November 23, 2009

Monday 091123

Rest Day


Enlarge image

CrossFit Effects - Sydney Australia, CrossFit Atlanta, Iron Major CrossFit - Fort Leavenworth, KS

Pose Method: Hill Running, CrossFit Journal - video [wmv] [mov]

"In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes" by Juliet Eilperin - The Washington Post

Post thoughts to comments.

Posted by lauren at November 23, 2009 6:42 AM

classic. :)

Comment #1 - Posted by: AllisonNYC at November 22, 2009 4:45 PM

Crew that taught at Leavenworth were professional, knowledgable and fun. Honestly the most learning I have done in the way of fitness.. well.. ever. Thanks to all! Keep up the great work!

Comment #2 - Posted by: Nick at November 22, 2009 4:50 PM

posting for yesterday 5 rounds + 25 burpees

Comment #3 - Posted by: 11381/29/m/5'7/155 at November 22, 2009 5:04 PM

AWESOME CERT @ CrossFit Atlanta. Thanks to the whole crew for letting us beg, borrow, and rob you blind of all your knowledge.


Comment #4 - Posted by: Phil at November 22, 2009 5:13 PM

Rest day is my least favorite WOD :-{

In Crossfit, I trust.

Thank you, Coach G!

Comment #5 - Posted by: bo_D at November 22, 2009 5:14 PM

post about yesterday - i've got a knee problem at the moment, would it be good to just do the squat & push up part of the burpees? i can do half squats at the moment but i don't want to push it & be out of it completely for another few weeks

Comment #6 - Posted by: Dave at November 22, 2009 5:16 PM

What does anyone have to lose by making cleaner more efficient ways of life? Sure some oil and coal companies will be swallowed and merged into other forms of existence, but really what do "you" (the people that question human’s impact on the environment) have to lose by a more efficient light bulb, or more efficient car, or etc...?

My guess is nothing, though I would like to hear some well thought out response indicating why the idea of global warming is so profoundly nauseating to you.

Comment #7 - Posted by: Walker at November 22, 2009 5:26 PM

Freaking awesome, knowledgeable cert. crew taught us some freaking awesome stuff and it was a blast. Ive been following the hq site for about 16 months and after taking this class, I feel like this is just the beginning of something great.

Thanks guys and HELL YEAH!

Comment #8 - Posted by: Geof T. at November 22, 2009 5:35 PM

great cert at cfx sydney,coaches done a great job and thanks for letting steal all the info out of you all i could

Comment #9 - Posted by: beau at November 22, 2009 5:38 PM

I agree with you on that Geof! The use of the PVC pipe made me work so much on my squats and deads. Thanks Crossfit for changing my life!

Comment #10 - Posted by: Haka Man at November 22, 2009 5:39 PM

Pat, Boz, and Speal ran an absolutely fantastic Level 2 cert. The Level 2 cert was FRICKIN' HARD! Only 3 of 14 passed, but we all learned a ton about seeing and correcting movement. Passing was nice, but what the guys taught us in two days about coaching was AWESOME! The first day of the following Level 1 I could look around and faults where jumping out at me. Spotting a closed hip is harder than you think!

It was a pleasure to host the Level 2 and Level 1 Certification Crews over the last five days. The pull-up bars you see in the background were donated through Operation Phoenix. THANK YOU to everyone that has bought a shirt or made a donation. All of us here at FTLW are extremely thankful for your support.

Special thanks to Coach Glassman, Brian Mulvaney, Jimi Letchford, Tony Blauer, and Kyle Maynard for making the trip for the grand opening and for doing the CF101 on Wednesday. (Thanks to Lisa for setting things up behind the scenes!) It was great and I look forward to working with everyone in the future.

Major Dave Maxwell
Iron Major CrossFit

Comment #11 - Posted by: Maxwell at November 22, 2009 5:46 PM

Jerry #3,

Pretty easy answer there, Brother. The Black Box Summit was not a Crossfit affair. No more or less important, but it was a commercial, for-profit affair run by individuals working at the time for themselves and not specifically for Crossfit.

Sorry, no conspiracy here. Move along...

Comment #12 - Posted by: bingo at November 22, 2009 5:56 PM

Fantastic cert at CrossFit Atlanta. Very professional and well organized. I didn't think I'd get as much out of it as I did. Couldn't have been more wrong. Thanks to the staff and host for a great weekend!

Comment #13 - Posted by: Ryan B at November 22, 2009 5:56 PM

Cert at Crossfit Effects Sydney was way more than I had even hoped for and worth every cent. Clarified all the CF concepts and methodology and taught me a thousand things I thought I already new. The cert staff from both Australia and the US were as good as you can get. Very knowledgable and great teachers. Even the 41 degrees (106F for you Americans) didn't detract from the weekend at all. Strongly recommend any Crossfitters who haven't done a cert to get into it! Best quote of weekend "Hi I'm Todd and I've done curls".

Comment #14 - Posted by: Pagey at November 22, 2009 6:02 PM

#8, Walker, writes,

"What does anyone have to lose by making cleaner more efficient ways of life? Sure some oil and coal companies will be swallowed and merged into other forms of existence, but really what do 'you' (the people that question human’s impact on the environment) have to lose by a more efficient light bulb, or more efficient car, or etc...?"

Are you saying that it doesn't really matter whether global warming predictions are accurate, because the proposed responses are generally good ideas that are relatively costless?

Comment #15 - Posted by: Hari at November 22, 2009 6:07 PM

Well, Walker #8, since you asked...

I have no quarrel with the notion that the Earth may be warming. On balance a portion of the warming trends may actually be anthropogenic. You conflate and confuse "cleaner and efficient" with the real problem inherent in this debate, that of mitigation of anthropogenic GW. Here's the money quote from one of the advocates of AGW:

"It is incontrovertible" that the world is warming as a result of human actions, Trenberth said. "The question to me is what to do."

Think about that for a moment, won't you? Think about what it means to declare CO2 a pollutant. Think about the REGRESSIVE nature of carbon taxes, the ultimate tax on utilization. You simply can't tease out utilization by income or net worth--the poor and destitute pay at the same rate as the wealthy and privileged. Every proposal before the world at this time will measurably reduce economic growth throughout the world, in countries both blessed with bounty and those bereft of same. Simple math, nothing more than simple math.

How about the utilization of scarce resources? You know, like money. I've used this example in the past and it is still apt: how can you apply finite resources to something which is at this time so desperately expensive when children are dying for want of something as essential and simple as potable water? Dying now, for want of clean water in a world awash in Perrier?

Indeed, I find THAT profoundly nauseating.

You know, since you asked...

Comment #16 - Posted by: bingo at November 22, 2009 6:09 PM

The Certification this past weekend at CFX was incredible! I have the utmost appreciation for the work done by the Certification Staff, their world-class knowledge and experience is far beyond anything I could have imagined. The admiration I have for those that I took the course with is equally as high – from the first time CrossFit’er to the experienced, we each managed to take so much from this weekend...not to mention those first time Muscle Ups! The depth of CrossFit continues to amaze me everyday and this weekend was truly inspirational. Thank you so much!

Comment #17 - Posted by: Chris Fenlon-MacDonald at November 22, 2009 6:19 PM

Well said #16 bingo, couldn't have said it better myself. I don't have a problem with individuals driving hybrid cars, using swirley light bulbs or even wiping once to save the trees, or private industry coming up with new ways of producing energy, but what I do have a problem with is the govt. forcing individuals to do these types of things all in the name of global warming when it is really all in the name of the govt. having more control and making more money off of us.

For example the govt. wanted to impose a "methane tax" or a.k.a. "fart tax" on the cattle farmers down in Va., the president of the farm bureau, who is also a cattle farmer, fought the politicians and won, he basically said in so many words that no matter how much you tax them a head of cattle the cattle are still going to fart and burp, it's a fact, and it proves that the govt. is using this to only make money of the hard working people of the US and to have more control over them.

Comment #18 - Posted by: Johnny P at November 22, 2009 6:29 PM

Okay, the jury is still out. BUT saying "lets not" clean up our pollution and destruction of natural resources because it will be more difficult to help the poor is absolutely BS.

VERY FEW people genuinely work hard on a regular basis to help the poor, especially outside of one's own borders. I have much more than I need, and so do MOST western people. I don't want to go live under a rock, but putting in some effort to clean things up and changing how we do simple things like process garbage and overpackage the cheapo crap we buy at the .99 cent store isnt' a big deal.

If anyone has genuinely UNBIASED economic studies on the possible impact of lessening our reliance on fossil fuels, please point them out to me.

This debate has become unacceptably polarized. Either you are an "evil oil soaked right wing monster" because you dispute the "facts". Or you are a "granola birkenstock tree hugging left wing idiot" because you don't think doing anything for a buck is always without consequence.

We need to stop villifying everyone who does not agree, and throw out ALL of the PROVABLY biased studies ON BOTH SIDES. How about some genuine PUBLIC debate?

Comment #19 - Posted by: Need_Sleep at November 22, 2009 6:40 PM

Um...Need_Sleep that purposeless vitriol aimed at my #16? Go read it again. There's nothing there about "lessening our reliance on fossil fuels."

This is a discussion for big boys and big girls, and ad hominem directly or by proxy disqualifies you.

I'll be back tomorrow with some links to the math.

By the way, anyone notice how much more difficult it is to read with those fancy feel-good squiggly lights? My older, vision impaired patients have.


Comment #20 - Posted by: bingo at November 22, 2009 6:53 PM


Actually, I've noticed something else: They aren't even efficient. While promising significantly longer life, I've had half the ones I've bought not last as long as convential bulbs. I've since switched back.

Comment #21 - Posted by: Hari at November 22, 2009 7:03 PM


Channeling Barry much? "This is a discussion for big boys..." Take your own advice, that is childish condescension.

As far as the debate goes, I too do not understand what people feel they will lose by making efforts to reduce their energy consumption, even if the jury is still out on the science. And please don't tell me that it is a way for the government to take away your freedom.

Comment #22 - Posted by: Jeff at November 22, 2009 7:13 PM

Great Cert at Leavenworth. Well run and excellently taught. Thanks for all the pointers on the foundations. I really did enjoy the round robin skills training on the more difficult exercises

Comment #23 - Posted by: Kurt at November 22, 2009 7:15 PM

Xtina - CONGRATS on your cert and your first muscle up!!!! HUGE PROPS!!

Comment #24 - Posted by: Cookie at November 22, 2009 7:20 PM

Yes, SOME of the vitriol was aimed at the last paragraph of your post. Perhaps misdirected in intensity at your direction, I nevertheless stand by the substance of what I wrote- I have heard that arguement before and it makes little sense to me.

The rest of my post did not relate directly to yours.

As for lessening our reliance on fossil fuels, I firmly believe that must be at the very heart of any of this policy, whichever side you are on. Efficiency is only so useful if we are only doing more efficient damage. (I agree it is unproven)

The request about numbers was not a challenge, it is a genuine request for the details of what information everyone else has.

Comment #25 - Posted by: Need_Sleep at November 22, 2009 7:25 PM

Xtina- you are a Beastess! Whoopee on your muscle up! Love you doll :)

Comment #26 - Posted by: Strong Lil Pony! at November 22, 2009 7:33 PM

the debate around economic growth vs conservation of natural resources is misguided in principle, and would not be possible if our economy was backed, as all economies once were, by actual resources instead of speculation in virtual marketplaces.

you cant eat paper money, folks. Wake up and smell the beans, because they really are burning. The entire kitchen is burning. Why do some insist on feeding the flames?

I agree, dont give ANY money to the government, they are puppets for those who print the money. Dont give ANY money to corporations, they are the ones controlling the phony money.

INSTEAD: We create our own money within our LOCAL community, based on RESOURCES WE ACTUALLY HAVE, and will CONTINUE TO HOLD AND PRODUCE (its called sustainability). We spend this money inside our community, organize to trade with other communities for things we cant produce locally but still need. We set up local and regional councils and governance mechanisms to agree on what several, or all communities should invest resources in. Federal government becomes obsolete as it is replaced by truly democratic processes. Corporations break up into their locally relevant sections, bureaucrats become visible and liable to people who work to produce the wealth. The unnecessary and wasteful emissions that are affecting climate patterns today are dramatically reduced as local economies replace the unlimited growth model of capitalism that is currently enslaving us all...

This is PART of the solution. No name calling, no hiding our heads in the sand, no denials.

Comment #27 - Posted by: ian at November 22, 2009 7:33 PM

I see nothing wrong with useful idiots that want to drive hybrid cars because they think it makes them look as if they care about the environment more than the next guy. However, leave the rest of us alone. If there was "honest" debate on the subject, these people whose livelihoods and reputations depend on the propagation of GW being tied somehow to people as the cause would encourage debate and not try to stifle those with a different view. Follow the money trail and you'll find that this whole GW claim is nothing but a farce being perpetrated by those who stand to profit. Why will Algore not debate anybody with opposing facts?

Comment #28 - Posted by: Phil C at November 22, 2009 7:35 PM


As Rx'd...

3 rounds + 25 Burpies
Sqauts at 295 lbs

Been doing Xfit for about 3 weeks now. Tough one today...being heavy has its disadvantages on days like this. Xfit has been doing wonders for my cardio. I've always been a power lifter. Work outs like today are humbling.

Comment #29 - Posted by: Eric in Eugene m/31/6'3"/293 at November 22, 2009 7:45 PM

Finally another big guy. Good job, man.

Comment #30 - Posted by: Johnny P at November 22, 2009 7:52 PM

Great Cert at CFX this weekend. Thanks to everyone for looking out for the pregnant girl. Think I managed to keep it together pretty well given the heat - 2nd hottest November day on record. Can't imagine a better way to spend it than in a big shed with 60 sweating crossfitters!

Thanks to the coaching crew, you guys were awesome, inspiring, motivational...the list goes on and on.

Comment #31 - Posted by: Cartherine Ryan at November 22, 2009 8:06 PM

CrossFit FX Sydney Level 1

What can I say!? Awesome weekend! A great group of people, and the depth of knowledge by all the trainers was incredible! Was great to experience workouts at a box as I train from my garage (with no chin up bar!!!). The advice from Pat Barber helped me get my first kip! And Todd Widman made the muscle up so much easier to grasp.

Thanks to the Aussie trainers aswell.. Matt, Steve, Chris, Zane, Brett, couldn't have asked for a better group! Learned a lot.

Comment #32 - Posted by: Mark Wood at November 22, 2009 8:07 PM

thanks to all the crew at CFX at the weekend, unbelievable amount of information on offer - couldnt have asked for a better bunch of trainers.

Comment #33 - Posted by: jimmymac at November 22, 2009 8:45 PM

"The average young untrained male will have a VO2 max of approximately 3.5 litres/minute and 45 ml/kg/min. The average young untrained female will score a VO2 max of approximately 2.0 litres/minute and 38 ml/kg/min."

VO2max was done using direct gas analysis using the tissot system.

VO2max Aug31: 51 ml/kg/min
Almost regularly doing CF (and some other stuff) after that.
VO2max 22Nov: 64 ml/kg/min

13 ml/kg/min increase! woot!

Comment #34 - Posted by: Jay [22/M/160/5'6"] at November 22, 2009 8:55 PM

A big thanks to all the crossfit staff, coaches and athletes who made my Cert 1 seminar so awesume! And another thanks to CFX Sydney for being such warm and knowledgeable hosts.
I think the crossfit community rocks, and i can't wait to start immplementing my new found techniques in changing peoples lives as well as my own.
I thought the seminar over the two days was well put together, and the science of it all blew my mind!

Comment #35 - Posted by: Steve at November 22, 2009 9:09 PM

Thanks to everyone for a great weekend at CFX. I was really impressed by the level of organisation and first class coaching and had a really fun time!

Comment #36 - Posted by: Elaine at November 22, 2009 9:12 PM

I hate rest days.

Comment #37 - Posted by: Lewis at November 22, 2009 9:16 PM

My first time posting on the main page, but I felt compelled to after this weekend. I completed the Level 1 Certification at Fort Leavenworth. What an amazing experience! I learned so much and this has completely solidified my feelings about CrossFit; All the instructors were fantastic. Miranda, Tyson, Pat, Speal, Matt, Bos, YOu guys ROCK! All of your help, feedback, and encouragement, and enthusiasm made this weekend one of the best ever, and I feel like this is the beginning of taking my CF to a whole new level!
WHat makes CF so special? It's ability to bring people together. EVeryone has a vested interest in each other to be successful. And everyone is truly happy for you when you are successful! CF is also the great equalizer.....Looking at all of our instructors, this is so evident....all different body types and builds and yet they are all successful. What one person is a beast at, another needs work and vice versa.

Cookie & Pony~ Thanks Ladies!!!! Go FRAT!

I hope to see all of you in Aromas, CA 2010!!!!

Comment #38 - Posted by: xtina at November 22, 2009 9:23 PM

CrossFit FX Sydney Level 1

10/10 simple as that!

been into/known about crossfit for a while and was a bit mixed about dropping a grand US to go but i would do it again in a heart beat! it was very well put together and the info in it was pure gold.

if youve had second thoughts like i once did, forget about them, save as long as you need to save, this will be one of the best investments youll make!

Comment #39 - Posted by: Jake at November 22, 2009 9:24 PM

So who else got the CrossFit store newsletter and loves the pictures lol ;] And I cant wait untill my level one when I turn 18.

Comment #40 - Posted by: Jake Trahan at November 22, 2009 9:27 PM

Ian at 26,

Your call for local communities replacing the federal government makes me think of the scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
ARTHUR: [W]ho is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,...
DENNIS: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,...
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: ...but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet! WOMAN: Order, eh? Who does he think he is? Heh.
ARTHUR: I am your king!
While your idea has an appealing quality to it, it would likely lead to little more than local politics of the nastiest and most byzantine variety, offering little to no security against outside forces (as evidenced later in the same Monty Python scene), suffering from huge and possibly crippling transactional costs, and ultimately leading to a reduction in the personal freedoms that have allowed America to take the lead in the world's economic stage.

Comment #41 - Posted by: Nick at November 22, 2009 9:29 PM

POSE method -

Still waiting for the data. Very eager to see it.

Not to be confused with CrossFit Endurance. I believe we HAVE seen the data in support of crossfit endurance. Let's not conflate the two. CrossFit Endurance is about programming, POSE is technique and tactics; very different animals.

Am I missing it? Is the data visible, available?

The videos on POSE so far are vacuous, let's hope this is just some colossal oversight or misrepresentation and there's more substance to it.

Comment #42 - Posted by: Cash Reynolds at November 22, 2009 9:38 PM

Let's say there was an asteroid on an impact course with the earth. The impact would kill all known life. So the world got focused and scrambled a solution. But before we could implement the solution we redid the calculus and lo and behold the asteroid was going to miss. Would all the solution providers breathe a huge sigh of relief and wipe the sweat from there brow. Or would they kick the dirt and wonder if they could hide the results until they managed to implement their solution to see if it would work?

Basically the scientists have gone with option two and believe is is a 'travesty' we have hit a plateau for the last 10 years with
>>>>>>The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Comment #43 - Posted by: jakers at November 22, 2009 9:44 PM

journal teases normally have a bit more substance.

Interested in the pose method though, thanks xfit.

Comment #44 - Posted by: nathan m/30/5'9"/165lbs at November 22, 2009 9:45 PM

In short, a small group of researchers pimping global warming hysteria:
(a) allegedly subverted the peer-review process, suppressing dissenting voices.
(b) allegedly manipulated climate data to make a financial & political case, to enrich their personal bank accounts
(c) allegedly conspired to prevent data from being released as required by the Freedom of Information Acts (FOIA) in the US and UK

The "white-hat" hacker(s) who exposed the emails have created a Global Warming Monica Lewinsky "Blue Dress Moment"

There is a better summary of the controversy here ... ... with links to specific emails so you can draw your own conclusions.

On a related note, there are over 450 'peer-reviewed' scientific journal articles skeptical of "man-made" global warming and its environmental/economic impacts listed here ...

Comment #45 - Posted by: RM3 Frisker FTN at November 22, 2009 10:19 PM

Great cert at CFX in Sydney. Having followed CF for quite a while and being a Journal addict, most key points were hit across the 2 days. Matt Swift asked us all for honest feedback, so here is some.

The crew were absolutely excellent, and I highly recommend anyone to attend a cert early in your CF career. I am having to unlearn some things which after a couple of years of motor recruitment patterns is going to be painful and time consuming! All the trainers were excellent, but Matt Swift excelled. The man is articulate, very smart, exceptionally knowledgeable, charismatic and clearly cares deeply about the people he trains. He is also an accomplished public speaker setting out in advance what he is going to say before he says it. His 15 minute drill progression on the snatch was also remarkable. Todd Whitman was very good, and these two guys were the standouts. Pat Barber is an astonishing athlete and charming 1:1, an excellent coach in small groups, as well as being a superb demonstration girl.

Almost no negatives. There could possibly have been greater clarity and emphasis on the transfer of anaerobic capacity to the aerobic zone, with the reverse being much less so. This is the great win-win with predominantly intense, shorter timeframe training - that you get good at both anaerobic and aerobic - and is mentioned in the course materials but was not highlighted in the lectures, which concentrated on the hopper/broad time and modal domains concept as an end in itself. For a country enamoured with the supremacy of aerobic exercise this is a powerful counter-culture message. To that end there could also have been at least a 2 minute mention of Crossfit Endurance and its successes, again, particularly in light of the background of the many Aussie trainers attending. (Although we did hear about Greg Amundsen's incredible 86 miles on CF training alone). Crossfit football was referenced because questions were asked about rugby training.

All in all an outstanding week-end, and a great venue at CFX.

Comment #46 - Posted by: James Hardy at November 22, 2009 10:53 PM

After attending the CFX Sydney Cert I will never again allow myself to consciously compromise on range of motion. I would feel ashamed of myself. I can think of no greater praise. Thank you everyone involved. Geoff N.

Comment #47 - Posted by: Geoff N at November 22, 2009 11:10 PM

Global warming is coming, but not in the way you might have thought. And all our efforts to prevent it will fail!

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up."
2 Peter 3:10-11

“Nevertheless we (Christians), according to His (Jesus) promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.”
2 Peter 3:13

So should we waist our resources, or pollute the earth? Absolutely not. We are hear to enjoy the earth, and take care of it. You leave a clean camp site when back packing, so those who come after you can enjoy the natural beauty of God's creation, without the added decoration of your trash. :)


Comment #48 - Posted by: Greg/M2 at November 23, 2009 12:03 AM

Quick injury question. Most mornings when i wake up, regardless of how i sleep, my shoulder is very sore and stiff. It also hurts to lift my arm from my side to where it is parallel to the ground, any ideas?

Comment #49 - Posted by: MCAS KUNI at November 23, 2009 1:10 AM

Interesting quote, not my own, but relevant to the discussion here:

"In the not-too-distant past, patriotism was exploited by the government to elicit a desired response from its citizens. Today, it is environmentalism. This has become our de facto state religion. When the government says that we need to do something because it is good for the environment, we are expected to take it on faith. We are not to question the government’s motives or logic for taking away our freedom of choice, but are expected to feel good about forgoing our selfish consumer desires because there is no higher calling in this country than saving the environment."

Comment #50 - Posted by: Paul Szoldra at November 23, 2009 1:37 AM

good article. kind of makes your head hurt trying to wrap your brain around both sides of the argument with each side having valid points. obviously, if there is a dollar to be made, someone is going to try and exploit it. but whether you think global warming is human caused, part of the ever-changing climate cycle, or a combination of both; the fact remains that resources are limited. Companies like Patagonia have developed a great business model for dealing with limited resources and still making a buck. but as long as we are around energy from the sun will be unlimited so lets use whatever tools we have to implement cleaner/renewable energy. whether it is the government imposing legislation, or some guy/girl in their garage developing a cheaper solar panel. if nothing else, so we can enjoy our daily WOD outside in some unpolluted air.

Comment #51 - Posted by: Eric/M/6'2"/210/25 at November 23, 2009 2:12 AM

#17 Johnny P, if you are against government involvement in environmental protection, then you must also be against:
-government subsidies for oil companies
-rules that prevent companies from dumping their waste products in your local water supply
-rules that prevent the factories in your town from producing so much smog it limits your visibility while driving to work.

Comment #52 - Posted by: Latham M/29/182 at November 23, 2009 2:15 AM

I'd like to see more videos demonstrating feats of endurance by Crossfitters. We see a lot of benchmark workout videos (Girls/Heroes), and many pure strength or power videos. The 0.1 to 10 minute time domain is overrepresented in my opinion. Let's see some Crossfitter marathons, triathalons, ultramarathons!

But no, I'm not volunteering to go out and run one myself. :)

Comment #53 - Posted by: Latham M/29/184 at November 23, 2009 2:19 AM

CFX level 1 certification,

Thanks coaches and the awesome crossfitters for the weekend in Sydney! It's expecting that flying miles across from Singapore will be a fruitful and rewarding experience! Thanks Pat for the personal coaching on the Muscle Ups! Thanks to all the coaches for letting us rob you of your instructional ques, especially Matt and Todd! Coaching Snatch moves never been easier!
Keep Crossfit rocking! Looking forward to level 2!

Comment #54 - Posted by: Samuel L. at November 23, 2009 2:27 AM

Ft.Leavenworth Level 1

Great cert. Awesome coaches. Good time. Loved the lectures. Thanks coaches!

Comment #55 - Posted by: Amanda at November 23, 2009 3:56 AM

Ft. Leavenworth Level 1

After 19 years in the military, the level 1 certification was some of the best instruction I have had the pleasure of participating. The trainers, Miranda, Tyson, Pat, Speal, Matt, Bos, were awesome. Not only did each trainer break down things for beginners, they practice what they preach and were able to provide first hand examples of how things apply specifically. The mix of lecture and hands on experience provided a great opportunity to touch each concept. Lastly, the treats were an awesome exposure for beginners and a little gut check for those that have been xfitting for a while. For anyone doubting the knowledge provided in a level 1 cert, it re-enforced my existing knowledge and demonstrated I have only begin to fully understand fitness. Thanks again for an awesome experience. And yes, after 19 months, I finally got my first muscle up.

Comment #56 - Posted by: Toby at November 23, 2009 4:43 AM

did yesterday's
reached my goal of 5 rounds but had to scale to 135lb squats. It also came at a price. IT actually hurt to walk DOWN a flight of stairs. work is going to be tough today.
great workout thats a hell of a fat burner.

Comment #57 - Posted by: Zach m/24/ 5'9'/ 175lbs at November 23, 2009 5:27 AM

And now, back to your regularly scheduled fitness-related information:

Comment #58 - Posted by: Daner at November 23, 2009 5:46 AM

Chuck, Jon, Justin, Jmac, Mike G, Jenni, Joe, Tonya: you all ran a fantastic level 1 here in the ATL. Thank you for your professionalism, your enthusiasm, your humor, your intensity, and your ability to connect with each of us at some point to make us better at what we strive to do. Deer jerky for all!

Comment #59 - Posted by: BTB Jules at November 23, 2009 5:59 AM

Ft. Leavenworth Level 1 cert.

What an amazing humbling weekend. I am honored to be certified now. Big thanks to the instructors. They are top notch. I look forward to practicing everything I leaned this week.

Comment #60 - Posted by: Doug at November 23, 2009 6:12 AM

Amazing Cert in Atlanta this weekend. Trainers are full of knowledge and humor. I feel like a better Crossfitter and am ready to train. Looking forward to a thousand hip openings, more treats and a big H*** Yeah!!!
Thanks again!!

Comment #61 - Posted by: justaman - liberty sc at November 23, 2009 6:23 AM

Climate change debate,

Well, I don't know how this topic showed up on the crossfit board, but being myself a scientist working on climate change impacts, I feel compelled to react.

I won't state on the debate, everyone can built his/her own opinion by doing an IMPARTIAL review of all the scientific information. But it needs to be done with care. You just cannot decide what is true or false because a certain number of supposedly competent people said so. You need to check the logics that led to the conclusions. Who the authors come from, what is their expertise, and who paid for the research should always be taken into account as well.

Although I'm not exactly a climate scientist (my expertise is ecosystem functioning), I nonetheless feel pointed at when people express their criticism about GW scientists.

So, am I part of "a small group of researchers pimping global warming hysteria"?
Certainly not, hysteria is the last thing we need.

Did I "allegedly subverted the peer-review process, suppressing dissenting voices."?
That would go way over my ethics. And I personally have no power to do so.

Did I "allegedly manipulated climate data to make a financial & political case, to enrich my personal bank account?"
I would gain nothing at all by doing such a thing. My salary is fixed. If climate change did not exist, I would be happier. And there would still be so many other environmental problems to solve that I'd be busy for several lifetimes.

Somewhere the truth exists and it is part of my job to find it, not to hide it. I have no interest in looking for something else. I could say the same about thousands of colleagues worldwide.

How about everyone doing a little bit to help the environment? Well, cycling to work can only make you fitter, isn't it? Ah, and we are back to sports again!

Have a good day,

Comment #62 - Posted by: Guillaume at November 23, 2009 6:28 AM

BTB Jules...Awesome weekend, and nothing could have capped it off better than a satisfying flight home with a belly full of deer jerky! Thanks!!!

Comment #63 - Posted by: JB - CrossFit SS at November 23, 2009 6:49 AM

The e-mails alone show:

1. Conspiracy to prevent publication of critical articles in peer reviewed journals, and to persecute scientists and journal editors who write and publish critical articles.
2. Destruction of evidence subject to pending FOIA request;
3. Obstruction and evasion of FOIA requests;
4. Manipulation of IPCC AR4 to exclude critical papers and include supportive papers;
5. Manipulation of data to "hide the decline" - a complicated topic but they are truly hosed on this one;
6. Frank private acknowledgment that the climate models do not correspond to reality, particularly the lack of warming in the last 11 years, resulting in distrust of the data - not the models -;
7. Recruitment and management of supportive journalists including at the New York Times and the BBC.

Even more devastating is a file by a programmer called Harry-Read_Me.txt, which is being mined for nuggets. See


If you are a programmer by trade, you are likely to find the analysis of this file rather compelling.

What emerges is the picture of a programmer going back and trying desperately and unsuccessfully to fix what amounts to a total cluster of bad data, data manipulation, data fabrication, horrible programming practices, and irreproducible results.

For example:


printf,1,’Osborn et al. (2004) gridded reconstruction of warm-season’
printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).’

No wonder they hid their data and their code for lo these many years.

And it is on the strength of this miserable pile of garbage and lies that they want to fundamentally remake industrial civilization.

These guys are toast, AGW is toast, Copenhagen is toast, Cap and Trade is Toast.

AGW is the greatest fraud in the history of science, and it has been blown wide, wide open.

Trees are especially grateful - they love CO2!

Comment #64 - Posted by: Harry MacD at November 23, 2009 6:54 AM

Thanks to all of the instructors at the Atlanta cert for an amazing weekend. As someone who has been CrossFitting for less than 6 months, I couldn't have asked for a better combination of lectures, skill work, and "treats." Thanks to the instructors and the athletes for your enthusiasm, feedback, yelling and cheering. I'm proud to be part of such an awesome community. Hell yeah!

Comment #65 - Posted by: Tamara at November 23, 2009 7:16 AM

For me, the jury is no longer out on the question of global warming. It's warming. In fact, the globe does this in cycles; it warms, then cools, then warms again.

The question is whether this particular warming cycle is partially man-made (anthropogenic)? I think it probably is, but I'll concede that intelligent people can disagree on this question.

As a utilitarian, I have to ask: what are the costs and benefits of addressing this current cycle of warming, or conversely, of ignoring it?

It's not about hysterics--one way or the other--but about a rational discussion of the possibilities (danger to low lying coastal cities on the one hand, or misappropriation of precious resources on the other).

With that in mind, I tend to favor plucking the low hanging fruit among the options for reducing global warming gases. An example is transitioning from coal and oil to natural gas. For the same amount of energy produced, natural gas emits much less carbon into the atmosphere. And the kicker is, the US is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas--which means that it is cheap and it reduces our reliance on foreign sources of energy. The best part is, we already have all the technology we need to make it work.

Comment #66 - Posted by: ryan 6'/32/184 at November 23, 2009 7:34 AM

The level 1 cert in Atlanta this week was awesome. Very knowledgeable staff. Very informative. I would recommend going to a cert if you really want to take your CrossFitting seriously.

Comment #67 - Posted by: Mason at November 23, 2009 7:38 AM

Finally caught up.
Sunday's WOD.
25 burpees
bw Squats 15 reps.

4 rounds 20 min.

Burpees brutal as always, broken 9-8-8.
Squats were slow to maintain form and depth, broken into 9-6 on 3 rds then 5-5-5 on 4th.
Legs on fire.

Laura f/47/5'7/150

Comment #68 - Posted by: Power-girl at November 23, 2009 8:14 AM

National Security Leaks vs Global Warming Leaks

Some are now pointing out the hypocrisy of the 'mainstream media' over their handling of these damning Global Warming emails.

NATIONAL SECURITY LEAKS: New York Times is perfectly OK publicizing National Security documents 'leaked' by disgruntled left-wing, naive State Dept unicorn & rainbow types. A few dead US Military never upset the New York Times.

GLOBAL WARMING LEAKS: New York Times won't publish climate emails 'leaked' by a "white hat" hacker?

More on this logic conundrum here ...

Comment #69 - Posted by: RM3 Frisker FTN at November 23, 2009 8:21 AM

make up day

deadlift 1-1-1-1-1-1-1


Comment #70 - Posted by: adam (m/23/5'9"/165) at November 23, 2009 8:29 AM


See quote below.

“From a chemist's point of view, it's almost a shame to use so much of a unique and valuable compound to make electricity - which can be made in so many ways. Someone once said that using natural gas to make base-load electricity is like using good Scotch to wash the dishes.”
--Samuel Bodman, U.S. Energy Secretary, 2005

The fact is there are an enormous amount of gas plants in the U.S., partially due to the fact that wind and solar energies are being pushed more and more. Gas plants are required to compensate for lost production when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. I agree that everyone must play there role in being more efficient, but there is more to the equation than turning the lights off when you leave the house. The goods consumed, especially cheaply made "throw away goods" are a huge waste of energy and resources. Look at product life cycles, and one of the best ways to be environmentally friendly is to purchase products that can last a long time. One must look at the energy required to mine the materials, the energy that is put into manufacturing, the energy that is put into packaging and transportation, etc. And the second part to this story is that yes, we still need a lot of energy to continue our way of life, and therefore, we need to force our politicians into embracing nuclear energy, and making it more cost effective. We must have a variety of energy sources, but to move forward we need affordable nuclear energy.

Comment #71 - Posted by: DenverDanimal at November 23, 2009 8:49 AM

I always like how those "pro-AGW" say they gain nothing with its support. This article obviously shows otherwise, "tow the line or get the ax". You disagree with the higher ups and next thing you know grants vanish, opportunities disappear.

Mars is following the same warming and cooling trends, when you calibrate for distance from the Sun and differences in atmospheric make up. So warming, cooling, or staying the same it isn’t us.

I’m all for environmental conservation but let’s base it on facts and science not make-believe and fear mongering.

Comment #72 - Posted by: penty at November 23, 2009 8:56 AM

Level 1 Cert in Leavenworth was informative, humbling, and entertaining. After CFing for 2.5 years now, 2 years solo, and 6mo+ in at CF NWA, I thought I was pretty well rounded as an athlete and Crossfitter. I understood that there are always improvements to be made, but this course made the concept more of a reality to me. My form was good, but far from great.

My only complaint from my experience this weekend was that the class was too big and I felt "rushed" through the second day. We spend a lot of money and sacrificed an entire weekend to come to these certs. I know that there is a lot of info to put out over the weekend, but if there are too many people, I think the majority will not take away from the cert as much as they should nor as much as they might have expected to.

Aside from that, it was a great experience. I learned why Crossfit works (although I already believed it from experience)and I am able to take what I learned and break it down for others so that they may also experience the benefits of Crossfit: true fitness and health.

Comment #73 - Posted by: arkrojas at November 23, 2009 8:57 AM

Off topic I know, but is Miko Salo the absolute best example of a crossfitter or WHAT? that guy represents everything I like so much about crossfit.....he is grounded in reality, smart, ready, alert, and gorgeous to boot. I am so psyched he is our representative as the ultimate and best that we are striving for. There are more of you perfect specimens out there too which is great! But Miko has something special....I hope he defends his title next year.

Comment #74 - Posted by: julie parisien 5'8"/163/38 at November 23, 2009 9:04 AM

well i guess my first one didnt post. i want to say thanks to iron major crossfit for hosting pat, speal, and boz and the rest of the crew for an amazing cert. i feel like a much better crossfit athlete and definitley ready to go out and teach these movements at a whole other level.

wanted to ask major dave maxwell some tips on getting a gym started on base as a non profit affiliate. im a SSG stationed here at ft riley and need a little help as to where to get started if its at the MWR or where. any help you can afford would be greatly appreciated sir.

Comment #75 - Posted by: Kevin Sipes at November 23, 2009 9:04 AM

Re: the Climate Article.

I'm not interested in arguing one side or the other. I would like to mention that the exchanges noted in this article are really pretty unremarkable. Incredibly tame compared to many other scientific debates (past and present). Academic science is notoriously political and the exchanges between the big names often get very personal and outright rude.

Comment #76 - Posted by: jtracy0211 at November 23, 2009 9:11 AM

"though I would like to hear some well thought out response indicating why the idea of global warming is so profoundly nauseating to you"

The idea is not nauseating. What is sickening is that people who are supposedly scientists, and should therefore be searching for truth, instead prefer to defend their theories as untouchable dogma. It's sickening that they use political pressure and not facts to defend their own ideas. No scientist should be scared of new ideas and better theories. Ansel Keys did the same thing with his theories about heart disease, and look where that got us. Other ideas have been dogmatically defended throughout history... great minds have been osctricised, silenced, or even snuffed out because their ideas opposed what was accepted and "incontrovertable". If the evidence for the causal link between human action and climate change were incontrovertable, there wouldn't be back channel conversations about suppression of ideas and information.

Someone is afraid of losing grant money. Good rest day article.

Comment #77 - Posted by: ether at November 23, 2009 9:15 AM

I'm not a scientist. I have tried to look into global warming. The balance of stuff I've personally found convincing, leads me to believe it's real.

Even without it, it makes me very angry and sad that we treat this small planet like a personal play thing. We strip forests, deplete fish stocks, drive species to extinction - we're taking a leak in our own corn flakes. It's both stupid and dangerous. Future generations will judge us very harshly for our actions - and rightly so.

To talk about the need to spend money now on clean drinking water for kids, as some sort of credible reason to do nothing to stop global warming, is spurious. Should we give to a cancer research charity in the first world, where it might save lives, where we know that same money would definitely save lives in the third world? I don't think it's an either or question. It's like asking a crossfitter whether you should go heavy or fast: answer is 'yes'.

The potential human cost of not acting now is catastrophic for large numbers of our human population. So think carefully about how much scientific certainty you'll demand, before acting. Time would not seem to be a luxury we have.

Comment #78 - Posted by: J1 at November 23, 2009 9:43 AM

This article is news? That a couple of scientists are trying to pressure a journal not to publish articles by somebody else? Evidently the Washington Post is completely unfamiliar with what goes on behind the scenes in science. So some scientists are fed up with crap being published, and tried to do something about it. Bid Fing deal. This happens all the time.

And just what the F does this have to do with the FOIA? FOIA does NOT require researchers to publish their data in peer-reviewed journals, ethics and tenure committees take care of that.

When lay people react to this "news" by saying it's evidence that scientists are terrified of opposing points of view, conspiring to carry out some fraud on the public, enriching themselves through political maneuvering, or whatever, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife. Scientists as a whole are the only group that I can think of who regularly, routinely, constantly debate and argue their findings with one another, and entertain opposing viewpoints. And we do it all for a very modest income. It's a part of our training and part of our way of life. You put some idea out there, you expect it to be attacked. Knowledge grows as a result. This has been going on as long as there has been science. I would agree with Carl Sagan, when he said that scientific progress is actually dependent on this--on exposing ideas to others so that they are tested by fire. Bad ideas are eventually discarded, not because they have a natural lifespan, but because enough people show them to be bad. And that takes work, hard work, and funding. Good ideas stick around because people see they are good despite efforts to knock them down.

Opponents of global warming are clearly terrified of the data showing GW is happening, and the data suggesting an anthropogenic contribution. They would love to shut the scientists up. And they think scientists are the ones trying to shut up the opposition?

It is amazing how science can draw the barbarians out of the woods. But that, too, has been going on for centuries.

Meanwhile, we have all kinds of crazy horse poop that people are buying right and left. If you have a stupid idea and can market it, you can get rich, or at least go on Coast to Coast. There are people who believe that an entire Circuit City just appeared within 15 minutes because of a, a, what was it? "Time shift". And the government is conspiring to cover this up. Not to mention alien abductions, crystals with healing power, pills that will make your johnson grow long, Big Foot, the world was created in 7 days, etc. And you people think scientists are the crazy ones? Stop and consider all the things science has brought you. The computer you're reading right now, for one. And I'd bet real money that some researcher somewhere at some point in time called the editor of "Current Research in Transistors" and begged him not to publish somebody else's research on silicon chips. Big F deal.

Comment #79 - Posted by: Steve Cole at November 23, 2009 10:04 AM


I had a nuclear stress test today to examine my heart at the Prairie Heart Institute.

Resting heart rate was 48 and blood pressure 110/60.

They said that I may have set a new record on the treadmill test. ;-)



Comment #80 - Posted by: Kevin Rogers (Springfield, IL) at November 23, 2009 10:12 AM


I believe most people have the same beliefs in regard to being a environmental conservative. So please inform us what you as an individual are doing that will help.

Comment #81 - Posted by: tracy at November 23, 2009 10:27 AM

Bingo’s argument (#15), as is often the case, is most compelling. My paraphrase: given the uncertainty in both climate change mechanisms and outcomes, the idea of sacrificing a great deal of global wealth for any immediate radical action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions does not make sense, especially when the alternatives are either using that wealth to solve other urgent but less uncertain and more immediate problems; or simply not sacrificing that wealth in the first place, so that we can use the capital to generate even more wealth, presumably so we can solve more problems.

I think the flawed premise in this argument is that having more "wealth" will allow humans to avoid problems of environmental degradation. In my opinion, the two are mutually incompatible, and the survival of our species depends urgently on solving the environmental problem (of which AGW is only one facet). The unsustainable nature of the human culture should be our top priority, not generating or maintaining global wealth.

Why? Because when it comes to survival of the species, the needs of the polar bear and the human vary only in degree, not kind. Getting potable water to those who have no access is a pointless activity when we’re facing a collapse of the global ecosystem.

Comment #82 - Posted by: Reto at November 23, 2009 10:32 AM

Stopping in for a drive-by visit. Busy at work; will make good on promise of links later.

J1 #77,

Spurious? As in made-up or pretend? Or as in a mathematical relationship the may or may not be real absent some third factor?

No matter. Your statement demonstrates either a poorly developed understanding of the economic term "utility", or a willful disregard for the same. In a system of finite resources, or in a system with resources that expand at a measureable or predictable rate, one must examine the UTILITY of directing those resources toward the solution of a known problem in existence now, or toward a problem of unkown severity that may occur with some unknown probability.

An example, nothing more: We KNOW right now that there are literally millions of human beings on the planet that suffer for the lack of potable water. We know this with a certainty of 1.0. We also know from extrapolating the experience of developed countries that do not want for potable water that providing such will have a measureable benefit for these human beings with a certainty of .99. We are certain of the UTILITY of devoting these resources in such a manner.

As far as Global Climate Change goes I am willing to agree that it is occurring for the sake of this discussion. I am even willing to agree that some portion is attributable to human activity. What percentage of GCC is AGW? With what degree of certainty can you make that statement? What is the liklihood that GCC/AGW will result in a catastrophic change in human life in X years (the authors of "Freakonomics" place it at 5%, or .05)? With what certainty can you make that assumption? How much of a finite resource will it take if applied NOW to affect a reversal of this catastrophe, and with what degree of certainty can you say that this is so? In other words, what is the UTILITY of devoting finite resources TODAY toward the mitigation of an uncertain outcome with an uncertain liklihood years hence? Even if we do not take into account such negative externalities as decreased economic growth throughout the world.

Spurious? Nah. Math.

Comment #83 - Posted by: bingo at November 23, 2009 10:36 AM

Response to J1 held in the filter...

Comment #84 - Posted by: bingo at November 23, 2009 10:37 AM

substitute for yesterday: (missed workout again)

25x Burpees
15x Thrusters (95lbs)

AMRAP 20 minutes...

made 3 complete rounds in 17:30 then threw up ... I should not have ate lunch prior!

Comment #85 - Posted by: nate/26/185/6'/m at November 23, 2009 10:40 AM

Ah Reto, almost! What is the liklihood that we are facing the collapse of the global ecosystem? Indeed, increased CO2 leads to increased crop yields. Didn't we just read this weekend of an increase in the % of Americans who go hungry? Or about the purchases of land in 3rd world countries by wealthy countries in order to secure a source of food? Is it possible that some Global Warming might be positive, that AGW might have POSITIVE externalities?

Stick to your guns! Paragraph 1 in post #81 is spot on.

Comment #86 - Posted by: bingo at November 23, 2009 10:41 AM


What do you mean when you say the "balance of stuff"? Are you saying you have found more media resources in favor of GW than oppose, so therefore you conclude it is correct, or are you saying that you have analyzed the arguments for each and have drawn stated conclusion? I have not seen conclusive evidence of man made GW, so if we have GW and it is part of a natural cycle, do we also try and stop it? The problem here is that humans get into an unwinable game in trying to "fix" nature. Many times over we have tried to "correct" nature, only to have more dire unseen effects down the road. That does not mean we do nothing, on the contrary, it means we make calculated, thought through decisions.

As far as forest stripping, forests in North America have stabilized or increased recently (in the past century). This is because the U.S. and other advanced countries have observed the need to be sustainable. "Smart" foresting techniques are required, and industry has responded by creating and utilizing things like OSB for building material so that smaller farmed trees can be used. As far as the extinction argument, 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, and I don't think that humans can be blamed for but a small fraction of a percent of that value, if at all. It is natural.

The problem is countries such as India and China, as well as those countries making up Africa and South America where they are unwilling to responsibly take care of our planet. But they are not to blame, just as the drug dealer is not to blame for one's addiction. No, the U.S. citizens that support this sort of practice by purchasing cheaply made goods at a discount are to blame. Require that your seafood is caught legally to ensure sustainability.

I think most everyone can take a minute to let that resonate with them.

Comment #87 - Posted by: DenverDanimal at November 23, 2009 10:44 AM

Had an awesome time this weekend at Ft. Leavenworth Crossfit Cert! Enjoyed every minute of it and can't wait to train on my own soon! Also enjoyed getting my first muscle up! Learned a ton and would do it again!

Comment #88 - Posted by: Shely at November 23, 2009 10:45 AM

Atlanta Cert
The L1 certification class in Atlanta this weekend was absolutely amazing. I was thoroughly impressed with how incredibly intelligent, professional, knowledgeable, friendly, and down-to-earth all of the instructors were.

The structure of the cert and all of the content presented in each session were excellent. I was disappointed to see the weekend come to an end. I wanted MORE!

I'd not only recommend this cert to all Crossfitters (whether you want to be a trainer or not), but to anyone interested in learning more about health and fitness. Thanks to the entire Atlanta cert team for an incredible weekend!

Comment #89 - Posted by: Karen C. at November 23, 2009 11:02 AM


Wealth is what solves probelms. Innovation happenes very slowly when everyone is busy surviving day to day. What third world countries are "cutting edge"? It's not "just barely braking even" companies that are the forefront. No, it's the ones with money to spend on R&D, which also is the first thing cut what a company hits hard times.. read lack of wealth.

Further if "wealth" didn't solve problems what is the point of taxes? Or more specifically a carbon cap tax which will be funneled into "curing AGW"? Isn't it wealth which will employ the scientist and researchers to make the world not go down this suposed GW path?

In most cases “waste” costs money, a form of wealth. Companies dislike waste because of this and become more efficient so their profit margin become larger than others in the field. Of course over time others in the same field adopt similar practices reduce this one-time advantage to simply “required to compete”, and the wealth/conservation cycle continues with ever more efficiencies.

Example: A recent DoI report was released showing that the US is using less water than it did in 2000 and down 30% from its peaks in 1975 and 1980. Why? Better more efficient irrigation systems and the shift away from once-through cooling technology in electricity generating plants which together still take up 81% of the total current US usage.

Comment #90 - Posted by: penty at November 23, 2009 11:06 AM

I didn't think one little post would incite such a response. The question that all of you dodged was "what do YOU have to lose cleaning up the earth?"

That being said I understand the debate, I understand the article represents scientist hiding evidence. I know the problem with that. But just a short few months ago all you people that are for open ideas were screaming your heads off when Obama was releasing CIA documents on whether or not terrorists were out there.

Now don't even go there saying it's entirely different, because it is. BUT, you can't scream foul when something people want to see isn't what you want to see and what you want to see is hidden.

So just to make sure we’re on the same page… I’m not questioning the unethical actions of those particular scientists. The question is: what does anyone have to lose by using cleaner (which could be termed more efficient, bingo) ways of life?

Comment #91 - Posted by: Walker at November 23, 2009 11:17 AM

Walker #89,

"The question is: what does anyone have to lose by using cleaner (which could be termed more efficient, bingo) ways of life?"

In general there is very little to lose, so I agree. But, as I said above and have said numerous times, There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. There are externalities, unforseen consequences to pretty much every act. Were you aware that the climate concern in the 60's and the 70's was global COOLING? And that the cause was industrial effluent? Isn't it fascinating that one of the negative consequences of the fact that the production of air pollution has decrease by, what, 90+% is that cleaner air is now contributing to global WARMING?

I am an eye surgeon. As such I interact each day with literally dozens of elderly Americans. The quality of artificial light at their disposal impacts the ease with which they read. Flourescent light, the light that comes from those "better for the environment" squiggly bulbs is of very poor quality WRT illumination of reading material and the aging eye (has to do with wavelength mix/prevalence). How do you think my patients feel about being scolded for scarring the environment when they stock up on GE "Softwhite" bulbs?

TANSTAAFL, again and again and again.

...hope my response to J1 gets out soon...

Comment #92 - Posted by: bingo at November 23, 2009 11:26 AM

Another one in the filter...I'm getting a complex...


Comment #93 - Posted by: bingo at November 23, 2009 11:26 AM

On Level 1 cert>

- Because of the proliferation of CF Level 1 certified trainers and the quality of the CFJ the only novel experience of the CF Level 1 cert was exposure to the trainers. They were an example of what right looks like. All else (lectures, skill work) was nothing new, just reiteration. I don't think this an individual opinion as most of the attendees, from the affiliate (Iron Major) and others were already well indoctrinated and possessed reasonable mechanics and consistency.

- Therefore, should the purpose of Level 1 certification be questioned?

- Possibly, the CF Level 1 cert should focus more on what it does best, i.e., train athletes to train athletes. This would not be intended to turn it into a Level 2 cert, but would expand the training competence across the field beyond the few who attend Level 2 certs. This would require the affiliates or individual athletes to accomplish the purpose of the current CF Level 1 out in the trenches of the nationwide affiliates. Logically, attendance at the functional certifications, e.g., kettle bell, barbell, nutrition, might precede a new Level 1 cert with a training focus....

...with a potential lack of delivery of the current CF Level 1 cert over time, this is worth considering.

Teddy K

Also, page 66 of the student manual has a picture of a zone diet meal. This meal looks disgusting (fish plated scale side up??), consider revision.

Comment #94 - Posted by: Teddy K at November 23, 2009 11:28 AM


I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the idea of taking care of the environment. The point is that one must analyze to determine which steps are necessary and worth while.

For instance, creating cap and trade in the name of helping the environment would significantly hurt our country without the proposed benefits.

Comment #95 - Posted by: DenverDanimal at November 23, 2009 11:42 AM

Hey all, I am new to CrossFit at yesterdays workout was rough. Today I couldn't stand still so I jumped on the row machine for a rather steady 2000m row. I really don't follow the calories on there I go for endurance.

I am really looking to talk to people on this site - get insight motivation and what have you. Email me

Comment #96 - Posted by: Adam at November 23, 2009 12:01 PM

Ah Jennifer M...deigned, eh? Have I sounded condescending rather than informative or even argumentative? This topic interests me, though what interests me is somewhat different than what appears to interest others. I usually refrain (rather than deign) to engage on Rest Day since I usually have insufficient knowledge or interest in the topic hoisted by Coach and Lauren. Is my interest, expressed by my multiple posts, de facto evidence of the magnitude of my ego? My sense in the 4 years during which I have visited here is that it is considered a courtesy to let another poster know that one is not ignoring their post/response, but that rather the response has run afoul of the filter.

Or did you simply miss my little emoticon?

Comment #97 - Posted by: bingo at November 23, 2009 12:11 PM

Comment #88 penty and Comment #84 bingo

Wealth solves some problems, not all. I’m arguing that generating wealth actually creates some problems that it can’t solve. The primary problem is the negative externality of a degraded environment. Yes waste costs money, and efficient systems will strive to minimize waste, but in this case there is a breakdown because there is little or no cost to the system that is generating the wealth, the costs are external.

Bingo, I realize that my prediction of ecosystem collapse may seem a bit radical, and that the probability in your eyes is small. I see a global economy that depends on exponential growth, and a world and its resources that are finite. This is a massive contradiction. Also complex, chaotic systems like climate and ecosystems can behave in a very non-linear fashion when perturbed, making the probability of severe and unpredictable outcomes much more likely. There is nothing positive or normal about the rate at which we are losing habitat and species, to presume so requires glasses of an extremely rosy tint, optometry aside.

Comment #98 - Posted by: Reto at November 23, 2009 1:03 PM

hey i've been searching the forums for a while and just cant find that thread that has all of those heavy metcons for the hybrid program. can anyone send me the link? thanks in advance!

Comment #99 - Posted by: collin jesse @ Oregon State at November 23, 2009 1:03 PM

Bingo @ #19 wrote:

"This is a discussion for big boys and big girls, and ad hominem directly or by proxy disqualifies you. "

Really? So anyone that EVER used an ad hominem attack is dismissed from rest day discussions? How exclusionary! Glass houses Mr. White, glass houses.

What happened to being able to scale WODs - can't we scale rest day for all comers as well? Isn't that what cf is all about?

Comment #100 - Posted by: Tony B. at November 23, 2009 1:12 PM

I feel like most aurguements that deny global climate change's exsistance are biased by convenience. Its easier to say "nothing is really happening" and do nothing, than to admit a problem and do something about it...

When the truth is bad news, people deny it, its just human nature, the first stage of grief is denial after all.

Comment #101 - Posted by: ksyco m/20/5'11"/195 at November 23, 2009 1:33 PM


4 rounds + 20 burpees

Back squats at 135#

Comment #102 - Posted by: Brian at November 23, 2009 1:36 PM

#89, Walker, writes,

"The question is: what does anyone have to lose by using cleaner (which could be termed more efficient, bingo) ways of life?"

Yes, cleaner could be "termed" "more efficient" but efficiency is a relative term. What type of efficiency are we talking about?

If for example, a hybrid car costs twice as much as a regular car but emits half the CO2, then is it more efficient or less? That depends. If your goal is to reduce CO2, without regard for either the cost per mile or the net benefit of reducing CO2, then yes, it is more efficient. If however, reducing CO2 has no discernable effect on the planet, then hybrids are incredibly inefficient. They are simply spending money for the sake of feeling good, based on phony science.

Thus in this context, any reasonable discussion of efficiency depends on (1) the extent to which our way of life is (or is not) contributing to harming the planet; and (2) the costs of pursuing alternate ways of living.

It is the idea of simply declaring a goal desirable without an honest evaluation of either the benefit of pursuing the goal (reducing CO2 emiissions) or the cost of pursuing the goal is painful to those of us who take a more analytic and less emotional view of these matters.

Comment #103 - Posted by: Hari at November 23, 2009 1:47 PM

Whenever I see people in some form of power refuse to debate and enthusiatically sell their idea or solutions based on facts and data, with the willingness and eagerness to take on all comers and debate the data and facts... I run hard and fast from them.

Global warming is one such case. Those who promote this notion do so with propaganda, for example E-gores propaganda film "an inconvienent truth"

If you can't sit at the table of ideas, and without lies, deception, and misinformation and honestly promote your idea, then you know in your heart of hearts, you cannot, and it becomes more and more appearant that you have an agenda that is the real issue, one that you dare not disclose.

Healthcare is the same thing. "Pass this bill without reading it, knowing what's in it, or knowing what it costs.....

Gun control,same thing. Imagine if you saw a sign that read as follows at your childs school:

"This School employs the use of deadly force to protect is students and faculty"


"Gun free Zone"

Which do you chose?

I wish the gun control nuts would put a sign up in thier homes windows indicating thier residence is a gun free zone. Criminals would surely be detered.

Most of us see whats going on... Unfortunately, so many lack a belief system such that they fall for this crap with ease. The smart guys propagating this stuff know it and they are using you as tools for their hidden agenda.

Comment #104 - Posted by: yorticus at November 23, 2009 1:57 PM

I am tickled pink about the e-mail hack that led to this treasure trove of detailed info implicating the whole darn group of chicken little's in the biggest scam ever. I have long been a heretic of the church of environmentalism and this is good news to me indeed! The excuse making to date is pathetic at best.

On another front the steady drip, drip, drip of bad news for ACORN (how bout latest news of the 20K worth of docs retrieved from a dumpster outside of their San Diego office!) is also cheering me up. Would love to see a rest day discussion with folks defending that worthless organization. Yee hah!

Bingo, way to go. You get 'em cowboy!

Comment #105 - Posted by: schmidty at November 23, 2009 2:02 PM

Comment #98 Tony B,

Are you saying that my statement in #19 is, in itself, ad hominem? If so I must respectfully disagree. Snarky, perhaps...maybe even more than a little thin-skinned, but hardly ad hominem.

I would not read my statement about this particular discussion as having anything to do with any other discussion than today's. Otherwise we could pretty much enjoy watching newcomers converse until they, like I and pretty much all of us here, eventually insult someone. For I have most certainly done so in the past on Rest Day and others.

Just not today. At least not yet...

Comment #106 - Posted by: bingo at November 23, 2009 2:08 PM

@#51 Latham
I find it laughable when one assumes, if a person disagrees with the way our government has handled the global warming/climate change issue that they believe the earth should be destroyed by pollutants. It's a ridiculous assumption to think that. I happen to be an avid mountain biker, hiker and hunter and strongly believe in conservation, which means conserving the enviroment for us and future generations to use. Global warming/climate change and conservation are two totally different issues and should not be confusingly associate with one another. Have a great rest day.

Comment #107 - Posted by: Johnny P at November 23, 2009 2:10 PM

Comment #97 - Posted by: collin jesse @ Oregon State wrote:
hey i've been searching the forums for a while and just cant find that thread that has all of those heavy metcons for the hybrid program. can anyone send me the link? thanks in advance!

Might you be thinking of ??

Dave T.

Comment #108 - Posted by: Dave T. at November 23, 2009 2:14 PM

Hari #101,

just for simplicity's sake I will continue off your example of a hybrid car. Yes they cost more than a standard automobile, yes they do reduce emissions, yes they do produce more pollutants in the form of batteries and wire, yes they don't last as long as a standard car and and and...

But, you are not forced to buy one. If the cost of your automobile were really that significant you would be riding the bus or driving a 1990 geo metro that gets 45mpg or a Kia. But, a guess, you aren't. The government isn't forcing anyone but itself to change light bulbs, sure they came out with new rules on mpg but they only apply to certain types of certain types of autos. If you want to drive that big F350 then you still have that choice to pay out the nose for fuel. And before you personally attack me I drive a 1988 Suzuki Samurai I get 18-19mpg, I figured that the money I will spend on gas over the next 5 years was far less than upgrading to a new car.

So whether you acknowledge the fact that global warming exists, the changes in lifestyle are still your choice. If you want to run your lights all day long then you can. If you don't want to upgrade to new technology then you don't have to.

So your idea of taking a more analytic view of the debate is contradictory, if logic were all that were involved you would come out with the end justifies the means. You would realize that it doesn't matter if the scientists are right or wrong. You would understand that something needs to be done for the better, because our way of life is not sustainable, and hasn't been for a number of years.

So thus in context 1. it doesn't matter if we are harming the planet, either way something needs to be done for humanity’s sake 2. the costs are a burden only upon those who choose to take them

Comment #109 - Posted by: Walker at November 23, 2009 2:14 PM

#108 - Thanks Dave but no i'm aware of cffb. there was a thread that a bunch of people contributed their favorite heavy metcons that were to be used with gant's hybrid program, i just can't find the link anywhere =/

Comment #110 - Posted by: collin jesse @ Oregon State at November 23, 2009 2:43 PM

I don't understand why people care if global warming is cause by people or not. If the earth is on a path to become inhabitable, does it really matter if it's our fault? Why not take action to keep the earth in the most beneficial zone for human habitation regardless of the cause of our current trajectory?

Second, has anyone else noticed that the "terrorists" are the ones selling us our oil? Most of the 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden's family made their fortune building infrastructure for Saudi Arabia that was financed by oil money. So, we have a scenario where sound climate policy is also sound defense policy. Choose whichever reason makes you feel good to conserve petroleum.

Lastly, the downside risk to warming the globe just a few more degrees is so great that I can't understand the mindset of those who want to take their chances. If I'm wrong, and we take prophylactic measures unnecessarily, the downside is that the economy doesn't grow at it's potential. I can live with that. If the Global Warming deniers are wrong, they have sentenced their children and grandchildren to live in a world where famine and war are all to prevalent and clean water is all to scarce. What kind of a person decides to roll those dice?

Comment #111 - Posted by: Dixon at November 23, 2009 2:48 PM

I attended the Ft Leavenworth Functional Fitness Center grand opening and CrossFit 101, attended by Coach, Brian Mulvaney, Kyle Maynard, Tony Blauer, and Jimi Letchford. Just looking at this list of attendees gives you an idea of the investment that CF makes in bettering the lives and readiness of those who serve and thier families. Greg, you are a great American. Thanks for your continued support of our mission here at the Fort, and all that you do in the name of the science and sport of fitness. For Brian, Kyle, Tony, and Jimi, your presence and tesimony was appreciated by all, thank you. You are welcome here anytime.
I also attended the L2 cert. Pat, Boz, and Speal, thanks for making us better coaches. The prep training was eye opening, and the cert was a fair and thorough test of our coaching ability. I watched every video and read every article on L2, but nothing compares to the experience.

Comment #112 - Posted by: Mark Monroe at November 23, 2009 2:49 PM

CFSB Week 2
Back Squat 3x5

1/2 Cindy w/ 20lb vest

9 rounds

25 free handstand attempts

Comment #113 - Posted by: Jonblaze at November 23, 2009 2:58 PM

Forget the GW for a second.... what this article shows is scarey. very scarey.

If a group of researchers can bully some into only showing certain veiw points, then woe be it for the future.

Even if it cant be done on a large scale, the fact science can be pushed into an opinion and not a fact does not bode well for future generations.

Comment #114 - Posted by: Trevor B at November 23, 2009 3:39 PM

Well said Trevor.

You don't need to get overly complicated to see the big picture.

If propaganda, strong arm tactics or any forms of misinformation, lies, etc are used to win over public opinion then common sense should dictate to avoid these people and be very very skeptical or dubious about thier views or opinions.

Man, if you have not lived long enough to figure it out..... these tactics are red flags for hidden agendas. Agendas that they dare not disclose. Don't be a tool of these guys.

Comment #115 - Posted by: yourticus at November 23, 2009 4:15 PM

#109, Walker, writes,

"So thus in context 1. it doesn't matter if we are harming the planet, either way something needs to be done for humanity’s sake 2. the costs are a burden only upon those who choose to take them"

This is simpoly not true. Once the government provides incentives (through tax rebates, stimulus money, bailouts--all of which involve taking money from one group of people and giving it to another) and penalties (through laws, treaties, fines, and taxes) it is no longer true that the costs falls "only upon those who chose to take them."

You are wrong to portray this as some sort of personal choice like becoming a vegetarian.

Comment #116 - Posted by: Hari at November 23, 2009 4:26 PM

Iron Major Level 1 Cert.

I had a blast over the weekend and really learned a lot. I enjoyed the fact that the lectures were all by trainers who are passionate about the subjects they were lecturing over. This made it much easier to feel confident in the information that was presented.

Also, like mentioned by another poster, I was a little bit(just a tiny bit) disappointed at how closely the lectures followed the assigned readings. I would expect there to be a bit more deviance from just the material that we had previously read. However, it seemed pretty obvious that a lot of people had not actually read all of the material. Yet, I don't think this should keep the lectures restricted.. If someone doesn't do the readings and come prepared with the knowledge that is within, then that should be their loss.

The actual physical demonstrations and practice was where I got the most needed information. It really helped to be coached while at the same time being able to watch the interactions between experienced trainers and other atendees. I was able to gather lots of clues on how to correct movement problems and tips on ways to motivate people safely, without just being a cheerleader.

Special thanks to Chris, Bos, Miranda, Tyson, Speal, and Pat for all their dedicated work to help us help others. I look forward to meeting you all again in the CrossFit world.

And on the spammed topic of global warming, maybe we should have Dr. Sears design a Zone diet for the planet?

Comment #117 - Posted by: Josh Groves at November 23, 2009 4:36 PM

Ft. Leavenworth Level 1 Cert

Thanks to the outstanding CF certification staff for the knowledge they imparted on us this weekend! The staff was very profesional, knowledgeable, and friendly which made for a great weekend of learning what right looked like. Thanks for the extra time you spent working with us individually to make us better trainers. Did not think a PVC pipe could make that sore.

Comment #118 - Posted by: Eldridge at November 23, 2009 4:43 PM

#116 Hari,

Yes you are paying taxes. But again you fail to see the entire picture. What do you think the government has spent the most of your tax dollars on in the last ten years? I can guarantee it wasn't fighting global warming or researching sustainable ways of life.

And it is a choice; it is as simple as being a vegetarian. You can be part of the solution or part of the problem. Maybe a tenth of a percent of your taxes go toward climate and environmental problems. And you can dictate where your tax money goes, hence voting.

So you changing the subject and moving on to government spending doesn't change the fact that you can choose to be part of the problem or not, take advantage of government programs or not. I didn't trade my clunker in (not that it would have qualified anyway), did you?

Everything is a personal choice of pros and cons. I'm just saying that regardless of the article, regardless of whether global warming is real or not, something needs to change in the next ten years, either new technology needs to come about allowing us to live more efficiently, population growth needs to stop, or we need to become sustainable in our consumption of natural resources.

And before you attack the whole "you choose where your money goes" I say this tongue in cheek, I don't want one cent of my money supporting the war. It does, I don't have a choice in that other than go to jail for not paying taxes, so I do all I can, I vote and hope.

@ Trevor 114,
I completely agree with you. That being said, information has always been controlled, this article doesn’t shine any more light on that fact than a government produced war documentary does on the facts of war. The Catholic Church controlled (controls) information for thousands of years. We little people are never going to get all the facts. As you said common sense should dictate to run from this propaganda, but people don't want to think they want people to think for them.

Look at 9/11 we still don't have any idea what the government knows about what really happened that day. Why not? It would remove any doubt from any persons head of what happened if it were released. But controlling information and propaganda is power, people like power, even scientists.

Comment #119 - Posted by: Walker at November 23, 2009 5:02 PM


Made up deadlifts from friday
370 (PR)
375 (PR)

Day for two for son


315 (f)
275 (f) several sets of 185 work on form

Comment #120 - Posted by: morrowesq at November 23, 2009 5:45 PM

Fort Leavenworth Level 1 Cert

The level 1 certification was awesome. CrossFit has been a part of my workout routine for about two years. This instruction helped to take my knowledge to a new level. The practical applications in the group settings allowed me to see some of the common mistakes that people make while performing the movements. I appreciated the staff taking the time out to answer questions and assist me during the breaks or when time was available. Bos, Chris, Miranda, Pat, Speal, and Tyson were very professional and went out of their way to show us what "right looks like." You guys were GREAT! Thanks again and I hope to see you all in the future as I continue the CrossFit journey.

Comment #121 - Posted by: Andy at November 23, 2009 5:59 PM

#119, Walker, writes,

"I'm just saying that regardless of the article, regardless of whether global warming is real or not, something needs to change in the next ten years, either new technology needs to come about allowing us to live more efficiently, population growth needs to stop, or we need to become sustainable in our consumption of natural resources."

Something changes every ten years. New technology always comes about. All our lives we've been hearing that the end is near.

Comment #122 - Posted by: Hari at November 23, 2009 6:45 PM

The Level 1 Cert at CrossFit Atlanta this weekend highly exceeded my expectations, all the trainers were more than capable to answer any and all questions that were given to them. To steal their cues and coaching tips is a priceless opportunity. I highly recommend going to atleast a single Level 1 Cert for any avid CrossFitter.

Comment #123 - Posted by: Jake N at November 23, 2009 6:46 PM

@#119 Walker
Population growth needs to stop?!?!?!?!?! Now that's scary!!!!!

Comment #124 - Posted by: Johnny P at November 23, 2009 6:59 PM

#122 hari,

first off the quotes aren't needed I and anyone else can read my posts without your adding them to yours. Second are you even aware what you wrote? Are you serious? Of course things change, hence global warming initiatives.... Come up with some actual debates and don't waste my time with circular drivel

Comment #125 - Posted by: Walker at November 23, 2009 7:00 PM

Yes it is Johnny. And I wasn't reccomending it...

Comment #126 - Posted by: Walker at November 23, 2009 7:08 PM

Population growth has stopped. Look up the data on fertility rates around the world. Replacement fertility requires 2.1 children per woman. These replacement levels are barely being met and continue to decline. Even in countries such as India and China.

Comment #127 - Posted by: Ben W at November 23, 2009 7:11 PM

#125, Walker,

Twenty years ago, the media was hyping global cooling. You say that whether or not global warming is a reality, something has to change. Why? If, the planet is not cooling, then making lots of expensive changes that will serve absolutely no purpose is irrational. It is change, simply because people like you declare that something has to change.

Before we can pursue a solution (whether behavioral, technological, or both) we need to know whether and to what extend we actually have a problem.

Comment #128 - Posted by: Hari at November 23, 2009 7:33 PM

#125, Walker,

Twenty years ago, the media was hyping global cooling. You say that whether or not global warming is a reality, something has to change. Why? If, the planet is not cooling, then making lots of expensive changes that will serve absolutely no purpose is irrational. It is change, simply because people like you declare that something has to change.

Before we can pursue a solution (whether behavioral, technological, or both) we need to know whether and to what extend we actually have a problem.

Comment #129 - Posted by: Hari at November 23, 2009 7:39 PM

what planet are you from? Seriously, "whether and what extent"? Perhaps you've misunderstood my point all along it is very simple REGARDLESS OF GLOBAL WARMING WE HUMANS ARE DESTROYING THE PLANET. Is that plain enough for you to understand? Now granted we cannot destroy the planet, it will be here long after humans kill themselves off.

Do you want proof? Look at the pacific ocean, look at the Columbia River, look at the moose population in Alaska, consider that water in the Nile, count the wild salmon, perhaps deforestation is more to your speed... But then again I'm sure it's all just propaganda.

So again the question everyone has failed to answer, the one I started with is, what does anyone have to lose by a more efficent lifestyle? Please don't define efficent, I'm well aware of the way I'm using it and you are too so give it a rest.

Comment #130 - Posted by: Walker at November 23, 2009 9:22 PM

This debate reminds me of another years passed when, some far out notion was conceived that the world wasn't flat.

There are many real world examples, at scopes that that dwarf most life experience, to support this false notion. You know what though, it didn't change the truth.

The great stuff we are doing has more than economic costs. Let’s move ahead and deal with it.

Comment #131 - Posted by: nathan m/30/5'9"/165lbs at November 24, 2009 1:35 AM

Thank you Crossfit and thank you Iron Major Gym. The Level I Cert at Leavenworth was outstanding. They do not give me enough space to state how knowledgable and professional the instructors are. I am proud to be considered among the Crossfit community and will strive to continually better myself. Thanks again!

Comment #132 - Posted by: Michael J Huth at November 24, 2009 4:18 AM

Bingo (Post #15), I do not know you nor am I even smart enough to understand everything in your post..... but I knew I was reading something great! Nice response!

Comment #133 - Posted by: Michael J Huth at November 24, 2009 4:25 AM

Bingo, 'spurious'as in fallacious. You can't tell me with any sincerity that the money the US chooses NOT to spend on combating global warming will go to provide drinking water for impoverished children. That's not the choice we're being asked to make.

I'm glad you understand that resources are finite. That's at the heart of the move to combat global warming. Rational utilitarians still buy insurance. The magnitude of risk, likelihood of risk, cost of action and potential cost of inaction inform their decision. The only one of those factors up for serious debate on AGW is the likelihood of risk. If you're happy, as an eye surgeon, a trainer, a janitor or a cobbler to read the science and form a strong view that you're not convinced, that's actually admirable.

The problem arises when you demand 'proof'. The older I get, the more I find it harder to prove anything absolutely!

So the exuberant 'Emperor has no clothes' shrieking from many on the anti-AGW side fills me with dread. It's the outcome many wanted before they read anything. And problems with climate modelling provide many opportunities to query the theory. But people may be demanding an evidential standard that may not be realistic. And some on the pro-side might do their own cause a disservice by over-stating their case, which further clouds matters.

I'm sure that maintaining an anti-AGW stance enlivens many a dinner party. And I'm sure some of the incredulity is sincere and has some logical foundation. But the consequences of being wrong for us and for those who follow, are so catastrophic, that you really need to be careful in applying your critical faculty to this where you're using google and your own intelligence to figure it all out. It's a huge call. If I was sick, I'd see a specialist. Experience and understanding have to carry some weight.

A great historian once told me that the FIRST question to ask when reviewing any evidence isn't about the detail of the material, or the bias of the author, but about our OWN reaction to what we're reading.

Comment #134 - Posted by: J1 at November 24, 2009 4:53 AM

#125, Walker,

Twenty years ago, the media was hyping global cooling. You say that whether or not global warming is a reality, something has to change. Why? If, the planet is not warming (or if the cause of any warming is not man-made)then making lots of expensive changes that will serve absolutely no purpose is irrational. It is change, simply because people like you declare that something has to change.

Before we can pursue a solution (whether behavioral, technological, or both) we need to know whether and to what extend we actually have a problem.

Comment #135 - Posted by: Hari at November 24, 2009 5:27 AM

Hari, do you think it's wrong for ordinary joe-soap non-specialists to go along with accepted dogma wherever they cannot or do not understand the particular field in sufficient detail to form their own view? And if you do, is that workable? If you don't, then why is global warming a special case?

Comment #136 - Posted by: J1 at November 24, 2009 6:31 AM

"So the exuberant 'Emperor has no clothes' shrieking from many on the anti-AGW side fills me with dread .... understanding have to carry some weight."

J1, this is a thoughtful post. Here's my best effort at a response.

People who are saying they have scientific proof, IOW, liars, or ignorant true believers (kind of like Walker who thinks efficiency leads to reduced consumption and therefore is relevant to theoretical AGW amelioration) want to destroy economic growth for actions that are: based on political patronage; will not reduce carbon emission by any significant degree; and are cynically sold to a gullible publicly educated public as being in 'their' interest. The same people who will sell these AGW policies will try to sell the efficiency lie through nonsense like CAFE standards, then send billions in foreign aid to the people they've impoverished with their prior foreign aid, then prevent those impoverished people from using proven malaria prevention (DDT) to suck up to environmentalist wackos, then try to beat up the oil companies for raising fuel prices (when that is one approach that really would reduce consumption of carbon fuels), then will say they are trying to support the 'American worker' when they have done almost everything they can to make that same theoretical worker uncompetitive in the intl economy (lousy coercive govt monopoly on schools, expensive inefficient social programs, miserable foreign policy, clueless anti-growth tax absurdity, and upside-down immigration laws). IOW - the liars/TB and politicians are taking your liberty and mine, destroying economic growth and all to literally no good end. Even assuming the AGW conjecture is correct - the legislative efforts are impotent to reduce the 'human impact.'

I have yet to see a plan that would significantly reduce human impact on carbon emissions that is even close to feasible. Most plans involve centralized control, would keep third world nations poverty stricken, and would do much to wreck the economic strength of 1st world nations.

The best I can tell, the only real way to reduce human impact on carbon emissions is to kill billions of humans - either directly or by the 2nd and 3rd order effects of crippling economic growth.

Summary: people who falsely claim scientific proof are allied w those who will do whatever it takes to gain more political power to impose their economy wrecking 'trojan horse' legislative solutions which will not under the best case scenario even make a dent in the problem if AGW is real.

Efficiency? I'm all for it. Reduction of consumption? Great plan, it think it could be very good for environment (including humans). Complete re-engineering of how we produce food in the USA (current techniques likely not sustainable)? Let's chat. Serious engagement about how to sustain massive population levels on finite resources despite the tendency for humans to reproduce at rate which exceeds infrastructure growth? Fascinating questions.

Sham science used by the cynical at the expense of the gullible to attack liberty resulting in the torture of the vulnerable - no thanks, not my cup of tea. Paul

Comment #137 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie 6'2" 205 45 yoa at November 24, 2009 8:01 AM

PS - Walker, when people tell you that efficiency will reduce consumption, they are either lying or ignorant. Efficiency always increases consumption.

Assume a particular unit of production - say a gallon of gas or a megawatt of electricity - provides $10 worth of value (light, manufacuturing capability, transportation distance, etc). If people are willing to buy 25 million units of that good per day, imagine how many they will want if they can get $20 worth of value from the good? More efficient cars are driven further. More efficient plants are more heavily used. More efficient light bulbs get left on longer because it's not worth the effort to turn them off.

To reduce consumption, the value/unit curve must be changed the opposite way that efficiency changes that curve.

The point of efficiency - the rational point, not living in Dreamlandgreenworld - is to allow the productive use of finite resources to create more wealth (generally, but specifically better living conditions) for more people.

Comment #138 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie 6'2" 205 45 yoa at November 24, 2009 8:07 AM

Paul, I know you love liberty, but love it and respect it in all its forms. There's a freedom in choosing a car with a big engine and buying cheap gas. There's a freedom to taking electricity from coal powered plants which pollute, with that pollution not factored in to the price you pay for your power. There's freedom in getting cheap fish, where the factory ships are stripping our oceans. But there's a price for all of those, usually being paid for by the people who live in delicate climates and systems elsewhere on the planet. Their freedom not to be subjected to a collapse of fish stocks or to increased flooding and drought is being compromised if AGW is even half correct.

You're cynical of government moves to correct and head off this catastrophe? I see malevolent intent of the worst kind in the corporate spin out there telling us that everything is fine. The unelected power base which brought you Enron, the credit crunch, the people screaming for billions in bailouts to save a system which eschewed regulation, tell us not to panic. I'm stocking up on bullets and gold....

Comment #139 - Posted by: J1 at November 24, 2009 9:29 AM

L1 cert in ATL was amazing!!! I learned so much, not only about what to do, but what NOT to do, which is so important! All the staff were motivating, knowledgeable, & easy to understand. Thanks for all you did CF Atlanta & The Godfather :) :) HELL YEAAHHH!!!

Comment #140 - Posted by: Kati_CrossFitMT at November 24, 2009 9:41 AM

#135, J1, writes,

"Hari, do you think it's wrong for ordinary joe-soap non-specialists to go along with accepted dogma wherever they cannot or do not understand the particular field in sufficient detail to form their own view? And if you do, is that workable? If you don't, then why is global warming a special case?"

I think its perfectly reasonable for people with limited expertise to defer to authority. However, that presupposes that those in positions of authority (e.g., scientists) are honest with the public about what they do or do not know, and that they alow their positions to be critically and openly examined.

In the case of global warming, major public policy decisions are being made by governments based on what may be less than honest science. We're moving from voluntary decisions by individuals to government-enforced policies.

Comment #141 - Posted by: Hari at November 24, 2009 10:04 AM


Define pollution?

Comment #142 - Posted by: DenverDanimal at November 24, 2009 10:10 AM

Hari, if I'm reading correctly, AGW is for you a special case, becuse "major public policy decisions" are being based "...on what may be less than honest science".

Is it your belief that scientists in this one particular field have a predisposition to dishonesty? If so, why do you hold this belief?

If not, and you generally distrust scientists, then doesn't this undermine your contention that it is perfectly reasonable for people with limited expertise to defer to authority?

Comment #143 - Posted by: J1 at November 24, 2009 10:30 AM

#135 J1,

Agree with Paul, a very thoughtful and well thought out post. Thanks.

I've not asked for proof, simply asking for better, more open, more transparent forecasting. Nor am I saying that we should not EVER do anything to mitigate against GCC/AGW, simply that the options presently on the table seem more likely to harm than to protect, and indeed they all seem rather forced and rushed. " We need to do SOMETHING RIGHT NOW because GCC is going to destroy mankind" kind of thinking is fallacious because 1) we don't know and can't really forecast either weather or its effect and 2) what we have as solutions today isn't really all that great, and it is rather easy to accurately forecast that we will have better, less expensive solutions decades before any measurable deleterious effects of GCC on human life are seen.

Have you read "Super Freakonomics"? We could stall GCC in 5 years at a cost of <$100MM/yr with technology available now. Kinda Crossfit-like outside the box thinking. Makes one wonder about the $1.2 Trillion some Gorebies want to suck out of the world's economy each year to fight GCC, eh?

There are two important conversations going on. Is the data we are receiving from the people who were "outed" in the article valid and actionable now? If so, what is a proper response and what is the proper time at which to invoke that response? Your #133 and #135 are worth contributions. Thanks again.

Comment #144 - Posted by: bingo at November 24, 2009 10:33 AM

And for the record, the comparison with lack of potable water in the undeveloped world is meant to bring up not only the topic of utility, but also to introduce the concept of prioritization of limited resources.

How can you justify removing hundreds of Billions of dollars from the world's economies in order to save the planet from CO2, when you can't/won't spend a relatively trivial amount in the millions to save humans from bad H2O?

Neither spurious nor fallacious...

Comment #145 - Posted by: bingo at November 24, 2009 10:38 AM

#142, J1, writes,

"Is it your belief that scientists in this one particular field have a predisposition to dishonesty? If so, why do you hold this belief?"

No. It is my belief that some scientists in all fields are dishonest, but that most are honest.

There are two parts to science: measurement of the data and explanation of the data. I believe that some scientists tend to suppress data that doesn't fit with their explanations. I believe that this has happen to some extent here (though that does not mean the conclusions are wrong).

And I believe that some scientists who have been deemed within and without the scientific community as being on the wrong side of this issue have been underrepresented.

In sum, I have doubt whether the data support the current conclusions; whether the analysis of the data is correct; and whether the conclusions are correct.

The information in the hacked files tends to increase my doubt.

Comment #146 - Posted by: Hari at November 24, 2009 10:55 AM

"You're cynical of government moves to correct and head off this catastrophe? I see malevolent intent of the worst kind in the corporate spin out there telling us that everything is fine. The unelected power base which brought you Enron, the credit crunch, the people screaming for billions in bailouts to save a system which eschewed regulation, tell us not to panic. I'm stocking up on bullets and gold...."

Enron was a sneeze in a govt swine flu epidemic, the credit crunch/housing fiasco a perfect example of what results from human meddling (playing god, what the Greeks viewed as hubris, the ultimate sin). Our discussion always hinges on your faith than man is smart enough tto know wtf he/she is doing when applying the coercive power of the state to make things better. Rather than coercion, I believe in liberty.

You point out that liberty is not utopia, and that some challenges seem beyond the reach of cooperation. I would agree there are those negative externalities that are indeed a challenge for coperative solutions. Those same problems are completely above the empirically observable competence level of those who may be elected to govern. People who have completely dorked up social security, medicare, agriculture, the tax code, public schools, are now to be entrusted with cost benefit analysis of astronomical proportions supposedly to 'save the planet' (Meaning 'keep the planet useful for humans'). I have a hard time accepting that anyone trusts the buffoons in govt to weild this kind of power.

On a slight change of subject - if you want folks to be concerned about the fish stocks, the starving N Koreans and Africans, the oppressed Iranians and Saudis and Burmese and Tibetans, it will be in your interest to keep them, and as many humans as possible, in a state of 'more than the minimum.' That is, human largesse, yours, mine, Bingo's and the rest of us, results from getting above the level of daily survival. When faced with getting food/water/shelter daily, no one gives a shirt about the fish stocks or polar bear populations. Just ask the Russians who dumped all their nuclear reactors into the ocean.

Lastly - if you want to talk about AGW as if there's some solution to it - assuming ofr the moment is is a real phenomenon - you must be able to offer a framework of a plan that will cause less harm than AGW supposedly will. Do you have such?

And really lastly - and this is a concept question, a science question, generally related to the article posted - how would you propose that a scientist prove that humans are causing the climate to change in additional to or in opposition to, natural patterns? If no scientist can prove such, how can cost benefit analysis be even approximated?

Comment #147 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie 6'2" 205 45 yoa at November 24, 2009 11:13 AM

On the inevitability of whatever horror continued emissions will bring, and the complete bufoonery of those who would try to save us:
"August ended with the unembarrassable administration uttering a $2 trillion "Oops!" by estimating that the 10-year budget-deficit projection is about $9 trillion rather than $7.1 trillion. The supposed means of paying for the president's $1 trillion health-care plan include substantial Medicare cuts that will never happen, and the auction of carbon-emission permits that, instead, would be given away by the Waxman--Markey cap-and-trade legislation the House has sent to the Senate. That legislation is a particularly lurid illustration of why no serious person nowadays takes seriously Washington's increasingly infantile bandying of numbers. The point of cap-and-trade is to impose a ceiling on the nation's greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions—primarily carbon dioxide. The legislation endorses the goal of holding the global carbon--dioxide level to a maximum of 450 parts per million by 2050. That. Will. Not. Happen."

Comment #148 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie 6'2" 205 45 yoa at November 24, 2009 11:14 AM
More on Bingo's points, and more here:

Comment #149 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie 6'2" 205 45 yoa at November 24, 2009 11:18 AM

This from David D Friedman, on the significance of scientific integrity:
"I am not arguing for or against claims that the greater extent doesn't really count because it is thinner ice or that all the evidence taken together still supports long term shrinking of arctic sea ice. My claim is simply that the quote above, which is still up on the JPL web page, is false. When people lie to me about the evidence for their conclusions, offering other evidence that their conclusions are still true is not an adequate defense."

Comment #150 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie 6'2" 205 45 yoa at November 24, 2009 11:18 AM

This is a good example of those incredibly evil 'deniers' that Mann et al would supress.

"We believe, and evidence supports this, that a warmer climate is on the whole beneficial to human health and endeavors, esp. for agriculture and forestry; hence we see no need to attempt climate modification of any kind. In addition, CO2 is a natural fertilizer for plants, and higher CO2 levels are desirable; historic levels have been many times higher than today's. Adaptation to climate changes has been the human norm during ice ages and interglacials and will continue to be the primary mechanism. Finally, we see no need to modify energy policy in response to fears of climate change -- although we do support energy conservation and the development of alternative energy supplies in anticipation of the gradual depletion of readily available fossil fuels. "

Comment #151 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie 6'2" 205 45 yoa at November 24, 2009 11:20 AM

Hari, earlier, you stated that it is reasonable for a lay-person to rely upon authority. That's a proposition with which I agree.

I think we can also agree that climate theory is a fiendishly complex area. It is necessarily difficult owing to the age of the planet (4.54b years), our very recent arrival as a species (c.200,000 years), the necessary lack of historical data (maybe accurate records for 500 years?) and the requirement to consider, understand and calibrate a mind-boggling number of disparate yet inter-dependent variables (from ocean currents to planetary axis tilt).

But in this one particular area of science, we are supposed to fear that we are being lied to, by an enormous, dishonest group of leading scientists, who have staked their reputations on a false premise, and are hell bent on assisting the governments of the world (who are all complicit in this because they all accept the IPCC findings) to waste billions of dollars fixing a problem that doesn't exist. And we are to hold this belief, as lay people because we can read some articles on the web pointing out inconsistencies in the detail of AGW theory. And because some on the AGW side may have overstated their case. Am I missing something?

Bingo, no one is suggesting that resources are infinite. If you have a very, very strong belief (we would likely agree that certainty is simply not possible) that AGW is not real, then spending anything on it is a waste.

If however, you believe that AGW might be true, then spending money now to prevent the future loss of entire eco-systems, the destruction of a large proportion of the planet's arable land and the deaths of billions of people doesn't start to look quite so wasteful.

Personaly, I think perpetual "economic growth" isn't something we should be chasing. We've completely lost the run of ourselves. Our acquisitive side means that there is never such a thing as "enough". This is a hard-wired Darwinian drive at an individual level, which is actually now working against us at species level. It's not a case of "spending billions". It might be a case of dialling back on the obscene waste of natural resources that currently passes for "economic progress".

Comment #152 - Posted by: J1 at November 24, 2009 11:38 AM


I don't believe there is a wide-spread conspiracy. However, I do believe that there are scientists who have staked their reputation on a particular argument and who may be less than comfortable being proved wrong in whole or in part.

The data and the analysis are complex, and I do not believe that the truths are blatantly obvious, or that there is excessive malfeasance on either side.

(I also believe that more that 90% of all "scientists" are not especially competent in the relevant areas and are themselves relying on others.)

I would liken this situation to decades of dietary recommendations that have since turned out to be less than correct.

Scientific theories (particularly new theories) are overturned not because earlier theories were lies, but because they were subsequently proven inadequate or wrong.

Comment #153 - Posted by: Hari at November 24, 2009 12:41 PM


Yes, you are missing something. The anti-AGW case rests on more than the CRU emails and documents.

Apart from the overwhelming proof of scientific fraud in these documents, it has previously been demonstrated that the global climate models are junk science because they assume processes that violate the laws of nature, or otherwise ignore the laws of nature.

That's one reason among many these models have an unbroken record of failing to ever make an accurate climate prediction. The e-mails confess that the models cannot account for the lack of warming since 1998 and that they have no idea why. In a word, the models are falsified.

It is a peculiar claim to virtue to propose radically restructuring the worlds economy at a cost of trillions of dollars based on dystopian pseudo-scientific fantasies that are confessed to have no relationship to reality.

Under Copenhagen, money would be forcibly removed from our pockets and given to the Robert Mugabes of the world to "fix" a problem that doesn't even exist in the physical world.

You speak of complexity so vast as to be incomprehensible. Yet the AGW folks are telling us the opposite - that this entire incomprehensibly complex million-variable mystery can be controlled by managing a single solitary variable, CO2.

The Climate Control Black Box they are selling has just one knob, for CO2.

But the only thing the knob controls is human emissions, which are only 4% of the total sources of CO2!

So, now the mad scientists who will save us all from environmental perdition, and who scorn the deniers as criminals against humanity are reduced to this:

The Director of the CRU, Phil Jones:

Phil Jones, Dec 3, 2008:

"About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all."

Phil Jones, Nov 24, 2009 Guardian

"We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU."

As for deferring to experts and scientists, you don't need a Ph.D. to see that Phil Jones - one of the Grand Druids of AGW - is an unrepentant liar.


Comment #154 - Posted by: Harry MacD at November 24, 2009 12:51 PM


If wealth doesn't fix a problem what does? As I said taxing to fix a problem is just wealth distrubution. If there wasn't wealth there would be nothing to tax to fix anything.

Comment #155 - Posted by: penty at November 24, 2009 12:56 PM

can growth continue forever? no, it can't, certainly not when natural resources are treated as if they are free. so, why do we go on thinking that growth is the solution to all economic problems?

Comment #156 - Posted by: Joe P at November 24, 2009 5:44 PM

Enjoyed that debate. Thanks all.

Comment #157 - Posted by: J1 at November 25, 2009 1:17 AM

Spiel/Pat/Miranda/Boz and Crew -

Happy Thanksgving! Thank you for the professionalism and absolute world class instruction last weekend. I can't think of a better way to spend the weekend. Good luck at your future certs this week. Thanks again!

jps m/34/5'10"/193

Comment #158 - Posted by: josh s. at November 26, 2009 12:30 PM

I realise many have moved on. But those interested in the nature of climate should check out Very good, short talk there on the science behind climate headlines. It further enforced my view as a lay person that a lot of smarter people with detailed knowledge of climate science believe that climate change is real, man made and potentially a catastrophic and genocidal event. The ipcc was set up not to prove the theory, which is impossible, but to distill best thinking in an open and fair manner. I am aghast at the breathtaking arrogance of many who question the work of so many experts who published their peer-reviewed theory, basing their skepticism on a shallow grasp of the facts and science, backed up by corporate spin. Figuring out that functional movements and sensible eating work to produce fitness doen't matter a fig next outside that sphere. Emboldened by our originality in eating fats and doing crossfit, many are stumbling into near-criminal disregard for something which could wipe out billions of our species....

Comment #159 - Posted by: J1 at December 2, 2009 12:37 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?