogenous hormonal therapy, maybe I was a bit hormonal myself (pun intended). I hope you can forgive.

Maybe we can discuss more sometime face to face.

Have a safe holiday,

David
CF Chattanooga

I had to come back to get something, and wanted to pass along another thought.

Wills touched on something that Jeff Glassman likewise hinted at within the last Rest Day or two, which was the homology between economic forecasting and climate forecasting. Both are paradigmatic chaotic systems.

The interesting analogy, then, is between the conceit of climate modellers with no past success at useful predictions--who in fact persistently rationalize their failures, as happened when 2007 got colder, not warmer--and what Hayek called Constructivists.

Constructivists belief in the power of their reason and science so much that they believe they can craft a "rational" society without taking into account what Hayek calls the "distribution of knowledge", which effectively is knowing the price of tomatoes at the corner grocery.

We have no equivalent to distributed knowledge with respect to global warming. It is impossible to gather enough information to fully and completely model and predict the weather, any more than detailed economic predictions are possible, even including the efforts of 10's of thousands of intelligent economists over several centuries.

Interestingly, though, overt Constructivism does come in to play in the use Constructivists want to make of the AGW conjecture to force the reforms they want to make.

In a sense, it is quite logical that people unwilling to grasp or accept their persistent economic and social failures would likewise be fully open to continuing to believe in the AGW conjecture as well, even when falsifying data is presented. The "scientists" say it, they believe it, and that's all there is to it.

for all the free market enthusiasts out there, here is the abstract from Costanza et al's 1997 paper entitled "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital"

"The services of ecological systems and the natural capital stocks that produce them are critical to the functioning of the Earth's life support system. They contribute to human welfare, both directly and indirecty, and therefore represent part of the total economic value of the planet. We have estimated the current economic value of 17 ecosystem services for 16 different biomes, based on published and a few original calculations. For the entire biosphere, the value (most of which is outside the the market) is estimated to be in the range of US$ 16-54 trillion per year, with an average of US$ 33 trillion per year. Because of the nature of uncertainties, this must be considered a minimum estimate. Global gross national product is around US$18 trillion per year".

If we were to invest that kind of money into re-creating all the Earth gives to us for free, we would do so only to the same standard as it already stands, ie with no improvement. If you can access the paper, it is well worth a read, or if it could be posted on the next rest day.

As for the people who borught up evolution, it would take millions of years for a species to properly adapt to new environs. At the moment we are accelerating the rate of extinction faster than at any time in geological history. It will take 200 million years to replace the large land mammals we have extinguished already. Weather is becoming more unpredictable than ever before, which is what Global Warming/Cooling implies. It was a poor choice of phrase.

Barry,

Thanks for the posts. I haven't done my research on my ice cube hypothesis, but I would like to. I admit that I don't have any evidence of it...but I'll look soon enough. :)

Anyways, even if the planet is not warming according to certain predictions, I believe that the increased levels of CO2 (for which there is sufficient evidence) is dangerous. That said, I'm not going to give suggestions as to what should be done about it, but I do think it is dangerous. The ecosystem will adapt over time, but since the CO2 is not just in the atmosphere, but is also being absorbed by the oceans, there really is concern about the stability of the climate and ecosystems. For instance, the pH in the oceans is lowering -- becoming more acidic -- as it absorbs more and more CO2. We've already witnessed the effects of chemicals introduced via fertilizer runoff into lakes, and in some cases it has created "dead seas." What would happen to us if the oceans become so acidic that it leads to mass extinctions of sea life? I think the stability of our oceans is rather important to our well being and is taken for granted.

What you mentioned about GE owning NBC is pretty scary. We really have to filter what we hear and be well-informed to construct our own opinions. I'm gonna go find out about my ice cubes.

Active rest
cfwu 2x10

pullup ladder with butterfly kip 8min
down ladder with 95# snatch

Hands are toast, 7 is my limit for one streak with butterfly kip atm, will improve as it develops

New hand tear location is possible with this one though

Barry #152 etc.

If you wouldn’t mind, take a look at the two graphs recently discussed on this cite between me and bklynsteve. They are

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=354

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230

The first is the quarterly rate of change of GDP, and the second is the GDP, both in nominal and real dollars, and both for 1947 to 2006. The underlying information is the same. In the quarterly presentation, any major trend in GDP is thoroughly obscured. In the total GDP chart, the persistent growth is obvious, and small flat or negative changes require a trained eye to see, especially in the nominal curve.

These charts are homologous to weather (~ rate of change of GDP) and climate (~ GDP). Recessions are analogous to cold snaps, like we’ve seen for the last decade or so.

Climatologists explain that climate is the average of the weather over long periods, at least three decades. Two decades of warming followed by one decade of cooling may still result in climate warming. And if it doesn’t, the climatologists will switch to a century time scale. None of this is unscientific in spite of its mealy mouth appearance, which may in the case of the IPCC be attributed to careless writing. Technically, climate is a statistic of weather, and climate conclusions can be drawn only from a long sample, depending in length upon established definitions.

So a cold snap doesn’t disprove AGW any more than the left-wing notion that a recession or depression proves the evil of capitalism.

The AGW theory is all but criminal, and people like Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt don’t deserve a break.

But if you want to keep your criticism of AGW valid, you should choose not weather data but climate data instead. Scientific models must fit all the data in their domains, so you might want to attack the AGW theory using historical climate records.

One valid criticism available is that the AGW theory does not account for the past ice ages (glacial epochs and major ice ages). Another companion pair of disparities arises from the paleo record. One is that changes in CO2 arise from global warming, not the reverse (and is a phenomenon not modeled in the GCMs). The second is that rapid rises in the CO2 concentration did not precipitate runaway global warming. Yet another is that going back millions of years, the CO2 concentration was often 20 times as great as the present without causing the disaster predicted for a doubling of today’s levels. In science, these are fatal flaws in the AGW model that demand repair. The AGW model never rose to the level of a hypothesis, but instead is disproved even as a conjecture by these contradictions.

By the way, I have tried to inject humor here and there, but never intentionally sardonic.

And seriously, especially for Eddie M #154: CO2 is a benign greening agent. It is an optimum effluent for man’s energy consumption.

Byron D #142,

I love watching these guys chasing their tails trying desperately to differentiate themselves from CrossFit. It is absolutely delightful. (It's also healthy for the industry. If they can keep it up long enough, they may eventually make a real contribution to human performance.)

What is needed to improve aerobic capacity is training at decreased O2 saturation (See Lon Kilgore, PhD in CrossFit Journal). Holding your breath is a perfectly LOUSY way to do this. Breath holding doesn't significantly reduce O2 saturation but dramatically elevates CO2 (hypercapnia). They're improving breath holding not aerobic capacity.

How do we reduce O2 saturation in order to improve aerobic conditioning? Why anaerobic work is the answer. Check this out: an athlete has lower O2 saturation rowing an all out 1000 than he does by holding his breath to unconsciousness. Substantially so!! (Thanks is due to our surgical nurse, ass-beating, MMA coach John Hackelman for this tidbit.)

I'll pay for ANYONE from GJ to come out and demonstrate the aerobic advantages and application to performance of "breathing ladders", or any other GJ advantage at the CrossFit Games.

We went down this road about ten years ago with breath holding rowing. It was fun, but fundamentally fruitless. (If you don't count the humor in seeing someone passing out on the rower.)

Have they tried tin-foil hats?

Coach, thanks for the link to Gladwell's article. Apparently I was pretty naive on that subject. An eye-opener.

Colm O'K, thanks for the referrence to the ecological valuation article. I found a .pdf link through google easily. Interesting and necessary work I believe. I think in general we pay far too little for what we get. I look forward to seeing global markets reflect these ecological realities as we progress.

OK Barry Cooper, I took your challenge and read the original article in Nature, referenced in Bloomberg. No mention of ice, simply natural and periodic fluctuations in current systems in the northern hemisphere. If you use the stock market as an analogy, an upward trend can be recognized over a long period of time, although fluctuations over the course of weeks, months, and even years are regular. The article in Nature is about a new method of predicting sea surface and land temperatures for 5-10 years in the future. They used past data (e.g. from the 1960s) to test the predictive accuracy (over the next decade, e.g. the 1970s) and compared to existing data. Apparently they had relatively good predictions up to about 10 years, so they applied it to the next decade based on present data.

This is different from the greenhouse effect and the two should not be confused. Again, the current flows fluctuate, and cycle approximately every 70 years. The next decade is expected to result in cooling that will offset the predicted warming caused by greenhouse gases.

I looked at abstracts to other articles (in journals I can't access) and saw that there has been steady warming for the past 30 years (though minute) consistent with initial GW predictions made around 1980. I'm not saying that is anthropogenic, or that this is in fact long term GW and not just a fluctuation, but those are the facts. Interpret as you wish.

I don't have time today to check out the effects of polar ice caps melting and affecting sea temperatures, and I have a feeling it may not be so substantial given the amount of ocean water...so I'd like to take back my claim earlier until I find out more.

Jeff,

Fair enough. Would ironic humor be a better term? Whatever you call it, I like the spirit of play. You made me laugh.

With regard to today's post, your points are well taken.

I might add a line I heard years ago about how economists have successfully predicted 25 of the last 5 recessions.

Eddie,

I'll do some work on this tomorrow. For now, I think it's a beer then bed.

#156 Jeff Glassman,
What's wrong with James Hansen? I'm only aware that 1) he's high up in NASA, working on climate change, and supposedly pretty smart 2) he's been subject to overtly political sensoring. From wikipedia... are you referring to "correcting the climate record database?"

#157 Coach,
What you write makes intuitive sense. In swimming, we trained anaerobic capacity with interval sets. We performed various hypoxic sets to train... lung capacity I suppose. Given the constraints of swimming, breathing and lung capacity greatly affect performance.
Case in point: in backstroke, "the head must break the surface at or before 15-meters from the start and from each turn wall." David Berkoff swam most of the first length of the 100m backstroke underwater in 1988, far ahead of the competition (and before this rule). In 1956, Masaru Furakawa swam all but 5m of the first 3 50m lengths and half the last length of breast underwater. With people passing out trying to imitate him, there was a rule change.

Anyways, maybe an unnecessary amount of history and rules, but as long as the CrossFit games stick to "on land and on Earth" there's probably not going to be any issues.

Ben Moskowitz, #161

>>What’s wrong with James Hansen? I'm only aware that 1) he's high up in NASA, working on climate change, and supposedly pretty smart 2) he's been subject to overtly political sensoring. From wikipedia... are you referring to "correcting the climate record database?"

Hansen is indeed high up in NASA and enjoys a prestigious scientific position. His PR proclaims him to be the Father of Global Warming, though that title is used for others, too. He certainly is the most prominent living proponent of the AGW belief system in the United States. He appears not to have been an author of the IPCC reports, although his name appears on numerous papers cited in the reports. He has a PhD in Physics, so must have some scientific acumen, to which he can be held accountable.

Hansen must know that the Anthropogenic Global Warming model has not been validated. His endorsement of that conjecture for public policy is unethical. In fact, the model lacks a major prediction other than the ultimate 3.5ºC warming a century hence, so cannot be validated.

In 1984 Hansen did predict that the burning of fossil fuels at the then current rate “may” cause a tipping point in the climate in by 1994 to 2004. That wishy-washy prediction didn’t come true. Undaunted, in 2007, he made the same prediction: “we must be close such a point” (but he can’t be sure). It’s a decade away, he threatened. According to Hansen, Earth was at t minus 10 years and holding for the calamity. He is guilty of fear mongering. His papers include “Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb”.

First, his predictions were cowardly and unfounded. Second, he urges that the fossil fuel emissions are irreversible, necessitating action even before AGW could be validated.

Hansen should be held responsible for knowing that the IPCC GCMs accumulate CO2 in the atmosphere for a period of decades to centuries. He should also know that at the same time, the IPCC formula for the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere yields between 1.5 and 5 years. He should be held accountable for the fact that the GCMs predict long lived CO2 because the models create a false bottleneck in the oceans for the uptake of CO2. This is a consequence of the GCMs being relatively stagnant vertical columns without representing the massive uptake CO2 across the surface of the ocean. He should know that the huge outgasing of CO2 from the oceans is temperature dependent, so CO2 must be a feedback, not a forcing as implemented in the GCMs.

This is just a beginning, selected because of Hansen’s emphasis on the CO2 side of climate modeling. The AGW model has even greater holes than its misrepresentation of the carbon cycle. It also fails to represent the full hydrological cycle. The greatest omission is the cloud cover part of cloud albedo, which is the overwhelming negative feedback controlling the climate and mitigating the far weaker greenhouse effect. Hansen cannot pretend to know anything about climate without knowing about this gaping hole in the IPCC’s AGW model.

Hansen wrote a decent paper in 1984 called Climate Sensitivity: Analysis of Feedback Mechanisms. Feedback is of singular importance in climate theory, and is abundantly cited and discussed in the IPCC reports. Hansen’s paper is equally singular because it ties feedback to the well-established field of control system theory. The IPCC, however, writes as if it had never read Hansen’s work or a control system text. The IPCC has acceptable definitions of feedback in the Glossaries of its reports. However, the IPCC models feedback in two ways that don’t fit its definitions. First, the IPCC calls a parameter that the GCMs compute at run time a feedback, even if there is no feedback loop. Second, the IPCC diagrams its feedback loops as correlations between signals in the climate. Correlation does not produce a feedback. Hansen has made himself an authority on the subject, but appears to have remained silent while the IPCC and GCMs bungled an essential concept in climate. He should have been aware of these errors, and he held a position from which he could be expected to have criticized the modeling.

In fact, the GCMs which rely on the radiative forcing paradigm may be unable to mechanize feedback, because feedback requires the flow of information, energy, or material. Hansen might have been able to demolish the GCMs.

Your reference to “correcting the climate record database” refers to quite recent work by Steve McIntyre in exposing some errors in collecting and interpreting temperature measurements. McIntyre was also responsible along with Ross McKitrick for exposing the error in the so-called Hockey Stick reduction of temperature records from the last millennium created by Michael Mann and co-authors. This reduction erased the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum, well-accepted phenomena. The IPCC featured the reduction prominently in its Third Assessment Report and rationalized the loss of the two features. Post-McIntyre and in its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC appears to have quietly backed away from Mann’s Hockey Stick.

McIntyre also runs the blog ClimateAudit.org, an authoritative source of climate science, and counterpoint to Gavin Schmidt’s RealClimate.org, which is equally authoritative for evangelical AGW.

McIntyre is to be commended for his work on technical and political grounds. He is a major thorn in the side of Hansen, Schmidt, and the IPCC Consensus.

Still, I have had no call to reference McIntyre’s work. AGW is a travesty of scientific modeling, regardless of the quality of its climate record. And conversely, little errors in the climate record do not puncture the AGW conjecture.

If our public schools (and colleges, for that matter) conveyed scientific literacy on its pupils, absent any training on climate, a high school education would be sufficient to see through AGW in the daylight.

Hansen was officially censured, not censored. He was and still is an employee of the federal government. He was told by his superiors, the people who pay his salary, to stop his agitating for AGW. Whatever their reasons, political or scientific, he had a duty to obey. The honorable thing for him to do was to shut up or resign. He did neither.

The scientific reasons for Hansen to have held his tongue are ample. President Bush apparently had some solid scientific advice.

"Second, the IPCC diagrams its feedback loops as correlations between signals in the climate. Correlation does not produce a feedback."
Does this mean that disparate feedback loops are affecting each other, and that doesn't make sense? I guess I would like a little clarification.

It seems like the hydrological cycle is quite important and is not well understood.
"The hydrologic cycle has other profound effects on our climate. Water vapor is an important greenhouse gas that traps solar radiation in the atmosphere and warms Earth. However, when water vapor condenses into clouds, the effects become anything but straightforward. Low-forming stratocumulus clouds block sunlight and cool the planet, whereas high-forming cirrus clouds have a warming effect because they keep sunlight from radiating into space. At NCAR, scientists are using powerful computer models to sort out these myriad and sometimes conflicting impacts."
http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/earth_system/watercycle.php

According to Inez Fung, the Earth can only absorb so much carbon, and beyond that point, I suppose there would be a forcing effect, plants and ocean included. It's kind of interesting: http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/08/02_carbon.shtml

This is slightly beside the point, but I remember the discussion of cosmic rays as they relate to cloud cover, and I'm not sure if this article might settle anything (against the rays): http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11651

I'll let Jeff respond to Ben, although I'll likely have more to say later.

In the meantime, I will post this link for Bingo:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494

The net is that when you run economic analysis based upon a comparison between the potential costs of Agw and lost economic growth arising from government instrusion in the private sector, you find that doing nothing--even if the AGW conjecture turns out to have merit--is barely worse than the best possible scenario. And the proposals from Nicholas Stern and Algore turn out to be disastrously expensive, even if their garish predictions turn out to be true.

It will cost so much to reverse CO2 emissions that it will be economically disastrous, and the whole point of those investments is prevent expenses relating to things like rising oceans. Nobody is arguing that life as we know it will be altered even if the forecasts are true. As Jeff pointed out, we have had CO2 levels much, much higher than they are now, as well as much, much higher temperatures, and much higher oceans. Life thrived.

Nobody benefits from large scale socialistic economic intrusions, bottom line, even if the everything the IPCC says is true.

Semi-related note. This video, in which a Democrat from California threatens to nationalize our oil companies, should be watched by anyone who wonders who I am referring to when I use the word Leftist:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ&feature=related

I will add that according to my recollection, the high price of bread--the primary food of most working class French people at the time--was a principle driver behind the support of the "street" for the French Revolution.

They wanted, in other words, to overturn common sense economic principles and make prices more consistent with what they viewed to be fair. The result of their rejection of the principle of private property? Decreased supply, stable demand, and increased prices where bread was available at all.

In some cases, people charging what were considered exorbitant prices were beaten and even executed for "gouging", which of course decreased supply yet further, resulting in a much worse situation than would have obtained had market forces been left to work.

Prices were high because crop yields had been poor. They improved from that point, but the system had been damaged substantially, resulting in a much longer recovery period.

In other words, self righteous abuse of the basic human right to private property led to increased poverty and suffering among exactly the people who were supposed to be helped.

An exact analogy can be drawn with oil.

I'm a bit off topic, but this issue is related to the overarching issue of carbon emissions. It is going to become more expensive to use petroleum products, which will have an economic impact, and that cost is arising directly from socialistic abuse of the AGW models.

Ben Moskowitz, #163

Your questions are well-taken, but this is not the best forum for them. Please consider posting them as comments to the rocketscientistsjournal.com, where they will be answered in as much detail as necessary, and held open indefinitely. Still, let me touch on some of the matters you raise.

1. Correlation and feedback. Correlation is a number that measures how much two signals resemble one another. The fact that a particular correlation is not zero does not guarantee that the two signals have any physical or informational connection, which is a requirement for feedback. For example, if solar radiation is increasing and so is the frequency of pronoun errors in the media, the two will be correlated. Conversely, feedback can be used to make two signals uncorrelated. Regardless, correlation is a powerful technique for model development. It tells the modeler where he might look for a cause and effect.

2. Hydrological cycle. As a point of order, the source of the AGW problem is the IPCC. The only practical response to the threat is to debug what the IPCC says. Any competing model is argumentative, and tends to give undeserved credence to the IPCC. However, raw omissions by the IPCC do open the door to other sources. Those omissions include information from freely available technical papers referenced by the IPCC but not cited in its reports. This is a chronic problem with the IPCC reports.

Your take on the hydrological cycle and the quotation, as far as it goes, are OK. Perhaps everything in the quotation can be supported from the two last IPCC Reports. However, it glosses over the fact that as of the latest report, those scientists with their powerful computer models have been unable to sort out the conflicting impacts.

Earth's albedo is dominantly a consequence of the hydrological cycle, limited by cloud cover today, or by ice and snow in the snowball Earth epochs. The albedo is a major parameter in the climate, and climatologists with IPCC credentials recognize that the albedo increases with specific humidity resulting from surface warming. The loop gain of the albedo is huge because it modulates solar insolation. However, the GCMs do not and cannot compute loop gain. Nor can the GCMs compute cloud cover to make it temperature dependent. Consequently the dominant feedback in the climate is not modeled at all. Albedo feedback is negative, thus regulating the climate and mitigating the greenhouse effect. This phenomenon is a hole in the modeled hydrological cycle, and its omission invalidates the AGW model.

3. Carbon absorption. Nowhere in the IPCC reports is the solubility of CO2 in water analyzed. However, the IPCC attributes over half the flux of CO2 with the atmosphere to leaf water, and another fifth of the flux to the ocean. As a point of reference, the ACO2 contribution is slightly over one percent. For another, the total of all the fluxes reported by the IPCC is just under two thirds of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

The physics of solubility are well-established. That is not to say that further refinements are not possible (which is the rule in science), but that the first order effects are not at all likely to change. As the partial pressure of CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the CO2 in the ocean and leaf water will have a corresponding increase. No capacity limit exists in solubility theory.

The IPCC models the absorption of CO2 as if the natural and anthropogenic species of the gas were physically segregated. It conjectures that the natural processes are in equilibrium, with two thirds of it absorbed per year. At the same time, and as Fung says per your citation, only half the ACO2 is absorbed. This is in accord with the IPCC model. Because the two species are not segregated, the IPCC implies that there is some physical difference between the solubility of natural CO2 and that of ACO2. This constitutes a profound change in the theory of solubility.

The IPCC relies on the fact that ACO2 is isotopically lighter than nCO2 to claim that ACO2 lasts longer than nCO2 in the atmosphere. The IPCC implies that this process, called fractionating, occurs in solubility. The established theory invalidates the contradictory conjecture espoused by Fung and the IPCC.

Fung also says in the press release that vertical turbulence is essential for CO2 to be absorbed in the ocean, and that the absorption is biological. These dual conjectures are false, and they, too, are in accord with the IPCC. It appears to be a consequence of GCMs comprising a network of vertical cells. Absorption by solubility is mechanical. It occurs principally in the horizontal plane as surface waters cool by moving poleward.

4. Cosmic rays. The IPCC admits that cosmic rays are correlated with cloud cover. Usually correlation is sufficient for the IPCC, but in this case they dismiss Svensmark for lack of a physical model. This leaves the IPCC with nothing to account for the correlation, and no way to model cloud cover by physics.

Barry $164:

Yup...kinda my point all along. I think the applicable economic analysis renders the discussion of whether or not GW exists, and if it does to what extent AGW exists moot.

And yet the AGW crowd would have us spend unseemly amounts of money on this quixotic quest rather than on anti-malarial measures, or increasing the reach of potable water supply, etc. It's really unconcsiounable.

Eddie M.

Read and study what Jeff wrote. He is the smart one.

Since I did say I would back some things up, I will add a couple of (likely superfluous) comments.

First off, I would encourage everyone to read this link: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

(Jeff, you as well. I'm curious if you see any problems with what they wrote).

I will put out a few data points, and let people assemble them any way they want.

1. "the temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic (that means there is a diminishing response as you keep adding more, like the additional window shade example, above).

If we consider the warming effect of the pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide (about 280 parts per million by volume or ppmv) as 1, then the first half of that heating was delivered by about 20ppmv (0.002% of atmosphere) while the second half required an additional 260ppmv (0.026%).

To double the pre-Industrial Revolution warming from CO2 alone would require about 90,000ppmv (9%) but we'd never see it - CO2 becomes toxic at around 6,000ppmv (0.6%, although humans have absolutely no prospect of achieving such concentrations)."

This means that the relative importance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas goes down the more the concentrations go up. This is different than what is implied in all the AGW cult literature I read.

2. These people lie. Read this link: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

It clearly shows that Al Gore lied in his film, and was rewarded by the Nobel Committee with a Peace Prize. He didn't differ from the "Exxonmobil" viewpoint. He differed from the IPCC. He lied, and he got away with it, except in Britain, where his film has in effect been classified as propaganda.

3. The UN stands to gain power relative to the US in particular if it can use this issue to start enacting binding international regulations.

See any pattern emerging? What I see is the abuse of science to begin the process of building a transnational government that is modelled on socialist principles.

In the piece by Dyson he mentions that the motto of the Royal Academy used to be "no ones word is final". Yet, we are seeing increasing volume, and not increasing analytical rigor, used to drown out and silence those holding on to old fashioned virtues like intellectual integrity.

Jeff Glassman:

I enjoyed reading your posts very much. I was unaware that the CO2 levels had been so high in the past. I am interested as to the type of life in existence on the planet then. From the way you put it, it seems that even if it wasn't after the dawn of man, at least it occurred while the Earth was already roaming with animals and the oceans full of sea life. That would change my perspective.

I then wonder why I had not heard about this (probably b/c I'm not an expert, but I thought I was better informed on these issues than the average Joe). I've seen reports about a mass extinction due to increased global temperature long ago, but I have not seen reports about a lack of extinction due to increased CO2. On the other hand, I have seen reports of CO2 levels remaining relatively steady until the upward trend after the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Your noting that this is not the whole story makes me think someone is trying to hide something.

Thanks for all of your posts. I don't know how many people will read it at this point, so I appreciate you typing it all up. I need to go do some research in my "free time." Ha

Here's a good link for you:

http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/04_01/026.htm

“I hope to demonstrate that the enriched atmosphere of that time had a profound impact on plant productivity,” Decherd says. “Others have shown that oxygen was 50 percent higher and carbon dioxide was 500 percent higher in the Cretaceous atmosphere. Both of these gases affect the growth of plants, which are very sensitive to changes in oxygen and carbon dioxide levels.”

Eddie,

Put two and two together. Why do you think you haven't heard of this?

I am sure no one is going to read this... but I just got around to watching the video...

Great video, but to put it nicely they BOTH have less than ideal rowing technique... They could both have such better times!!

Karin

Eddie M #169,

To satisfy your curiosity about the CO2 concentrations and the “type of life in existence” you might want to compare the data in two charts. First, Google for “Climate Change 2001” with “Figure 3.2”, and navigate to page 201. Figure 3.2(f) there has samples of CO2 estimates over the past half billion years. Then open the chart at commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Biodiversity.svg.

Be cautious and, as always, skeptical about the data. The CO2 concentration of Figure 3.2(f) comprises just 22 single date bands (maximum and minimum ppm) covering the past 447 million years, plus a record of 35 single data points covering 62 to 2 million years ago. That is not many samples. To milk the data for more than its worth, try connecting the maxima from sample to sample. This is somewhat justified because the sample to sample maxima on average is substantially less than full scale. (Technically this suggests breadth in the autocorrelation function, which if true, would mean that the data do not change a great deal, sample to sample.) Having connected the maxima, you'll see a pattern of a pair of adjacent mountains with a deep valley in CO2 concentration around 250 million years ago.

With regard to the biodiversity chart, be aware that the data come from counts of marine life forms, called “well-resolved genera”. The second set of data called “all genera” is a scaled-up version of the well-resolved data that some thought looked good. Let's accept the data at face value, not worrying about the actual number on the ordinate, and presume that the “all genera” curve fairly represents the total of marine and land forms.

Note that the biodiversity data are genera that have gone extinct in each interval, not the total genera in existence in the interval. So a low value on the curve is a quiet or stable period without many extinctions. The curve for the total number of species in existence is impossible to divine from these data. Speciation should be occurring all along, with greater intensity following mass extinctions as niches are vacated. It's a birth-life-death pattern where we have only the deaths, neither the number of births nor the total population.

The symbols on the chart denoting the mass extinctions appear to be the start of the mass extinction. As long as the curve is rising, the rate of extinction is above average, indicating the continuation of the mass extinction.

If one were to use the species data as a half dozen to dozen discrete mass extinction events, a wealth of data would have been ignored. This is data processing by clipping a record, and is quite a poor technique. Climatologists do the same thing when they use El Niño/La Niña events, which are clippings from the continuous Southern Oscillation Index.

The biodiversity chart has an interesting local minimum at 250 million years ago, which may be correlated with the valley in the CO2 concentration. Other than that, no correlation is apparent between CO2 levels and extinction. If such a correlation did exist, the AGW alarmists surely would have been exploiting it.

We can infer from the biodiversity chart that the mass extinctions never erased all life forms. So CO2 concentrations over 20 times those of today did not sterilize Earth.

If we assume that the extinction rate is proportional to the total population, then the biodiversity chart represents the total number of genera in existence. Now the number of species seems to be positively correlated with CO2 concentration. That is, the greater the CO2 the greater the number of genera. Perhaps the higher the CO2 the greener the planet, and the greater the number of niches in which to breed life forms.

We know from biology plus the climate record that CO2 is a benign, beneficial greening agent. That conclusion is consistent with these two data records.

rest - groin to chest on fire from GH's - overdid it for the first time