I don't share any enthusiasm over these pieces. They are, at their core, ad hominem attacks -- one on James Hansen and the other on the IPCC crowd. Of course, few people in the world are more deserving.

And, contrary to one of the buried references (see below), ad hominem attacks are not necessarily wrong! When James Hansen testified (on direct) that he had been muzzled, we are entitled (on cross) to impeach him with the fact that he wasn't muzzled.

Most of the opinion attributed to John Theon is the interpretation of Marc Morano, a staffer to Inhofe. Hansen claims he was muzzled by Bush et al., and Theon's letter is a good enough authority to contradict him. However, the public record from the time makes clear that Bush et al. told Hansen to shut up, and he refused. He should have been fired. That pubic record is a stronger indictment of Hansen than Theon's email.

Theon also suffers as an authority because he was "in effect", meaning not in fact, Hansen's supervisor. Old saw: everything following the word "essentially" is false. However, Theon was in a position to know from the inside what everyone knew (or could know) from the outside: Hansen was never muzzled.

Armstrong quickly strikes out. He begins with the following:

>>Currently, the only forecasts are those based on the opinions of some scientists. Computer modeling was used to create scenarios (i.e., stories) to represent the scientists’ opinions about what might happen. The models were not intended as forecasting models (Trenberth 2007) and they have not been validated for that purpose. Since the publication of our paper, no one has provided evidence to refute our claim that there are no scientific forecasts to support global warming.

1.) His second sentence contradicts his first. IPCC bases its conclusions on those models. The IPCC makes clear that AGW is backed by a consensus of climatologists, but equally clear is that it is based on GCMs (formerly Global Climate Models, renamed Global Circulation Models).

2.) The models were not used to create scenarios. The modelers created the scenarios, with a modicum of justification, and drove the models with those scenarios. "Used to create" is not the same as "used in the creation of". (Armstrong may be using scenario in a different sense than given to the word by the IPCC, and may be using the word model in the sense of a computer instead of the sense of a scientific model.)

3.) The IPCC does not conceal that the GCMs were originally forecasting models. However, they have been greatly extended and revised to the point that the original intent of the forecasters is quite irrelevant to the purpose given by the climatologists.

4.) The models indeed have not been validated, and that is a major ethical lapse on the part of the climatologists who nonetheless use the models to influence public opinion and action.

5.) "Our paper" clearly is a reference to Green & Armstrong 2008, and Armstrong's undated reference 2, a paper written by Green & Armstrong for Inhofe. Armstrong's link is a blog (theclimatebet.com) page featuring discussions about ad hominem arguments. How appropriate! It contains a link to an undated letter by Armstrong & Green which appears to be the ultimate Armstrong source.

The paper includes as Appendix 2 a paper by Green & Armstrong dated August 9, 2008 on "The precautionary principles … a political principle, not a scientific one."

The rest of Armstrong's position is as vulnerable as his first paragraph. No one has responded since the original because it is unworthy of response.

I have certain strong preferences here. One is to quote original sources, not blogs on reports of extracts. "Watts Up With That" makes the Armstrong position appear fresh and vital when it is stale and well off target. And that leads to my next preference: stand on the errors in the climate models, not in the modelers.

ah..rest days are great. nice pic too btw.

That's amazing. Holding himself up with just a bottle of beer. Usually I end up holding myself up by the toilet after a few too many of those.

Wow, Eric Estrada has aged really well...wait, what? That's Freddy Comacho? Oh, that's why they call him "Ponch"!

I like your style Freddy C. Happy rest day everybody.

Never quit!

Personally i think global warming is a bunch of crock. CNN was a big supporter of it and just the other day i saw them change over to global cooling. whether the earth is warming or cooling its not because of us. the earth is going to do whatever God wants it to. but thats just my 2 cents. have a good rest day all!

Freddie is my hero! But is want to be strong like Boz when I grow up.

The photo is great! Haven't read the article yet but it sounds controversial enough to peak interest. Thanks for the posts!

great to see Matt on the main page. way to fly the flag for the Aussies. Don't think anyone is getting that beer off Freddy.

Happy rest day people. my knee is thanking me.

OneFastBird - one legged rowing is good but different - LOL

Gina - thanks for your kind words

Fat Ftony - great work on your first MU

Wow, Jeff Glassman with the first post, this should be a good rest day. I would definitely lose in a brain wrestling contest with Coach's dad.

Freddy, California style :>)

Adrian how do you get started on trying to do one of those?

Have Fun, Train Hard,

Billy

Jeff:

Scenarios...yeah...we used to call those things "theories" back in the old days ;-)

Row 5k: 18:46.7 (PR)

Nice work Herm!

Ok sorry, I'll try not to be an over-posting, rest day chatty Kathy. You youngsters have no idea who Chatty Kathy is do you? Sigh...

Don't mind me, it's just the Newcastle typing. Peace out.

Now that is a funny pic. Freddy C, I like your style!

Freddy has got steeeeze

Awesome pic... Freddy is a stud. Adrian and Matt aren't too bad either.

Praise the lord! Rest day AND cheat day. I'm stoked for tomorrow. I'm gonna enjoy myself and get ready for the next cycle..

:D

Hilarious pic! Its a good reminder to not take ourselves too seriously. Thanks, Freddy.

If you liked the Kelly Starrett video -- he will be holding a seminar in Chandler AZ on 3/14.. Contact Crossfit 2260 for more details

Freddie, I can only hope that one day I can step up to the rare beer flag. Boz, it was hard to position so that my feet covered your face, glad I managed to pull it off:-)

What in the world politics has to do with fitness is still beyond me. More and more, I feel that there is an extreme one-sided-ness to the view points on the main page postings.
And for the comment above about global warming or global cooling, I'll very generically cover this, since about 99% of all worlds scientists agree that global warming is cooling and is due to man. Global warming is what is currently happening. Global cooling is what will happen because of the warming. aka accelerated ice age. Do some actual reading on Greenland, and you will find out that scientists are watching that region very closely. If the the large chunk of ice falls off of the land mass there, it will stop that ocean's region of currents. That particular region is one of a few places on earth, where the oceans currents converge in a cyclical fashion. i.e. the warmer currents cool off and cycle to the ocean floor, and move on as a cooler current deeper in the water. Very much how an AC unit works. It is predicted that when, NOT IF, but when that is shut down, all the oceans currents will shut down, causing a global catastrophe. Me personally I don't like living in denial. I'd rather be prepared as much as possible. Since we still have people running around with their heads buried in the sand.

#19 Bart:

Dude.

Hey #19........approximately 15,000 years ago the Earth was covered in ice. Not one coal plant was built, and not one car was started, and all that ice melted. The Earth goes through cycles. There is nothing we can do to stop it. We could wake up in a totally "green" world tomorrow, and climate change would still happen. So you are not in denial, the Earth is changing. However it would change whether we were here or not.

Dammit! Herm you beat me by 6 secs. I officially challenge you on a 10k.

great job Herm - thats a cracking time

Looking for some advice:

I'm looking on a way to work on my pullups during metcon workouts in ways where I don't have to actually do pullups. I can do 1 possibly 2 deadhang right now and I want to get 5 deadhangs before I start trying to learn to kip.

What are other things I can do during workouts like Nicole for example? I did jumping pullups today but I set numbers because I can do way too many jumping pullups before I'd fail. I felt like I didn't get as good of a workout as I should've.

You can email me or respond here. Thanks for any help.

Science is again being subverted by politics and axe-grinding agenda-driven wishful thinking in these articles. The overwhelming scientific evidence points to global warming being much more likely than not. It would be prudent to prepare for the possibility that the scientists have a better grasp on the evidence than journalists and politicians, and that global warming is possible. Instead of going into denial mode and killing the messenger, intelligent preparation is called for. Folks, the facts support that global warming is likely. Wake up and deal with it. Otherwise you are hiding from reality while the rest of us are trying to do something about it.
-M

Bart, you gotta hear both sides before you say 99% of scientist agree. If you truly read the facts global warming is the biggest scam ever. Scientist are about fifty fifty on it, but if you disagree you dont get those big grants they hand out to people who do research. I could go on for hours giving you facts and trends on why this is all a scam by "big green" but this isnt a political website so I will shut my mouth and rest my sore muscles. (sorry for the sort rant, this is sort of a pet peeve of mine) 3,2,1... rest

Ben k...hi bro...my personal advice LEARN THE KIP NOW...deadhangs are easy...if you want to do great pull-up metcons LEARN THE KIPPING...sorry my english is terrible

Cool pic! Crossfit Brisbane representing!

#21 Greg, you wrote "climate change would still happen. So you are not in denial, the Earth is changing. However it would change whether we were here or not."

While I don't disagree with you, I think you are fighting the wrong argument. The earth will change, go through cycles, blahblah, ice age, hot age, whatever. The point is whether or not humans have influenced this change. There will be another ice age, but it would "suck" (for lack of a better word) if it happens sooner rather than later!

I hope someday to meet Freddy C. He always makes me smile!

First week down!! very sore. Ready to bang out another!!!!!!

BJ or GSP?

happy rest day everybody...

I suck today "Nicole"
45
29
17
22
17=130 not a good day my hands skin opened on the first round i finish the workout hanging with my fingers...addicted to crossfit? YES I AM!!!

I hope all crossfitters are doing great..Herm great job, Rookie great to read your knee is healing...Eric Gohl i'll design the "hi my name is..."

As always best wishes and bad english for all

#25 Matt S

The question is not whether there is global warming or not, the question is what is the cause. Scientific fact? When I see the conveniently ignored facts that there have been significant periods of time in the past when the earth has been as warm or warmer, not attributable to any human cause, when I see professors or public officals censured or dismissed because they dare speak against the global warming theory, then I question the very basis of the theory. The fact that there are a great many who stand to profit both monetarily and professionally from said theory makes me do the same.

Freddy,
Bro. Point your toes.

kstar

Wondering if anyone has been diagnosed with cubital tunnel syndrome or had ulnar release surgery? I've been having some symptoms and wondering about others experiences or recovery. Feel free to contact me by my email link.

Good Luck BJ Penn. You are the best.

Here's another read for all the followers of human caused global warming:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

For the love of God, I wish the minions who think cap and trade, carbon tax, man-caused global warming, etc, etc would get their heads out of the New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, etc etc and become educated. Our current administration has sucked this in hook line and sinker and this single issue will tank the U.S. economy far greater than what is going on now. What a tragedy that if the media says "accepted science" all without a single shred of evidence, it becomes fact. Why can you never find a single dissenting position about man-caused global warming in mainstream media? That alone should make any sane individual question what is going on.

Sorry. I get closer to pukie thinking about global warming and what may happen because of this myth than any WOD!

Any Crossfitters in ALTUS OK/AFB?!?

if so Shoot me an email--or reply here Thanks.

Im ready for this rest day, the last three days were great and i put alot in them!

#19 Bart:

Global cooling is what will happen because of the warming.

Can you please read that sentence to yourself aloud and then think about that for a second. Global warming is causing cooling.

O RLY?

I suck today "Nicole"
45
29
17
22
17=130 not a good day...

Comment #32 - Posted by: s'more

Are you kidding?! That is more than Jason Khalipa did in the first round. You, sir, are a monster!

Thanks for the props on my rowing. I was happy about the sub-19 :)

Bad english with great intentions!

Enjoy the rest day everyone! :)

I myself will also have a cheat day. Mmm...ice cream shall be mine. I deserve it considering how sore my legs/a$$/traps are. Holy smokes!

Nothing like being lazy after working hard and knowing you earned the right to do so :)

#32 s'more

I have to agree with Herm. You are nuts if you think you sucked at Nicole! You killed that workout man! Plus 45 pull ups unbroken is extremely impressive. That will be my goal next time!

Eric Gohl, Thanks for the safe trip wishes! Just arrived in Kentucky a few minutes go...first things first, gotta check the website! Going to try and fight back the excitement and get some sleep before the morning! Enjoy your ice cream!

These articles are crying "junk science" and backing it up with horrible B.S. or no evidence at all. Go back and re-read.

Both of those articles claimed the models were "flawed" without providing specifics.

They claimed data had been manipulated without providing specifics.

They claimed the models omitted sub grid scale mechanisms and didn't mention which ones.

One of them even "summed" thousands of years of data including four major climate shifts into one graph. How's that for manipulating data.

Everything else on Crossfit that has to do with fitness, nutrition, mechanics, measurable results, or related research always has objective data and detailed analysis.

If an article came out that aimed to discredit Crossfit without providing evidence, it would be shot to pieces in the comments. And people on this comments page are eating todays articles up. I'm not convinced they read them at all.

Crossfit doesn't spin fitness, nutrition, and health articles.

Why does Crossfit always try to spin political talking points? I really wish Crossfit would stick to objective articles on rest days.

"All models are wrong; some are useful" -Box

Justin

Freddy is hilarious.

thanks guys but last my pr was 155 on 5 rounds..but thanks guys BIG HUGS

Hey Freddy i'll hit that exercise tomorrow hahaha!!! Fantastic photo...makes me laught..recover soon Freddy keep your spirit high as always...

#19.."What in the world politics has to do with fitness is still beyond me. More and more, I feel that there is an extreme one-sided-ness to the view points on the main page postings."

It always makes me laugh when I see this written on comments. Since we're all here because we have bought into a contrarian point of view according to our fitness, why not question everything else the majority of the world tells us to believe.

Sorry for the rant, I enjoy the rest day articles

Freddy C is my hero. Where can I get one of your action figures?
Matt Swift and Boz.....you guys are beasts!!!

last time i made 54 pull-ups chin up the bar unbroken...i'm lightweight 161# it's not a challenge but thanks guys

I've been getting caught up on the WOD today was the 21-15-9 power cleans and ring dips. 13:48. Not so good earlier this week. I DNF'd Barbra only made 4 rounds before I felt like vomiting and had a wicked bad headache. Tomorrow is today's. I can't wait.

Also the Hanging-cleans:135,155,165(fail),155,155,155,165,165.

BEST PICTURE EVER!

What happened to the SOPWODs? I can't find them anywhere. Do they not post them anymore?

I find myself having to make up the clean/ring dip WOD on the rest day. I'm not having a good feeling for the next 3 days on.

Oh well...get some right..!!?

Aloha,

Jordan

Jordan maeby some LINDA very near??? >=)

As a physicist, I can say that there is zero consensus regarding climate change among the scientific community. Proving causality over coincidence is no trivial task and that is where the climatologists fail in my view. I've worked on experiments where 10 million data points is insufficient to determine a result beyond statistical error and make a conclusion with 100% confidence. Yet we're told to believe in a model created by data from a single, intricate, ultra-complex ecosystem. How can these climatologists verify their claims via experimentation? They can't.

My personal belief is that the Earth is largely self-regulating in cycles and that even if man is affecting these cycles, we are simply not powerful enough to throw it completely out of whack. Honestly, it comes across as egotistical to think that we're so influential on the Earth.

But hey, I'm just a physicist.

Its not just impressive that he's holding himself up with a bottle of beer. He also has great taste in beer, New Belgium all the way!! When I get home from the sand box I am going to drive a few of those myself.

oh i will actually be able to do this WOD as rx'd... finally!!!

24 hours of it!!!!

that photo is great... haha

"Big Green" is behind the AGW "myth"? Those big solar companies are taking over? Who benefits from acceptance and rejection of climate change theories? Let me know when a renewable energy company breaks Exxon's record for annual profit. Crossfit is great, but this idea that one is somehow being an independent thinker by casting global climate change as a great conspiracy is laughable. It doesn't take courage to be a skeptic. There is no moral high ground on either side of a scientific question.

Looking for a Crossfit gym in Bergen County, NJ...Anyone know of one? or of one that may be coming soon? I thought I heard of one possibly opening in Ramsey, NJ.

#58 Chris:

Looks like Fat Tire to me. Great taste either way :-)

Boy Papa Glassman jumped on those articles with both feet. I like it.

#57 CT

I was going to say the exact same thing with out me claiming to be a physicist. Your ethos will suffice.

S'more very impressive. In light of your score I'm going to post my score under an alias. On a different day. I didn't meet pukie but I did meet his cousin Queasy at the end.

Freddy,

I think I'm starting to see a trend.
Didn't the affiliate blog have a picture of a knee being iced down at CFOW with 4-5 bottles of brew taped to it?
Where was that... ah yeah here it is
http://www.crossfit.com/cf-affiliates/2009/01/sunday_090104.html

But I like where your head is at.

I am laughing pretty hard....first I was seriously wondering how those guys are doing that magic trick or camera trick, then I scrolled down to Freddy, and I lost it! Sooooo funny! Hope to see you at fil-fest in Feb!

Interesting article, but didn't care for it over all.
Seems like there is some kind of case there for challanging global warming, or 'climate change'. The problems are obviously going to be in the models. Getting predictions beyond the range of data can't be good. How much reliable data do we have to begin with? 150 odd years, in a few select places, on the surface. There very well could be little value in the data we've gleened over the past few hundred years.
There isn't enough data to say one way, or the other. Hell, there's also the butterfly effect. I'd say we should be reducing our potential impact. It's not just about 'climate change' when you're environmentally responsible. Not only is it cheaper in the long run (recycling, waste/clean-up) it is also healthy for the planet and the individual human being.
Take crossfit/health as an example. The results of doing the 'right thing' to your body are systemic. Just like we should take care of our one-and-only bodies, environmental stewardship follows from the same arguements. Prevention is cheaper than medicine.
Dr Glassman: Well said.

Adrian and Matt= Awesome Athletes

Me= Just being silly as always.

Thanks to everyone who chimed in about my pec injury yesterday. I am hoping it is just a strain. I toyed around with a bunch of different movements at One World. Totally weird what exercises I can do and what ones I can't. The human body never ceases to amaze me.

hahahaha i would rather be holding on to the bottle like freddy

Freddy C great to see you are up and making jokes...faith Freddy faith and patience and of course that great sence of humor

and oh yeah lets go BJ!!

The argument that climatologists "forecast" future climate and truly believe 100% that their predictions will be accurate is a false assumption. They understand that it is highly unlikely their findings will be 100% correct. To say that since it is very difficult to forecast, we should just ignore their findings would be ridiculous though, and that's what the article's saying. We should remember that scientists who believe in global warming do not point to one specific model and draw their forecasts from that. They take the mean of hundreds of different climate models, and draw a line of best fit. Is that completely accurate? No. But does that mean their findings are futile? No. These models divide the studied environment into hundreds of thousands of interconnected mini-environments, each influencing and feeding the other. Each different model has a different equation depending on the scientist's best estimate of each mini-environment's sensitivity (which is why each model is slightly different.)

Also, to say that global warming isn't happening is ridiculous. The question is whether it's truly anthropogenic. Recall the extremely hot summer a few years ago in Europe? The standard deviation of the mean temperature that year was so high that the chances of it occurring in an uninterrupted environment was one in millions.

By the way, great video, Kelly. A must watch! This is one of my biggest beefs with athletes including the elites: especially when reppin' out the push press, or catching power cleans by driving their knees forward with hips closed. Ugh.

Global Warming (or whatever we're supposed to be calling it) is so polluted by politics that it seems pointless to even discuss it. The similarity to the great fat hoax of the 20th century is chilling. I'm not saying that anthropogenic climate change is wrong, but rather, I lack the resources to cut through the BS and ascertain the truth. We need a Gary Taubes type to boil it down and filter the crap.

I remain a skeptic since I have a hard time seeing how ~100 years of data can predict a system that cycles on thousands of years. Our current very cold climate has little place to go except up on a macro scale of millions of years. That's all the climate prediction I would ever involve myself in.

On the flip side it seems that avoiding climate change more or less boils down to using less fossil fuels. So we may end up doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. It could be worse, I suppose.

arh the flag.. that is one of my goals for 2009. can anyone give me heads up of what the progressions would be?

#73 darreninsyd
Check out http://www.beastskills.com/Flag.htm for flag progressions. Check out the rest of the site too, it has some great material.

On climate: Are human CO2 emissions driving up atmospheric CO2? Yes. Barring catastrophic events, CO2 levels change very slowly. Does atmospheric CO2 drive global temperature? Yes. Everything else (whether it's good or bad, by how much, and what else is going on to explain the data, etc.) is fodder for politicians and PhDs and anyone else who wants a finger in the political pie.

On the video: what exactly is going on with the shooting the hips out the back in the squat? The mechanics demonstrated by Starrett and many of his students are rather nutty. Does Starrett think squats start like goodmornings?

Good video, the point is tight core, one piece, rather than what I've seen (and have been taught) about sagging your butt for a lordic curve, then trying to tighten up.

Rest day articles are pretty loopy these days, it's fine to take a side and start a debate, but some of them are just too over simplified and adversarial. I dunno, doesn't really bother me, I only care about the fitness aspect of CF.

Anyone can do that on a bar. Freddy that is a way to lay down the New standards. haha

34/M/6'3"/254
crossfit 1,5 year
background - powerlifting
start bodyweight 128 kg (282 pound)
BW now - 254 pound

Thanks all crossfiters and Coach
From Russia with Love,
Egor, Mocsow, crossfit.ru

today - WOD 090113

For time:
155 pound Power clean 15 reps
30 Ring dips
155 pound Power clean 12 reps
24 Ring dips
155 pound Power clean 9 reps
18 Ring dips
155 pound Power clean 6 reps
12 Ring dips
155 pound Power clean 3 reps
6 Ring dips

as RX'D but Power clean 165 pound (75kg)

time 22:04
Big BW & Ring Dips kill my chest 8)

question to all: that thinks about my result?

Re:NASA article
Classic politics in motion. Just a poor attempt by NASA to fart on the Gore camp mere days before his speech on global warming to the Senate Foriegn Relations Committee. Unfortunately the speech was delayed because of freezing rain in DC. Duoh.

#37 Bill "this single issue will tank the U.S. economy far greater than what is going on now"
You have got to be kidding me.

I'm rooting for GSP!

Did nicole yesterday and forgot to post so here it is:
25 18 17 16 15 14=105

I agree with the earth and cyclical climate change. Up here in the NE the great lakes were formed well before global warming was even a forethought, but most people only believe what they see on the overbearing liberal media outlets. My 2 cents...

#19 ..how can you run around and have your head buried in the sand at the same time? I would love to see a video of that!

global warming is due to my SUV! Great! the great expanse of Canada will no longer be useless undeveloped land. Imagine the farming capacity to feed the world. The Great Lakes will bury Detroit(there is no hope for Detroit anyway)and Michigan will become the new Hawaii.

Being the ignoramus that I am, I doubt that we are "causing" global warming; We're still coming out of an ice age anyway. I also doubt that most "scientists" can remain objective once they taste a paycheck. Anything authored by a "scientist" must be read with skepticism. I like to know who feeds them before I consider listening to their opinions. The degree doth not make intelligence. I've known some pretty big fools who have been decorated with a variety of degrees from BS to Phd's. I've been watching the nutritional "scientists" for 20 years; that food pyramid, what a joke. Kind of like watching the infomercials on exercise equipment. 99% of it is crap while the genius of work like Barry Sears is ignored by the masses.

Jack, I am doing my part: got rid of my 6 to drive a V8 with pride!

i guess you could turn in circles, but that's not running, more like side stepping.....

ahhhhh, a much deserved rest day, and as for the pic.... not only is Freddy holding a beer, look how close his hands are together....very difficult!

#61 Dan - get out! I haven't heard anything about Xfit here in Bergen County. I've gone several times to GFCM in Montclair, but its just too much of a hike for me. My best friend (Tracker, stop lurking and start posting LOL) is fitness manager @ major globo gym and lets me WOD there, or else I do it @ my lil hometown gym where I've been teaching yoga for the past ten years so I kinda have carte blanche. Keep me posted!

s'more- how are you man? and when is your wife due? Im excited for you to become a proud papa. And you've mentioned *this girl* a few times recently.. *linda*... yes, yes!

eric g- tracker got me that band, and there is a *huge* difference in my form. I wasn't able to do many PUs in a row, and everyday now I do them in the warm up and my back feels so strong. I feel like my posture is a lot better too. Although maybe thats reaching a bit...
Question:when using the bands, should I step with my feet, or go on my knees? Whats best in learning the kip? Thanks

oh and as far as being addicted, last week i was told I was obsessed with Xfit. Thats ok with with me. :)

Had a lovely cheat meal last nite- felt like fudgie the whale afterwards but I haven't had cake in soooo long.... I actually was good with dinner, prolly the only person in Cheesecake Factory to have a salad as entree.. but had about a third of the factory cake for dessert. oof. If you saw how big it was, you'd know a third is an awful LOT. aaaah, thank goodness for IF... I'm back on track today :)

Giddy-up: do somethin' fun outdoors today!

400 meter run

Round 1 = 21
Round 2 = 15
Round 3 = 15
Round 4 = 11
Round 5 = 7
Round 6 = 6
Round 7 = 5

Time: 19:45

GSP all the way. Has anyone seen the vertical jump on that dude?

Freddy you sir have inspired me to start training for the Beer Bottle Flag. I don't care if it takes me all year long to learn that move but I swear by year's end I will have it mastered.

It looks like One World is the party capital of the Crossfit Nation.

Drive the SUVs, use up all the resources, pollute the air. Be confident that none of this affects global climate. Perhaps even use your religious beliefs as an excuse to stay settled in your ways. Because as comment #5 says: God is the only one that can affect this planet.

When the increasing rates of asthma and other pollution created issues in big cities around the world hit your child you can turn around and proudly say: "Yes son/daughter my V8 SUV may be causing your ashtma and your future childrens' conditions also but I AM NOT affecting global warming and therefore I don't need to change."

Sleep soundly at night knowing that this planet can and will recover from whatever damage we inflict upon it and will be around long after the monkey that got just a little too smart becomes extinct due to its own self absorption and short sightedness. Oh wait, evolution is a lie also.....

Freddy C,

That picture is funny! Made me laugh. Thanks!

Greg

I love it that these folks can't predict the weather more than 2-3 days out but they think they can make me believe that the world is warming due to CO2 gas. The earth has been warming but I believe it's because of higher sun activity, not greenhouse gases. Alot of folks think we are now entering into a cooling phase. Watch the global warming bunch........they are already starting to hedge their bets by calling it "climate change" instead of "global warming".

Not wanting to poison your living space is just smart. Causing a panic, using the idea that people are responsible for global climate, to get government to use force to enact your agenda is something else.

Anyone read 'The Chilling Stars' by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder? Highly recommended.

rest day Thank you!! #5 I have to agree on the global warming if the earth is warming its not where I live I believe its about 11 degrees today and about 20 below the average, I could go for some global warming about now!!

anybody know where I can find the rings for dips and muscle ups

I will not debate wheter I beleive in climate change or not and if the models are right or not.

In fact i haven't seen any models nor do i have the knowledge to understand them nor do i bleive any of you do.

But I do beleive that mankind as been using the planet and its ressources as we please without concidering the consequences of our actions. Pumping all the juice and dumping all the crap will eventually lead to a catastrophe wheter its climate change or not.

What I like about the global warning idea, is that IT MADE people REALISE that. It made us take the earth health into concideration for our decision.

Going against climate change, is for me, going back when people trew away in the street there garbage and not recycling and most of all NOT CARING.

To me Global Warming led to a new level of GLOBAL CONCIOUSNESS.

Let us not destroy that.

BJ PENN!!!!!!!!!

problem with muscle ups:
i've been crossfitting for about three months now. I'm very capable of doing ring pullups and ring dips, but i cannot do muscle ups. I know everyone is going to tell me to go watch demo vidoes; i've already watched all of them concerning muscle ups. i am using the "false" grip and i just cant make the transition from pulling up to getting above the rings

does anyone have any help they can offer?

It would be interesting to revisit the topic of global warming in late July/early August and see if peoples opinions have changed.

#98

Muscle up progression
http://www.crossfitwarehouse.com/newsite/blog/video/tuck_muscleup.mov
http://www.crossfitwarehouse.com/newsite/blog/video/tuck_muscleup.wmv

#88 this is a fight,not a leapfrog competition,jk GSP is an impressive physical specimen but mentally weak.BJ via mind bullet

#95 i bought my rings from muscledriver.com 60$ thats about 40 cheaper than most sites.Hope that helps

Do it for the children. Do it to save the planet - AHA, now THAT'S a recipe they'll surely eat! Serve large portions of it to them, quick, tell them it's for their own good, for the good of the world! Regulate and tax hell out of them if they step out of line - after all, a key ingredient of our premise is that it will take more than a lifetime to disprove...

Joke's on you, 'believers'.

Obviously Freddy was only able to pull off the beer flag because of his excellent choice in selecting Fat Tire. This would have been impossible to perform had he made the mistake of attempting this with a Coors Lite, Bud Lite, etc.

m/5'3"/160/29

#78 egor
you are a beast, that's what I think! it took you only 4 more minutest than it took me to do "elizabeth" (which I do slowly) and thats like half the work and 30 less pounds of cleans!

ran 30 min (7 and 7.5 on the t-mill)
finished with 20 second strides at 10.5
with 1 min rest in between

Oh my God. It was 20 below zero last week and a foot of snow on the ground. Today it's in the 40s here. I'm scared.

Did anyone notice that Al Gore's hearings on Global Warming in Washington, D.C. last week were delayed due to the fact that a blizzard/ice storm hit the capitol region?

I'm sure that 'inconvenient truth' must have hurt.

Much and all as i love all athletes who subscribe to crossfit I'm still stayin true to my canadian blood and rootin for GSP cause he's freakin awesome!!

That pic is great...freddy what a character

Just ran the perimeter at Warhorse, 3.9 miles or so. 30 minutes.

GO GSP!!!!!!

#107 - That's funny!

M/23/165

10 mile run in boots, cammies, with 40lb pack

1 hr 42 min

According to my model mentioned in post #106 it will be in the 300s next month.

Used today as a ring training day, tommarow will rest and pick back up monday. Did a small circuit of decline ring pushups, ring dips, and ring row. tried to work on front lever a little.

Did CFE WOD today.

Row 2k TT - 8:46.3

Haven't done any rowing for awhile. This was killer on the lungs.

YOUR THE MAN FREDDY!!LOL 3,2,1, DRINK

Freddy C ,
You are a hero.I Hope the pec didn't get hurt much doing that flag!! More rest today and more beer. Heal fast and I hope to meet you at the Fil Fest.
All the Best,
Joey P
Legend CrossFit
McCall, Id.

Playing catch-up...no rest day for me today.

CFWUx3 (no dips) and push-ups 10x3

Elizabeth - Not Rx'd
45# Squat Cleans
Dips

11:27

I couldn't do it without your energy and coaching Kimmie! Many thanks to the CrossFit community for all your good wishes and inspiration.

F58/140/5'2"

I enjoy the controversial articles, thanks for the stimulation. When an article is posted, I don't believe it is intended to be an endorsement of that particular viewpoint, I believe rather the intent is to stimulate some deeper thought and discussion. Let's move it beyond mental masturbation and examine the different viewpoints represented here - there are obviously some intelligent ones!

When it comes to global warming/cooling etc, I don't feel I have the background to make a strong stance for/against. There are intellectuals in that field which I respect - on both sides.

Regardless of what's happening to our climate, I don't believe our current lifestyle is healthy or sustainable, and it needs to be revamped whether there is threat of global warming or not . . .

Comment #77 - Johnny B/ Crossfit Torii Beach

Johnny, I miss Torii Beach, great place, great folks, enjoy it while you can :>)

Have Fun, Train Hard,

Billy

I'm with you freddy

New WOD for tonight--

AMRAP in 3 hours or:

1 Stella Artois or Killians Irish Red
1 Yag Bomb

Everybody enjoy the rest day and the UFC fights tonight!!!

Comment 98 LOG, "why can't I get a muscle up?"

This is my favorite video tutorial on the muscle up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGxbOFKvszY

and no, I am not the guy in the video...

Have Fun, Train Hard,

Billy

Is the writer just ungifted or is he trying to be confusing?

"Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic..."

Makes it sound like Hansen reversed his position.

Hey, somebody try this and tell me what there time was so i have a way to compare and judge an appropriate benchmark, so to speak

"Me & a Kettlebell"
25 Pushups
50 Snatches
50 Air Squats
50 Swings
50 Burpees
50 Kettlebell Clean & Press
25 Pushups

Any suggestions, email them to me.
Any thoughts or numbers, email them.
My time was 23 minutes the first time around.

THANKX!

There is absolutely zero precent chance that you can build reliable statistical models on a system that offers no possibility of a reliable control group... period. Whether you believe in Global Warming or not, you must agree that it is a THEORY built around data that is at the very best unreliable seeing as how we don't have a control Earth to study, and at the very worst modeled on data that has been "produced" to achieve the "desired" results. If anyone has an efficient argument for this point then I want to be the first to congratulate you on your unique ability to visit either "A LONG TIME AGO..." or " A GALAXY FAR, FAR AWAY"!

Since I'm doing Crossfit, I find I have much more chest hair... Is it the hormones? Am I the only one in that situation?

Thank you, have a nice day.

Funny picture! Love it. always could use a laugh on rest days!

for those who wants to muscle-up first don't mind block...muscle-up is one of the tougher exercises don't pay attention if you are great at pull-ups or ring dips pay all the attention on the kipping and transition...like pull-ups practice the muscle-ups feet to floop to practice the kipping and the transition when you got the transition move from the floor study well the move the feel...when you got succede stay calm do not over do it and reemember warm up very well...sorry if i couldn't held you guys if you understand spanish i could help you waaaay much better =(

gawd dang that picture is hilarious!

Since I'm doing Crossfit, I find I have much more chest hair...
Comment #128 - Posted by: Alex Bureau at January 31, 2009 10:35 AM

ME, TOO!!!!

#103 thanks for the website for the rings I will check that out... Ive been trying to change my form while running, trying to land on the balls of my feet, my calf muscles are smoked is that normal till they get used to me running like that??

#124 Billy

I feel like I just got Rickroll'd.

Dang you tricking me into watching mango again.

What's next Mat Battle? (Caution do not go to mat battle. Seriously don't do it. Don't say I didn't warn you.)

Re: BJvGSP

Anyone ever notice the striking factual similarities btwn GSP and OPT??? It's enough to make a Kennedy/Lincoln conspiracy theorist's head pop off.

Therefore, in support of CF, I am predicting OPT...I mean GSP.. will win tonight. Also, Tupac lives.

AllisonNYC- LOL good one

FitMom'sMom- heya! Missed your posts this week, glad you are still in the saddle. Keep up the great work.

s'more- bad english for all! sounds like a celebration.."bartender, another round! Bad english for all!"...That will be replace "cheers" for me when I celebrate my kipping pull ups... they're gonna happen...they're gonna happen.. :)

Giddy-up!

30/f/115

made up nicole

43
22
23
20
20
plus 400m

127

should have rested more before last set of pull-ups rather then try to go fro 6 rounds.

I have to take tomorrow and Monday off, so I decided to do Thursday's WOD today.
Dips on regular bars, and totally scaled the weights as follows:
Round 1: 32 kg = 70 lbs
Round 2: 42 kg = 92 lbs
Round 3: 47 kg = 103 lbs
Time: 12:22

So last week I am at my Globogym doing the CFT. I see this tall guy wearing lifting shoes, doing back squats, shoulder presses and deads. I was wearing my CrossFit "mess you up" shirt, and really giving it. I saw what he was doing, but I was too into my workout to follow what he was doing or ask if he was a fellow crossfitter.
Afterwards, of course I kicked myself for not saying anything, and felt doubly jealous of the Billy/jakers crossfit moment I read about in Wednesday's (?) comments.
Well, today, I saw the same guy coming out of the mall that houses the gym and I accosted him (I hope I didn't freak him out too much), and asked him if he is a CrossFitter, to which he replied yes. It was cold out so I didnt want to keep him outside, but at least I got his name and hope to see him again, maybe have an ally in the gym that'll do crossfit workouts with me, so I wont be the only one the trainers look at like he's insane...
Jakers, totally reading your mail about that moment of realization!
David, if you are reading this, shoot me an email!
Ian

#87 Strong Lil Pony
I find with the band it's much easier to drive with your hips in the kip if you have your knees in, and it's easier to transfer the motion to not using the band.. I switch occasionally from under feet to under knees depending on how i'm feeling :)
alas, that is just my opinion.. try it out and see what works best for you! also.. I meant to comment on your CFT PR! that's so awesome, keep it up! PR days are the best kind of days :)

While the science behind the arguments of Al Gore and his ilk is suspect (as shown in the articles), you have to consider the fact that the end result of their efforts to "end global warming" will probably be good...ie, less pollution.

Whether or not coal plants in Ohio are causing global warming because of the massive amount of CO2 they produce is an unresolved question. What is indisputable is that all the soot, SO2, NO, mercury, and other pollutants that they emit cause acid rain and have changed the pH balance in the soil in the Northeast. Converting to alternative power sources, even nuclear, would not only make the global warming people happy, it would actually have a significant positive effect on the environment in the short term.

Although Al Gore and his cohort of bloviating celebrities are incredibly annoying, they may well go down in the annals of history as "useful idiots" as their fellow-traveler V.I. Lenin once put it.

The bigger question is whether the huge deadweight loss caused by all the green initiatives will be justified by the reduction in pollution.

nicole make up day
10, 8, 8, 9, 8, 6

last year, I could do 0 pull ups. been CFing for almost 3 weeks.

I went to an actual affiliate for the first time ever today as they were having an open house. We did a tabata workout. I've been following crossfit.com at a local "gym" for about 2 years but nothing compared to the fun I had today. It really is a great experience.

Freddy...teach me that beer flag maybe? Regardless, see you at the Ice Fishing Tournament later this evening :)

"made up nicole"

Comment #137 - Posted by: nadia shatila at January 31, 2009 12:40 PM

No. It's more like "Nadia DESTROYED Nicole"!

Jaw dropping 1st round, Nadia. Great job!

Made up Nicole today.

1) 21 pullups
2) 18 pullups
3) 15 pullups
4) 13 pullups
5) 12 pullups
6) 13 pullups

Total - six rounds, 92 pullups

funny picture.

Power cleans today- yay! sets of 5: 45/65/95/115/125/125/125/125. Post: Row 600m, 15 K2E, 15 ring dips, 300m row and 12 and 12, 150m row and 9 and 9. Mods: band assisted ring dips, K2waist. 10:10.

28 female 74" 173#

Happy rest day everyone. Those of you in the Bay Area should stop by One World for the Ice Fishing Tournament.

For the record, scientists never agree on anything. They're people. There was a long and bitter debate among a very prestigious scientist and an unknown over whether bacteria caused pathogenesis in plants. That's right, one prestigious scientist had an axe to grind over bacteria causing disease in plants. If you don't think that there are many axes to grind in this debate, you're a chump. Best to look at the arguments and judge for yourself. The fact that scientists believe that they can predict the future of a system larger and more complicated than any other I know of, means they lose credibility right there.
How about looking at the consequences today? Sub sahara africa is getting greener while the sahara recedes and people don't know why. Seems the obvious answer is higher CO2 in the atmosphere but I guess the GW crowd wouldn't like that.

Well now, see! And they told me that I'll never make any gains in Crossfit with alcohol... pishaw! I totally think this is going to become my new wallpaper on my laptop. Ha!

Anyway, I wanted to wish the world a happy rest day. I hope everyone gets to see the fight tonight. I will be heading over to Hooters to show my love for BJ Penn. May he take down GSP with the style and grace of a crossfitter.... f'in hard and with a vengence.

Grab the Kool Aid and GET SOME!

That's definatley not Light Beer. HAHAHA...ugh.

To all,

I will always enjoy the sentiment that simply by posting an article for our collective consumption, CrossFit and therefore Greg Glassman must be fully endorsing the content.

Here is a book that does a better job than the authors of these articles: http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-Spanish/dp/0742551172 ( WFS )

And please, please, do everyone in the world a favor and learn the difference between a profit and a profit margin.

Dan #140: "The bigger question is whether the huge deadweight loss caused by all the green initiatives will be justified by the reduction in pollution." Almost.

THIS is the essential question, the one that is missed by Christin Street and others. The drag on GDP that will be caused by the taxing of carbon in the U.S. and any other Western, developed nation that is foolish enough to go down this pathway will have dramatic consequences for not only the U.S. economy but for that of the entire world (as we see from today's massive international indigestion every time the U.S. economy burps). The downward pressure on GDP, whether it causes a true decrease in GDP or simply causes a measurable decrease in GDP growth, in the pursuit of decreased C02 emission will have a disproportionate effect on those occupying the lowest rungs of the economic food chain in every country.

The question that Dan asks about the secondary gain of decreased pollution that may tag along with decreased C02 emission brings up the naivete of the "Green Crowd" (but not Dan) about the economics involved. It is much more sensible if the desired effect is decreased release of other pollutants (eg. emissions from coal-fired electric plants) to target those pollutants since the cost of doing so is several orders of magnitude less and the science necessary is more nearly feasible economically.

Which doesn't even begin to touch upon the morality involved in choosing to spend finite present day capital on the quixotic attempt to ameliorate something that we may not be able to ameliorate, rather than targeting such achievable goals as eradicating polio worldwide, wiping out malaria in Africa, or providing potable water to the undeveloped world. All of these are possible and can be achieved with a significant likelihood of success with a fraction of the amount of money discussed by Mr. Gore et al. Each of these will arguably result in an INCREASE in the GDP in any nation so addressed, and furthermore will have a disproportionate beneficial effect felt by those occupying the lowest economic rungs of any particular society.

Don't even get me started on prioritizing polar bears vs. people...

Hey Lauren! This topic comes up like a benchmark "girl", again and again. How 'bout a "Compare to" link to the last RD on AGW?

Off to work on my "Freddie C Flag".

;=)

Hey Crossfit, when did this sight begin to think it's about political angles on the global climate? I subscribed to the CFJ based upon the definition of Crossfit your website provides. Unfortunatley there has been an increasing number of articles the smell like someone's political agenda. I would suggest sticking to what you're good at, health, fitness, combat related items, and quit with the rest. Otherwise, clearly state your agenda.

Hall:

CrossFit's agenda is to dominate the entire world with their EVIL RIGHT WING IDEALOGY! MUHAHAHAHAHA!

THE GLASSMAN'S ARE CRAZY.

or you can just say thanks for the free website, and I politely disagree with the articles.

#154 Paul,

That's just crazy talk at the end!

Bj all the way. I like both, but BJ is a Crossfitter.

BJ by 3rd round shaka

Lyoto by ghost defense.

#138 Ian

Very Cool.

Having met a handful of crossfitters randomly they have all been very good people.

I hope you get a workout buddy. It does make it quite a bit more fun.

great post #154

RE: comment #156

I think BJ is off the cf... I believe he was largely unsuccessful in the octagon while he was on it.

Thanks for the free website

Schooled at ForgedFit in Indy today.

Did Tabata Something Else and got my squat critiqued. My squat is way off

GSP all the way!!
BJ has no idea what he's in for.

Herm #143

thank you. :-)

I'm trying to figure out what kind of beer Freddy is holding...

nicole a day late.

7 rounds
20, 20, 20, 17, 17, 17, 21 = 132 total pull ups
ran on treadmill @9.0

i guess i dont do nicole as rx'd because i stop my pull ups after 20 on the first few rounds. I could do more but i want to get as many rounds in as possible so i can up the total number of pullups.

thoughts anyone?

Deepak that was my original idea keep the bars at 35 to get more rounds minutes before start i though "what the hell lets do each rounds max pulls..." well because that max pulls thing my palm bleed as always...that reminds me WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE DO TO MAKE YOUR HANDSKIN HARDER?????? I'M SICK AND TIRED TO GET BLOODY HANDS AND CAN'T HIT THE WOD 100%!!!! but it's a good idea keep a constant number...I think

rested yesterday and did Barbara today as I missed it the other day. Didnt do Elizabeth because Ive got interval training tomorrow and I don't want to overdo the high impact stuff too soon.

I hope GSP kicks BJ Penn's ass.

The debate over climate change is an interesting academic discussion, but for me, pollution is a human rights issue. Thus, the scientific validity of the hypothesis has little impact on my personal behavior aside from the classification of what substances are harmful.

You wouldn't walk up to someone on the street and throw a cup of waste on their shirt, would you? At best, it amounts to vandalism and at worse it amounts to assault or murder if the substance is toxic.

Whether the source is your own hand, or a smokestack 100 miles away doesn't make much difference.

The simplest solution I've heard proposed is not unlike a garbage collection fee.

When you finish your dinner, do you toss all your garbage out into the street, or in your neighbor's back yard? Probably not. If you are like me, you put it in a specified container, and pay a garbage man to have it removed and disposed of properly. Why should the industrial sector be held to a different standard than you or your family?

For example, if burning coal releases mercury, a cancer-causing substance which can affect the nearby population, simply enforce a fee of X dollars per pound for the emission of mercury. Then, if an energy supplier chooses to make a profit selling electricity from a coal-burning power planet, they are free to do so provided they pay a fee for the proper treatment or management of the emitted mercury. You do it for your garbage, so why shouldn't they?

Maybe this is represents an increase in cost of 1 cent per kilowatt hour, or maybe its 20 cents or more. Either way, both suppliers and consumers are free to choose the resources they utilize and are financially motivated to choose resources with less pollution. Most importantly, it will stop the current human practice of tossing waste on each other.

We all value the benefits of technology, but there is no excuse for violating the fundamental human rights of others.

S'more-
to be honest i have never ever ripped my hands apart. the guy i work out with does it all the time. i find that shaving the callouses down keep less skin rolling around. also i grip the bar pretty tight and keep it tight throughout the repetition and hence do not have much movement of the skin on the palm/fingers.

First of all rest day as rx'd not done yet... but if I can extrapolate I will have done it in 24hrs.

On the weather...

Its funny... personally I believe the evidence suggests that man... whether it be warming or cooling... is accelerating the cycle that __insert_name_of_God_here__ put in place... it seems the conservative approach to interpretting the evidence.

As for God controlling this whole mess...

When God builds a cliff we don't just jump off saying God will do what He intends anyways DO WE??!?!?!

From what I understand -- in the main -- those who disagree with this perspective are by and large conservatives politically...

Why is it that by and large conservatives are in fact being so non-conservative on the environmental issue?

I so totally don't understand why a person can't just take it for obvious that spewing thousands of tonnes of particulate matter into the atmosphere(a day/minute/second??? do you know??) will in one way or another affect the environment...

Sure there are political and corporate agendas spinning the message... and that can be confusing... but never the less... it absolutely dumbfounds me that there is not consensus, like mindedness and action here.

My two cents.

It is always interesting to me to note the sociological aspect of this. On this particular day, we are seeing CO2 equated with pollution over and over. Why? Are you ignorant? Playing silly games to score political points?

CO2 is what yeast creates in those hippie bread shops, causing the bread to rise. It is what makes pop rocks fizzle. It is in every soda sold in the United States. It is what makes plants grow, and in point of fact when CO2 levels were ten times what they are today, ferns grew as large as trees. Herbivores, and related Carnivores were for that reason much larger.

CO2 is what tells your body to breathe. When levels get too high, your involuntary nervous system demands you breathe. Shallow water blackout is running out of oxygen before CO2 levels signal the problem.

The thinking literally seems to be that if conservatives oppose something, it must be good, and if someone of the august political ancestry of Al Gore supports something, it must be right.

With respect to the "let's be conservative" argument--boiled down, "what risk is there in assuming the AGW cultists are right?"--that is addressed in the post:

"Some have argued for the precautionary principle as a way to be conservative. It is a political, not a scientific principle. As we explain in our essay in Appendix 2, it is actually an anti-scientific principle in that it attempts to make decisions without using rational analyses. Instead, cost/benefit analyses are appropriate given the available evidence which suggests that temperature is just as likely to go up as down. However, these analyses should be supported by scientific forecasts."

Al Gore, as you all would know if we had a competent press dedicated to telling the truth to the best of their ability, was in fact told by a British judge his film violated a British prohibition against the propagandization of schoolchildren, and his film can only be distributed in England with a warning label. Don't believe me? Here's one link: http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22160

With respect to the larger issue, let's go back to the late 90's. Remember the line going up representing temperature? A second graph showing CO2 levels rising pari passu? Remember Kyoto, and Al Gore telling us that unless we acted immediately, within ten years we would be facing catastrophe?

The argument made, of course, was simple: more CO2, more warming. This was propagated as fact by the media, absorbed hook line and sinker by every academic, leftists, and sucker of some other sort on the planet.

But the temperature line has now gone down, while the CO2 line, presumably, has not been affected since no significant reduction has in fact been achieved. How can this be? Well, now we are told that weather is complex, and there are variables affecting the climate, but that it will still continue going up. What is the main reason the temperature is not rising? The oceans are cooling. Why are they cooling? Complex weather patterns that are masking the underlying warming. The planet, you see, is hiding the warming by getting cooler. Gaia is sneaky, possibly with a covert Republican agenda.

And who keeps telling us we are getting warmer? Burocrats working for a organization which has as its goal the formation of a unitary global government in the long term, and the destruction of American economic and military hegemony in the short and middle term.

The whole thing is rotten, top to bottom. Nobody likes sulphur in their coffee, but that doesn't have a damn thing to do with CO2 emissions. To pretend otherwise is to parade ignorance publicly.

When I was in college, I studied energy economics and found, to sufficient dismay to change my major, that the political pressure against nuclear energy caused by Chernobyl and Three Mile Island created a nearly impassible barrier against the development of safe, economical energy creation. The basic risks exposed by those incidents were addressed decades ago, and with those risks neutralized, nuclear power is safe, cheap and nearly inexhaustible.

However, the cost of nuclear energy is prohibitive thanks to NIMBY scare-tactics, partially related to storage issues but moreso to outdated arguments from those 1980s issues. This is especially galling given that the very people who argue for the cause of global warming are those who plead that technological advances can set us on the path toward energy efficiency, oil independence, and the future of our planet.

If the drive for a safer energy solution for the world stems from the wish for new advances in energy creation that create both cheap power and environmental protection, the answer exists in nuclear energy. If that same drive stems from a wish to handcuff US power or to tax the American economy for usurious reasons, the answer is considerably darker.

Two more points. Jeff makes a very good case that neither side should use ad hominem attacks. We would in fact be moving past the status quo if the AGW cultists would in fact admit as a matter of principle that ad hominem is unhelpful, and generally serves only to mask intellectual incapacity or outright falsehood. Yet it is their principle--as far as I can, the only--response to requests for them to actually adhere to the scientific standards that apply in every other field where concrete things have to get done, and where predictions matter.

Secondly, isn't the point of addressing "global warming" at some point, on some level, the remediation of human suffering? Is the argument not, at bottom, that people's lives will be affected in awful ways if we do nothing?

Yet their plan is to attack the methods used by the very poor to improve their lots, to prevent the use of the power plants and factories that make needed things that help extend the lives of the poor, and make their lives easier. Moreover, they want to siphon trillions of dollars out of our economy, into the pockets of AGW entrepreneurs like Al Gore, and therefore away from those same poor, as Bingo points out.

Again, it is sick and stupid. It helps no one, even if they are correct to some small extent, which appears doubtful. If they want to spend billions, why not spend it on extending the lives of hundreds of millions of people scheduled now for premature deaths after unhappy, difficult lives.

Don't worry, God will take care of global warming!? Ahahaha!!! No, stop, really! Ahahahaah!!!

ahh rest day political crap...at least our minds get a WOD with the all the "debating".

Marco,

Excellent counterpoint. I would submit for general consideration that between the two of us, we are each reflecting the general level of intellectual and factual analysis of our respective camps.

To my previous posts, I would add this more in-depth analysis I did about a year ago, in another year which had been colder than the year before:http://moderatesunited.blogspot.com/2008/01/global-warming.html

What I will note as well is that the first link contains a critique by someone who has written several books on weather forecasting, that the amount of certainty claimed by the IPCC is farcical, disingenuous, and almost entirely a cynical effort at a transfer of power from the United States to the UN.

And just who do we think would be better at leading the world? Saudi Arabia, where they lock girls in burning schools if they aren't dressed properly? China, where old women are sent to reeducation camps for demanding compensation in public for homes destroyed by the government?

How about Europe, where a Dutch Court is even now considering legislation to make it illegal to make negative comments about Islam? Or Sweden, where a girl was raped in a shower while numerous people did nothing? Or Britain, where the invective of one man was sufficient to get a trip by Geert Wilders cancelled?

Make no mistake: no nation in the history of Earth has EVER combined our power with our self restraint, and sincere commitment to justice. We could have dealt with Iraq by nuking Bagdad. We could deal with Iran today the same way. If the shoe, so to speak, were on the other foot, Iran would nuke us without hesitation, if we were similarly helpless. They may nuke us anyway, because they are bat$hit insane.

If they do, we will deserve it, for buying the leftist propaganda to such an extent that we have forgotten who we are, how far we have come, and how much good we can still accomplish in the world.

Ran 3.35 miles

m/26/6'4"/190lbs

As Rx'd:
24:00:00 - PR

Commenters on this rest day present two fallacious arguments.

1. AGW & The Better-Safe-Than-Sorry argument. Even if the effectiveness of cutting back on carbon is uncertain, the US must cut back because the consequences of not stopping global warming is an intolerable humanitarian catastrophe.

This argument puts aside the probability that the proposed fix might be ineffective in favor of a presumed unbearable cost of the failure to make the fix.

This is the fallacy of the Appeal to Consequences. It might also be categorized as the Appeal to Fear fallacy.

2. AGW & The Overwhelming Consensus of Experts Argument. The US must cut back on carbon emissions because some large majority of climate experts say we must. Another version is that the science of climatology has established beyond doubt and by overwhelming consensus that (1) ACO2 is causing global warming, and (2) this is leading to climate catastrophe.

This is the fallacy known as either the Appeal to Authority or the Appeal to Belief. It might also be a variant of the Appeal to Ridicule fallacy, where skeptics dare not presume to contradict experts.

These fallacies may be sufficient for many legislators to vote for carbon restrictions. However, they are uninformed, their reasoning unscientific, and in the end counter-productive and foolish. The arguments are at their core illogical and irrational. Science must be both logical and rational.

Each hypothesis and each conclusion in these arguments is erroneous.

The claim that CO2 causes global warming is false. The record shows it did not cause global warming before man, and in fact, global warming before man has repeatedly preceded a corresponding rise in CO2 concentration. This leads to the contrary model that global warming causes increases in atmospheric CO2. Nothing in the prevailing GCMs precludes this reversal of the presumed Cause & Effect. Also, the GCMs do not model the outgassing of CO2 from the ocean, which is 15 times as great as today's ACO2 emissions.

Climatologists model the increase in CO2 concentration measured at MLO as ACO2. They fail to use their CO2 mass flow models as they need to do to show that the measured CO2 buildup is appropriate for the amount of ACO2 released. They claim that the MLO concentration is representative of the globe because the CO2 is long-lived and well-mixed. It is neither. The climatologists admit that North-South and East-West CO2 gradients exist, contradicting their well-mixed claim.

Climatologists force atmospheric CO2 to be long-lived by modeling the mixed layer of the ocean in equilibrium. This paces the dissolution of atmospheric CO2 by the rate at which the ocean's slow sequestration processes make room for more surface absorption. The solubility of physics in water is well-known and contrary to the climatologists model. It is not paced by any water chemistry. Furthermore and sufficient in its own right is that the mixed layer is not in equilibrium. It is loaded with entrained air, circulated by the wind, fluctuating in depth, and fed laterally by ocean currents. The GCMs are not faithful to the physics, and instead presume a contrary state.

The equilibrium assumption for the mixed layer also causes the eventual dissolution of added ACO2 to make the ocean more acidic. This is used to advantage by climatologists to had frightening results to ACO2.

The dynamics of solubility are nearly instantaneous, and CO2 is not long-lived in the atmosphere. In fact, the climatologists do not include the solubility process in their model. In summary and for each of these reasons, climatologists do not model the carbon cycle faithfully.

Not only does CO2 not cause more than trivial warming, greenhouse gases do not cause more than about a tenth of the warming attributed to them by the climatologists. In the last analysis, Earth's climate is not governed by greenhouse gases, but by albedo. When Earth is in an ice state, the climate is clamped to cold by surface albedo. When Earth is warm, as it is at the present, climate is regulated against all warming processes by the strong negative feedback of cloud albedo. Earth vacillates between the states under still uncertain drivers. Climatologists model neither dynamic albedo, nor the two-state nature of the climate. In short, climatologists get the hydrological cycle wrong, and their models are not even scientific conjectures for their failure to fit all the available data.

Earth's climate warmed between the last glacial epoch about 20K years ago until about 1990. Climatologists initiate their GCMs for Earth in equilibrium as of the beginning of the industrial era, circa 1750. Climatologists ignore the then on-going warming, so necessarily credit natural warming to the subsequent ACO2. In the last half million years, Earth has warmed four times to a temperature about 2º to 4ºC above the present warm era. These data support a model that might say present-day warming is (a) natural and (b) short of its maximum.

CO2 is not causing measurable warming, and will not do so in the future. Experts who claim to the contrary, and who claim that a CO2 induced catastrophe is predictable are wrong on each count. None of the fallacies is logical or rational.

If we engage the discussion on the science and not fallacy, we must reject AGW as false and its proponents as ignorant or charlatans.

Put these facts to your favorite climatologist.

1. Freddy.. you're awesome.

2. For less blood on max rep pullups, try high bar grips and chalk

Everyone's allowed their opinion, but some people have earned the right to a more valuable opinion than others.

Taking advice from this thread about parameter estimation in climate modeling is like taking advice on fitness and nutrition from Kevin James, "the King of Queens."

The libertarian religion relies on the assumption that every person on earth in an independent actor. The idea of an interconnected ecosystem threatens that assumption, therefore it must be attacked. (Keep in mind, I consider myself a libertarian, with the caveat that indirect costs should be properly calculated and paid.)

If CO2-caused global warming is so obviously wrong, shouldn't it be elementary to prove that fact? Since production of greenhouse gases is not the default setting, the burden of proof should lie on denialists to prove the lack of effect. They don't have the data to support this, so they find this difficult and resort to FUD.

Geez, that Kevin James crack was uncalled for. I apologize. (Politics and the internet really don't mix.)

I still think libertarians have to rethink some of their assumptions, but that is neither here nor there...

#184: what direct evidence has EVER been presented of a role for CO2 in global warming? I'm not aware of one shred. I'm aware of many "models" which were created with a known end in mind. I'm aware of gross and widespread scientific malpractice on the part of the IPPC with respect to this topic.

But I don't know of ANY evidence whatsoever that man is causing global warming. Given this, we can frame your position as follows: we should spend trillions of dollars and cripple the global economy UNLESS evidence is presented to refute other evidence that was never presented to begin with.

You people are asking for billions and billions in investments--not, not even investments, since on the likely assumption you are wrong, the money will simply be poured down a toilet owned by Al Gore and his ilk.

You are asking the poor to forego obvious means of progress. Surely any rational analysis would put the burden of proof on you? We are asking that the status quo be maintained. You are asking for a vast break with the status quo.

Can you see the problem here?

Reading the headlines, the debate here reminds me somewhat of the debate over what President Obama is pleased to call a "stimulus" package is going. Republicans are asking the obvious question: is this thing going to do any damn good? Democrats are saying: Hurry, hurry, can't you see we don't have any time?

I will simply state the obvious fact that the man who stays put will always remain closer to the goal than his opposition, if everyone else is running in the opposite direction. If they are running fast, so much the worse for them, and in this case, for us all.

Choice (#184) comes out swinging with ad hominems against straw men (ad strawminems), unwilling to name names. He assumes that any criticism of AGW must be political, which might be justifiable in light of the intense political content of AGW itself.

He says with a masterpiece of irrationality,

>>If CO2-caused global warming is so obviously wrong, shouldn't it be elementary to prove that fact? Since production of greenhouse gases is not the default setting, the burden of proof should lie on denialists to prove the lack of effect. They don't have the data to support this, so they find this difficult and resort to FUD.

(1) CO2 is correlated with global warming (see #182), so that the fact that the former is not the cause of the latter is not at all obvious. It fooled the IPCC.

(2) Has disproof of a cause ever been elementary? Nonexistence is classically difficult to impossible to prove.

(3) Choice says because the “production of greenhouse gases is not the default setting”, denialists must prove CO2 has no effect. However, the hypothesis has no meaning in climate (or otherwise). Since Earth's climate has no default settings whatsoever, the hypothesis is true. But he might as well have been referring to apple sauce.

(4) “Denialist” is a word of derision from the proponents of AGW, analogous to flat earthers. On the other hand, skeptic would be a better word, except that skepticism is a virtue in scientists, a talent notably absent among the IPCC and its cohorts.

(5) Sufficient data showing AGW false is in my post #182. Choice has failed to address a single fact presented there, preferring to presume that any such facts are political fabrications. Choice says that denialists have a burden of proof, but he is receptive to no evidence. The burden is on Choice (and the climatologists) to address the facts when they are presented.

(6) Choice asserts that “denialists” resort to FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). The AGW proponents are champions of uncertainty and doubt, fostered by omitting key climate processes (see #182). These omissions are for promoting public fear so that they can gather government grants and power. The position of the skeptics, on the other hand, is more like “CO2? No sweat.”

(7) Choice claims to be a libertarian. That seems warranted since the word libertarian, like the ideas in his post, defies definition. He concludes

>>The libertarian religion relies on the assumption that every person on earth in an independent actor. The idea of an interconnected ecosystem threatens that assumption, therefore it must be attacked. (Keep in mind, I consider myself a libertarian, with the caveat that indirect costs should be properly calculated and paid.)

Here he exposes his predisposition to collectivism. While that is not all that strange among the confusion of libertarians, it contradicts Choice's independent actor model.

His linking libertarianism to religion is also well off the mark. If a belief system is evident anywhere in this mixture of false science and politics, it is the climatologists' clinging to the AGW belief system while seeking and claiming a consensus. Science never relies on evangelism or voting.

Contrary to Choice's conclusion, he should take advice from this thread not only on the climate, but how to engage in rational argument. Rest day is a misnomer; it's randomly varied exercise for the brain.

I'm surprised no one has referenced this site:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Basically, they measure sea ice extent. I can't vouch for the veracity of the data, but it seems kosher. Then again, maybe the University of Illinois is a player in a vast conspiracy...

A few clicks around the site, for those who are educable, is informative.

I'm not sure about planetary climate prognostication, but surely it fluctuates.

A period of increased volcanism, however, will surely frost our collective kiesters ;)

Greg #190,

And no one should have referred to that site, notwithstanding its excellence. The reason is that the site addresses global warming, not Anthropogenic Global Warming.

In the past half million years, Earth has had four other warm epochs like the present, recoveries from ice ages (not major Ice Ages, but glacial epochs). The data are from ice core samples about 1300 years apart, so the resolution is not so good. Regardless, Earth today is about 2ºC to 4ºC short of the previous four peaks. So we have a ways to go to reach the historical warming from natural causes.

We can take a little joy in the cooling in the past decade and the recent winters. (1) Hopefully we won’t get to the historical maxima. (2) The AGW proponents find it hard to scare the public when the people are freezing.

We can’t take a lot of joy because the recent cool spell is far too small to be resolved in the historical data. A cold snap is not relevant on a global warming historical scale until it has persisted for at least 30 years or has moved several degrees in a short time.

So, global warming is underway and has been for about 20,000 years. However, it has not been caused by man nor even by the equally real greenhouse effect. The strong negative feedback of cloud albedo is currently mitigating and regulating warming. The IPCC knows that feedback exists, but intentionally excludes it from its GCMs, ostensibly because the model for cloudiness (due to Svensmark) is merely a hypothesis. A more probable reason is that cloud albedo, among other things, destroys its AGW conjecture.

Bottom line: be careful to distinguish between GW and AGW.

Thinking about this today, it seems to me that what is happening is that a handful of people with marked political agendas favoring unitary global government realized at some point AGW represented a way to get their fingers into everybody's pie, while claiming they were doing it for the good of all.

They picked a period of warming, and tried their damnedest to get everyone on board at Kyoto. Let us consider what would have happened had Clinton or Bush followed Gore and signed the treaty.

Our economy would be in much worse shape than it is today. Take our current problems, and multiply them by 2.

We would still be cooling. No concrete good would have been accomplished.

We would have laid the groundwork for enabling the interference of the UN--or similar transnational body--in our domestic politics.

I just finished a series of CD's on English History from the Tudors to the Stewarts. It was during this period that Parliament, which was originally intended by Kings to support the policies of Kings, got the upper hand and transformed the Monarchy into a CONSTITUTIONAL Monarchy. Queen Elizabeth still has the power, on the books, to veto any piece of legislation she wants. It just hasn't been done in something like 100 years.

How did they do it? Simple: taxes. The Kings, starting with Henry VIII, spent more than they could collect with their royal prerogatives. Most of this was on stupid and pointless wars.

Every time they needed money, they convened Parliament, to ask everyone to contribute. Over time, the positions of the Kings got worse and worse, until the time of the Hanoverian Succession, where Parliament openly named Queen Anne's successor, and no one of importance objected.

Any person, and any nation, that does not manage its money--that is a chronic debtor--is playing with fire. Our massive (and growing) deficit is one problem we need to confront.

However, with respect to this topic, we need to be VERY careful about giving any transnational bodies ANY entry points into our sovereignty. Bush made the right decision, in this regard, with respect to listening to one face of the UN--that which originally voted war with Iraq--and ignoring the other--that which was profiting from the then status quo, and quite happy to endure the hypocrisy while counting their Euros and Dinar.

It's a cold world out there. Our very insularity--for which we are often criticized--prevents people from realizing this. There are a great many cruel, dishonest, ruthless, dishonest people out there. There are some on our side too, but for now we remain basically an honest, well meaning nation. In this, we are increasingly alone. We have Aus, Canada, Poland, Britain (depending on the PM), and a few others I should know but don't.

But so many nations which should know better are saying, in effect, "we are tired, and if it is hard, we don't want to know about it."

AGW is so emotionally significant for nations like Sweden because they have, for all intents and purposes, renounced any duty to wage actual war anywhere for any reason. AGW answers the emotional need for a crisis, for a crusade (the English word for Jihad), and for all of the gratifying difficulty such things entail.

And for this reason, it is exceedingly difficult to abandon AGW as an opportunistic act of overt fraud, even though every sign points in that direction. Remember, even though virtually every point Al Gore made in his movie was wrong ACCORDING TO THE IPCC, he was still given a Nobel Prize. Should it not have been for fiction?

Rely on people you know, and the commitment--ungrounded in specifics--to nourish what is good in this world. Reject dogmatism, and reject undue reliance on authority of any form. This is what has worked for us, and there is no reason it should not continue to work, if we just remember our way back home.

I actually got myself off track on that last post. What I started to say, was that let's say for the sake of argument we agreed to do whatever the UN said we should do: spend whatever amount of money internally, contribute whatever amount of money to them for "research", or CO2 remediation in BFE somewhere.

Do all of you understand that if the climate went up, stayed the same, or got colder they would still demand money? Do you understand that the mission of ANY burocracy is survival? Do any of you think they would let that beachhead go under ANY circumstances, other than our unilateral withdrawal, which would presumably bring out shrieks from the leftist tuning forks--all is the same frequency--just like Bush's decision to only listen to the actual law of the UN?

There is more here than meets the eye, and all serious students of this topic--on all sides--well understand this.

Choice -

From time immemorial, the maxim is thus:

The burden is on he who claims.

The Latin maxim is “necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit”; this is the ordinary rule that “the necessity of proof lies with he who complains.” There is a similar notion that “ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat” - “the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies.”

The Supreme Court gives us a great lecture on this in the case of Coffin v. U.S. (the case that enshrined the standard that the government must prove every element of a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt).

“Let all accusers understand that they are not to prefer charges unless they can be proven by proper witnesses or by conclusive documents, or by circumstantial evidence which amounts to indubitable proof and is clearer than day.” Code, L. IV, Tit. XX, 1, l. 25.

Coffin, 156 U.S., at 454, (some citations omitted).

And a concrete example from the Court:

Ammianus Marcellinus relates an anecdote of the Emperor Julian which illustrates the enforcement of this principle in the Roman law. Numerius, the Governor of Narbonensis, was on trial before the emperor, and, contrary to the usage in criminal cases, the trial was public. Numerius contented himself with denying his guilt, and there was not sufficient proof against him. His adversary, Delphidius, “a passionate man,” seeing that the failure of the accusation was inevitable, could not restrain himself, and exclaimed, “Oh, illustrious Caesar, if it is sufficient to deny, what hereafter will become of the guilty?” to which Julian replied, “If it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?” Rerum Gestarum, L. XVIII, c. 1. The rule thus found in the Roman law was, along with many other fundamental and human maxims of that system, preserved for mankind by the canon law.

Coffin, at 455 (some citations omitted).

So, no, it is not on the skeptic to prove the opposite or negate what is being claimed, it is on the proponent to prove what he claims. To what degree (by what quantum) should be informed by the consequences of the thing being claimed. That's why it's BARD to put someone in jail.

Given the consequences that flow (as some have pointed out) from what we all are supposed to do if the AGW proponents are right (carbon credits being swicthed by nations, sacrifice of national sovereignty, etc.) I would say that the burden is on the AGW proponents to a HIGH standard. Whatever else can be said, they ain't there yet.

And making claims of dire consequences is NOT a basis to lower their own burden. You occasionally hear the same thing in criminal courts from victim's advocates, that the burden of proof should be lowered in criminal courts so that we don't let the guilty go free. Sorry, but no thanks.

Thanks, Jeff. I didnt realize this was such a "hot topic"...(Sorry, couldn't resist).

I agree that AGW (New term for me...which I understand means "man made global warming") is a somewhat megalomaniacal and absurd approach to what is most likely natural fluctuations in earth's climate. (If it were true, then AGC (Man made cooling) would be rather simple: Set off a few volcanoes & hope for the best).

(Editorial Note, the fires in my pellet and woodstoves here in central Maine have been going for about 8 weeks straight now).

As an aside, the Aztec's had an interesting approach to the putting off of natural climate change. They practiced human sacrifice to appease their God(s) and thereby put off "the changing of the sun".

Apparently, really really (really) bad things happen when the "sun changes". Things like increased volcanism, burning tar raining from the sky, firestorms, rapid continental shifts, magnetic shifts, reversals, etc.

According to their calendar, 22 December 2012 is the next scheduled "sun change."

Took my Krav Yellow Belt Test

Barry Cooper, #192-3.

When Bush '43 and Paulson, MBA Harvard, threw a couple of trillion dollars at the banks and other financial institutions, they broke the theoretical Republican dam holding back a socialist run on the treasury and diligent money management. Now the kids are in the cookie jar, gleefully strewing cookies with both hands all over the kitchen and about the house.

So, too, when the US voted Obama into office, the always leaky conservative dam holding back socialism collapsed. Radical international socialists who tried to gain control over the US at Kyoto now claim the White House and likely Congress.

The combination of banana republic currency, moribund financial institutions, the destruction of incentives and markets through bailouts and stimuli, and a crushing of US industrial power and infrastructure through utterly pointless carbon controls portends an America in unrelenting decline. Recovery will await a conservative, charismatic leader, at a time when the right has neither an effective conservative leader nor a charismatic one. Either that or like last time, a bloody, all-out war.

This one seems to have mostly run its course, but perhaps I still have some perspective to add.
1. Anthropogenic Global Warming is an unverified (unverifiable?) hypothesis, that does have some solid bases in science, principally, that CO2 does heat up when exposed to ultraviolet radiation, and that there seems to be general correlation (not causation) between CO2 and global temperature over long time periods.
2. Unfortunately, science doesn't go much beyond this point. The rest of the hypothesis is based on pure conjecture, supported by simple models of an ecosystem. I think that Dr. Glassman has indicated a few of the shortcomings of the models.
3. The reason that the hypothesis is unverifiable, is that there are too many forcing functions impacting global temperature to be able to ever isolate the impact of CO2 in the real world. Models fail due to the inability to adequately account for 2nd and 3rd order impacts, let alone nth order impacts.

However, let's assume for a moment that AGW is real. We'll assume a black box approach- carbon in, higher temperature out, don't care what happens in between to make it true...

4. There's now the problem of measuring impacts. What are the impacts of a warmer climate, both positive and negative. This full accounting needs to be done before we even start getting into the costs of mitigation approaches. Also, since we're assuming increase in CO2, what are the positive impacts of the extra CO2 in the air- we certainly know that a first order effect is enhanced plant growth.

5. Even with the cost of mitigation, there's a problem with the carbon reduction approach: is it cheaper to mitigate the problem of higher temperature before or after the fact. In other words, is it cheaper for Tuvalu to build dikes around the entire island (like Holland) to address higher sea levels, or for the US to cripple its economy to reduce the impact on sea levels by 10%, and still force Tuvalu to build their dikes, albeit 10% lower. Is it cheaper to save polar bears by reducing the annual hunting quotas, or by making you drive a funny looking, overpriced car?

Basing any public policies on such a hypothesis as AGW is insane.

SPare #198:

Where the heck have you been? I've been beating that drum for the last 5 Rest Day AGW discussions. 'Bout time the cavalry showed up.

For the love of G_D stick around!

sorry- just started on CF a month and a half ago. I'll have your back next time- I have no plans to leave.

run 400 meters at 7:15 split, bench 75 dumbells to max (8-12) for 20 mins.

300m row
21-15-9
Swing
Box jump
65lb deadlift