December 10, 2009

Thursday 091210

Rest Day

SpealSRACFRings_th.jpg

Enlarge image

Chris Spealler visits CrossFit Sri Ram Ashram, Haridwar, India


"Strongman Hip Extension" with Rob Orlando, CrossFit Journal preview video [wmv] [mov]


Rob Orlando 50 cleans at 225lbs video [wmv] [mov]


"The Totalities of Copenhagen" by Bret Stephens - The Wall Street Journal


"Climate Change and the Death of Science" - Buy The Truth Blog

Post thoughts to comments.

Posted by lauren at December 10, 2009 5:00 PM
Comments

Awesome work, Rob! You're a complete animal...I shall refer to you from now on as Rob "Conan" Orlando.

I'm wondering how many people will ask if thats really 225# because of the difference in plate size on the bar.

P.S. I get royalties for giving you that nickname!!

Comment #1 - Posted by: Zach@CFLV at December 9, 2009 5:05 PM

Making up the 5k tomorrow in the cold.

Comment #2 - Posted by: chuck at December 9, 2009 5:05 PM

Awesome Speal.

Comment #3 - Posted by: Jeff at December 9, 2009 5:09 PM

From the article: "What is going on is that science is no longer what we thought it was. It is now a tool in the hands of socialists, and the smart money is flowing into the pockets of ‘scientists’ who will serve their agenda."

Not a big surprise, considering they tried to tell us we evolved from apes. Silly liberals, man was created. :)

Comment #4 - Posted by: Greg/M2 at December 9, 2009 5:10 PM

People like Spealler is what makes CrossFit so amazing! Right on!!! Proud to have met such an upstanding person who uses CrossFit as a way to bring people together!

Comment #5 - Posted by: xtina at December 9, 2009 5:31 PM

Few comments.

First, Marx himself said Capitalism was unsustainable 150 years ago or so. The reason for this was that given finite resources, and non-finite consumption, logically you have to run out. Right?

What he failed to foresee--and the reason all RATIONAL human beings realize he presented a scientific idea which has been falsified--was the power of innovation. Not being a businessman--I'm not even sure he ever held a real job once in his life, much like our President, since academics don't count--he failed to consider the power of innovation. New ideas. Better use of existing resources.

Our system works. The Capitalistic system is the best means ever developed by which to raise the standard of living of the poor. If you don't believe this, please move to Cuba. They are solidly Communistic. You will be happier there.

And if you don't want to do that, meet me halfway: Live there for six months, and IF they let you leave, you will have an informed opinion.

I was watching Sen. Markey "debate" Inhofe, and he got himself all hot and bothered and said, to the camera, on national TV, that the planet is hotter than it has EVER been.

This is patent BS. Everyone who knows ANYTHING about this issue knows it. The IPCC knows it. The Clowns at the CRU (rhymes with GRU) know it. CO2 has been in the thousands of parts per million. Both ice caps have been melted.

Yet, this guy is sponsoring legislation that will torpedo our economy, and give control of our energy sector to jacka$$es who have never run a business in their lives.

This is the level of knowledge these people are operating at. They know NOTHING. They don't even know what the primary Greenhouse Gas is (hint: it isn't CO2). Al Gore bullies people by asking them if they don't believe the polar bears are in danger.

You know what? Algore has been told by a British Judge that claim is not true. The polar bears are not in danger. Newsflash: they don't live on freaking ice flows. They are Kodiak bears with different colored fur, for all practical purposes. They aren't going to melt.

The whole thing, top to bottom, is a massive LIE perpetrated by unrepentant Marxists.

I will note, too, that Marxists are people who have failed to develop a coherent moral code, and who therefore choose to identify with an ideology which they know will sooner or later force them to surrender their freedom. They don't want the freedom. They feel trapped by it.

Why that is is another discussion. Things to do. I'll engage all days on this one.

It is ironic, though, to see this much snow dumped in places that rarely see it just as Copenhagen is about to kick off. Perhaps God has a sense of humor.

Comment #6 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 9, 2009 5:34 PM

Just heard about and started Crossfit Tues and already a rest day for Thursday? I don't know... there's a cute guy at the gym I think I'd miss.

Comment #7 - Posted by: Ashley at December 9, 2009 5:37 PM

this is the earliest I've ever posted...that's all I have to say :)

Comment #8 - Posted by: Josh at December 9, 2009 5:40 PM

Yea I follow Ashley...except for the fact that I think I'd miss a cute girl at the gym...no rest days here!

Comment #9 - Posted by: Mwhite at December 9, 2009 5:45 PM

I knew global warming was a hoax...

Comment #10 - Posted by: Matthew/23/6'2.5"/215 at December 9, 2009 6:01 PM

you guys are askin for it...wait see what we get tomorrow. I feel it will involve pull ups a plenty since I subbed the 5k for this today:


Walking lunge 100 ft.
21 Pull-ups
21 Sit-ups
Walking lunge 100 ft.
18 Pull-ups
18 Sit-ups
Walking lunge 100 ft.
15 Pull-ups
15 Sit-ups
Walking lunge 100 ft.
12 Pull-ups
12 Sit-ups
Walking lunge 100 ft.
9 Pull-ups
9 Sit-ups
Walking Lunge 100 ft.
6 Pull-ups
6 Sit-ups

strict pulls, standing lunges, anchored sits
10:39

Comment #11 - Posted by: Zach m/24/ 5'9'/ 175lbs at December 9, 2009 6:02 PM

Go spend time in Alaska or Glacier National Park and tell me there's nothing wrong with the climate. You won't and you can't.

Comment #12 - Posted by: stoneyisland at December 9, 2009 6:02 PM

Chris!

EC and Sherwood just told me what your were up to in India. Thanks for being so standup, Brother. See you soon.

-Jon

Comment #13 - Posted by: Jon Gilson at December 9, 2009 6:14 PM

#4- we didn't evolve from apes, you're right. Apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor.

Comment #14 - Posted by: mikes at December 9, 2009 6:16 PM

First-ever Rest Day post.

I'm an environmental engineer, so I feel I have at least SOME credibility in this area.

Is "environmentalism" a religion?

Are our "bishops" meeting in Copenhagen?

If one takes global warming seriously enough to govern one's life around its rules, and look down on others for their environmental shortcomings (sins?), one should have the integrity to question and validate the source of those rules.

Politicians are RARELY scientists or engineers (math people). They're USUALLY lawyers (smooth-talking money people).

If you're a person who would question the true motives of a revival preacher (smooth-talking money person?), why wouldn't you question the motives of the politician? If the math people disagree, even in minority, why wouldn't you want to hear both sides, and formulate your own opinion?

CrossFit encourages a "Results-Based Life" in all areas. That's why so many have opened their eyes to it... think about that.

Comment #15 - Posted by: Ben S at December 9, 2009 6:17 PM

Whew! Made it through another round! Hope there's a bunch of pullups next week!

Comment #16 - Posted by: ALX M/31/5'7/255 at December 9, 2009 6:18 PM

I am shocked that anyone thinks science has ever been a pure pursuit of truth. Obviously it is flawed and may be perverted by politics. It is a human pursuit. Galileo suffered greatly because the scientists, and non-scientists of his day felt he was wrong. This was also true of Einstein. The thought science was ever pure is only propogated to force distrust and cause people to follow even illogical junk.

Setting aside the entire global warming debate. I am stunned that we willing buy oil from countries that basically hate us. Funding our own destruction. I think we should start seriously looking for renewable power simply to avoid prolonged wars and being dependent on an enemy.

Comment #17 - Posted by: PimTatter m/39/6'/187 at December 9, 2009 6:30 PM

Only the religious right is so gullible to believe that independent scientist around the globe are conspiring, for the sake of research dollars, to propagate a lie. That is such a pathetic argument which lacks any kind of coherence that if it wasn't so widespread, it would be comical. The oil industry, who has the most to lose to climate change policies, and who is heavily and politically connected, and has plenty of money available for research on global warming is incapable of providing any research contradicting it. They can't because they know it's real.

They therefore retort to using tactics and meaningless anecdotal stories that they know the religious right in america will eat up because they will eat anything. You can wrap a dog turd in an american flag wrapper and put a soldier on it and these people will eat it and say it's the best chocolate they've ever had. I also love how they so willingly call any democrat a Marxist or a communist. The religious right is so credulous and blindsided that they don't realize it is themselves that are limiting everyones rights, they themselves are the commies.

If you are going to claim that global warming is not real then please explain to me how the photographic evidence of glaciers receding in the last 100 years on every single continent is fabricated.

If you believe evolution is bull, please explain to me how the similarities of rRNA in all prokaryotic and eukaryotic life which show our ancestral relationship to each other is fabricated.

If you believe that this America is truly a capitalistic society, please explain to me how the traditional middle class family in the U.S. has found itself to be continually earning less (inflation adjusted) in the last 50 years, whilst GDP has progressively climbed. All the excess wealth created has stayed in the top 1% of the population.

Ok, jebus lovers. Learn me something.

Comment #18 - Posted by: rodrigo at December 9, 2009 6:31 PM

#18 Rodrigo: AMEN!

Comment #19 - Posted by: d.dot at December 9, 2009 6:35 PM

#12: it's been warming for many thousands of years. Did you know that? If you look at one of the graphs the AGW cultists don't want you do see, you will see steady warming since the last Ice Age.

So why wouldn't glaciers be melting?

I actually wanted to add that when Marxists use the word "democracy", as in the Students for a Democratic Society that gave us Todd Gitlin and Bill Ayers (both now tenured academics)--or the People's Republic of China that Obama's former Green Jobs Czar admired so much--what you need to realize is they ACTUALLY mean a totalitarian oligarchy run by intellectuals who have never held jobs.

When you are dealing with Leftists, you can very reliably invert what they say, and determine their actual meaning. "Economic growth through green jobs" means job destruction through the Federal Government overregulating our economy, and taking over large sections of it directly, resulting in economic disaster.

Comment #20 - Posted by: Barry "Cooper at December 9, 2009 6:35 PM

#18: are you free to start and run your own business? Yes? Then do I need to talk to you like you are 5th grader and explain what free markets are? If so, I can do that. I'm pretty sure I can use small words.

And by the way, how is the middle class doing in Cuba? Not as well as in China, eh, where they are using Capitalism aggressively. Or do you want to argue differently?

As far as glaciers, please see my previous post.

Are you a gay militant Communist? No? Then please don't act as if all of us who find the manifest totalitarian impulses of Leftists objectionable in principle are motivated by religion.

As far as the "consensus", have you either been unwilling to draw the necessary conclusions from the CRU emails, or are you incapable of grasping that AGW gives Socialists a political platform?

Did you even read the articles? The second one was particularly damning. If you want to claim Conservatives are the ignorant ones, you do yourself no service parading your ignorance here while making that claim.

Comment #21 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 9, 2009 6:41 PM

Read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and related commentaries/criticisms, not blogs. And toss in some Thorsten Veblen and E.K. Hunt for good measure. Might actually learn something about how scientific research and free markets operates.

That being said, at what point was Crossfit's main page condemned into the cesspool of internet-based political punditry?

Comment #22 - Posted by: James at December 9, 2009 6:54 PM

I can't beleive that people are taking the views of some loser blogger as the gospel! This blogger is probably some overweight, lazy, lonely twit living in their mommies basement........seriously CF.com, put some real articles written by reputable people up on here for the educated to read. Not this garbage.
And as for the people who still don't beleive in climate change......I hope you drown when the oceans overflow and half of North America is engulfed in sea water.

Comment #23 - Posted by: Timmer at December 9, 2009 6:57 PM

Awesome Chris, doing good work! Also good to see that the beard is still going strong and you're rocking the Rod Lavers as well........way to represent!

Comment #24 - Posted by: Doug at December 9, 2009 6:57 PM

Let's just cut to the chase with all this climate garbage...

WE'VE BEEN HAD!

Again.

Comment #25 - Posted by: thatguy at December 9, 2009 6:59 PM

Right on #18. Very well said.

For conspiracy aficionados, there's a lot more material to be found in the search for a concerted effort to squelch climate change evidence. In fact, it speaks to the overwhelming strength of the evidence that climate change has become so accepted in the face of so many entrenched and powerful interests that wish it wasn't real.
Matt

Comment #26 - Posted by: Matt at December 9, 2009 7:03 PM

Here's a nice link on this: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

The Earth has been warming for some 18,000 years. It is my hope that some of you are capable of realizing that you have been conditioned like mice to run a maze which leads invariably to the enrichment of men like Al Gore who could care less about you or the planet.

All you need to know about this issue is that the last ten years have not seen any warming, and during which CO2 emissions have steadily increased. If the thesis is that there is a necessary connection between global temperatures and anthropogenic CO2 emissions, then that thesis--to the extent scientists want to be scientific and not amoral partisan hacks--has been disproven.

To this you might add that Al Gore abused the data of the IPCC itself in creating his propaganda film, and THEY SAID NOTHING, even when sharing the Nobel Prize with him. If they had a shred of personal or collective integrity, they would at least have pointed out where he deviated from their opinions.

The whole thing is not only rotten, but DEMONSTRABLY rotten. We have the scientific proof, and now we even have the formerly private correspondance of the keepers of the sacred flame--the raw data upon which their case rests, which they have over decades refused to release to the scientific public.

We know why they wouldn't release it: they would have been caught easily and quickly as the fraudulent hucksters they are.

Comment #27 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 9, 2009 7:09 PM

50 x 225lb cleans in 6:44! That's insane Rob. I vote Rob as the driving force behind climate change!

Comment #28 - Posted by: Lol Mettam at December 9, 2009 7:11 PM

DATA ADJUSTMENT - Read how the professionals 'scientifically' adjust the weather data - A "weather geek" looks into how NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science (GISS) adjusted the Darwin Australia raw-data temperature record. Raw-data shows a DECLINE in temperature. NASA GISS 'professionally' adjusted data shows a RISE in temperature ("hide the decline"?) ... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

ICE CORE DATA - Read what the Greenland Ice Core Temperature Proxy Data shows - whether or not you believe there is a problem all depends on your time-scale ... http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553 ... after looking at the ice core temperature proxy I'm left wondering what the big rush is

EMAIL: LEAKED or STOLEN? Read how an uber-unix mail admin geek, figure out the Climategate emails are a "Whistle-blower" leak of a UK "Freedom of Information Act" (FOIA) info gathering activity ... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/07/comprhensive-network-analysis-shows-climategate-likely-to-be-a-leak/#more-13821 ... email really is forever.

A SIXTH-GRADER CAN DO IT: Watch video of a sixth-grader find evidence of "Urban Heat Island" phenomena, skewing urban temperature records upward ... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/picking-out-the-uhi-in-global-temperature-records-so-easy-a-6th-grader-can-do-it/

CODE REVIEW: If you are a s/w professional get liquored up before reading this dude's code review ... http://www.di2.nu/200911/23a.htm ... I think "Pulling a Harry" will replace "Death March" in IT lingo.

OVERVIEW: Fast Facts about Climategate leaked emails ... http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/fast-facts-about-climategate/

Comment #29 - Posted by: RM3 Frisker FTN at December 9, 2009 7:12 PM

The quest for data is a hoax!! Fight against the academics deluding others for their wealth! Specialists who know the most about things, and then try to get money allocated to deal with the problems they recognize, are WITCH DOCTORS!

This is capitalism in transition!!!! How long before we can have a Great Republican Cultural Revolution?? It's gonna be awesome!!!

Comment #30 - Posted by: Jakob at December 9, 2009 7:15 PM

Instead of reading random blogs, read a real newspaper, they just did a special on climate change that is very well balanced:

http://www.economist.com/

Comment #31 - Posted by: Source at December 9, 2009 7:19 PM

Rodrigo,

If you believe creation is "bull," then explain to me how nothing becomes something? You can't, just like I can not explain how God, has always been God. If I say God had no beginning, then you counter with "the universe had no beginning."

Now we are both left with our faith. Mine is in the Lord God who created everything, yours is in the things He made. To each his own, but know this, faith does have consequences, so chose wisely.

Peace

Comment #32 - Posted by: Greg/M2 at December 9, 2009 7:21 PM

The only ones raising the conspiracy claim are those who believe in HUMAN-CAUSED global warming.

Those who believe in HUMAN-CAUSED global warming are trying to muddy-the-waters, to perform a 'guilt-by-association' between those who are skeptical of HUMAN-CAUSED "We are all going to melt & drown" global warming with the other conspiracy freaks:
(a) 9/11 Truthers
(b) JFK Assassination
(c) Moon-landing
(d) Pearl Harbor (most have died of old-age don't hear about this one too often anymore - grin)
(e) Contrails
(f) Masons-Illuminati-TrilateralCommission-Davos
(g) UFOs
(h) etc

Is the earth warming? Why yes it is as it has done numerous times in the past, even before humans walked the Earth it has warmed (and cooled) numerous times. Check out the Greenland Ice Cores ... http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553 ... all depends on your timescale

Comment #33 - Posted by: RM3 Frisker FTN at December 9, 2009 7:22 PM

Rob, why didn't you do 100??? Haha. Great job. Whaddya say, Lipson???? 6:44???

Comment #34 - Posted by: Denise at December 9, 2009 7:23 PM

"Not a big surprise, considering they tried to tell us we evolved from apes. Silly liberals, man was created. :)"

Yes Greg/M2, surely every rational person agrees with you, but was it by Abassi, Abira, Adroa, Ahone, Aiomun-Kondi, Alatangana, Altjira, Amotken, Anansi, Anulap, Aramazd, Ataguju, Awonawilona, Bagadjimbiri, Bai-Ulgan, Baiame, Banaitja, Batara Kala, Bathala, Brahma, Bumba, Bunjil, Cagn, Cghene, Chaotroquin, Chiconahuiehecatl, Chirakan-Ixmucane, Chiuta, Cocijo, Daksha, Damballa, Elkunirsa, Elohim, Enki, Eskeri, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Gitche Manitou, God, God the Father, Great Spirit, Gukumatz, Heryshaf, Hœnir, Huracan,
Imra, Itherther, Ixpiyacoc, Izanagi, Jah, Jesus, Kaang, Karora, Khnum, Khonvoum, Kneph, Kuk, Kukulkan, Mangar-kunjer-kunja, Mbere, Melek Taus, Muluku, Nanabozho, Ngai, Ngenechen, Nogomain, Noncomala, Numakulla, Obatala, Olelbis, Omai, Pacha Kamaq, Pangu, Pariacaca, Prajapati, Ptah, Pundjel, Pūluga, Qat, Quetzalcoatl, Rod, Space aliens, Ta'aroa, Tabaldak, Tagaloa, Tengri, Tezcatlipoca, Tonacatecuhtli, Tzacol, Unkulunkulu, Unumbotte, Vili and Vé, Viracocha, Wak, Xamaba, Xumucane, or Yahweh?

Comment #35 - Posted by: Billy at December 9, 2009 7:28 PM

Thanks, Denise. We all know Lipson would beat that time by a minute just to piss me off. God, I hate that guy!

Comment #36 - Posted by: Rob O at December 9, 2009 7:28 PM

#6: "The reason for this was that given finite resources, and non-finite consumption, logically you have to run out. Right? ...he failed to consider the power of innovation."

So infinite growth is possible? Technological innovation (which, by the way, is greatly advanced by those Marxist left-wing nutbag scientists and academics) will always save us from catastrophe?

Growth, whether it be population or economic, is constrained by the amount of energy available for the growth to occur. Innovation can create new ways to harness the energy stored in the Earth (fossil fuels) or the energy generated by the sun. Innovation cannot create energy (see: Laws of Thermodynamics, #1).

At some point, we will be unable to innovate our way to higher levels of energy consumption. Infinite growth is simply impossible: it defies the laws of thermodymanics.

Global warming, if it is real (which I believe it is), will increase energy consumption demand, worsening this reality.

Our economic system is designed for infinite growth. In this sense, a traditional market correction cannot occur, since this type of correction does not even exist from the system's point of view. The real correction will be when the reality of finite energy runs into attempts at infinite consumption. No amount of innovation changes the laws of physics.

150 years is long enough to falsify a statement, huh? I'm pretty sure people thought the Earth was flat for a lot longer.

Comment #37 - Posted by: Joey Scrambladucci at December 9, 2009 7:32 PM

Barry, you do realize though that while the world has been warming since the last Ice Age, its progress has recently been accelerated (i.e. over the past 100 years) especially in the poles. Most estimates now put the overall temperature roughly 2 to 3 degrees higher than current forecasts in the year 2100, and this last decade has been the warmest in recorded history. Moreover, controlling carbon output is a task that can be done with minimal economic ramifications, its just hard to get the whole world to sit at the same table and agree on a plan.

Lastly, even if it is a hoax, curbing pollution and lowering our dependence on petrol is good because: a - we don't like most states that produce petrol, b - its a finite resource - and c lower pollution levels would be good for nature reasons, including providing us with less polluted produce (such as PCB levels in Salmon and Mercury in Tuna).

Comment #38 - Posted by: Source at December 9, 2009 7:33 PM

The fact that the people who run Crossfit use the rest days to promote their political agenda is disgusting. They need to stick with what they know, which is exercise, and stay away from that which they completely dont, which is obviously everything else. I will no longer visit this site due to the political nonsense being spewed by the obscure articles constantly posted. Shame on you Coach for using this site to promote your politics. Shame on you....

Comment #39 - Posted by: F Republicans at December 9, 2009 7:34 PM

Ya Rob is a freakin beast! more Rob Orlando is agood thing, ie the juornal article today was awsome too.

M/17/5'11"/175

Comment #40 - Posted by: Jake Trahan at December 9, 2009 7:36 PM

Awesome job, Chris Spealler. Love to hear more about your experience over in India. Shoot me an email when you get back. Talk soon, Steve.

Comment #41 - Posted by: Steve Liberati at December 9, 2009 7:39 PM

Billy, #34,

Hi there. Your post made me smile, thanks for that! -Since you asked:

John 1:1-14:
"In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was already with God in the beginning.

Everything came into existence through him. Not one thing that exists was made without him.

He was the source of life, and that life was the light for humanity.

The light shines in the dark, and the dark has never extinguished it.

God sent a man named John to be his messenger. John came to declare the truth about the light so that everyone would become believers through his message. 8 John was not the light, but he came to declare the truth about the light.

The real light, which shines on everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him. Yet, the world didn't recognize him. He went to his own people, and his own people didn't accept him. However, he gave the right to become God's children to everyone who believed in him. These people didn't become God's children in a physical way—from a human impulse or from a husband's desire to have a child. They were born from God.

The Word became human and lived among us. We saw his glory. It was the glory that the Father shares with his only Son, a glory full of kindness and truth."

:)

Comment #42 - Posted by: Greg/M2 at December 9, 2009 7:40 PM

Looks like coach is specializing in right wing media. His political views are not crossfit

Comment #43 - Posted by: crossMIT at December 9, 2009 7:47 PM

Please post real WSJ articles, not just bits from the editorial and opinion section, it actually is a decent newspaper if you read the normal articles.

Comment #44 - Posted by: WSJ at December 9, 2009 7:51 PM

Hi Greg,

I think what Billy is pointing out is that let's agree that there is a chance that faith does make a difference after death, when we might be judged in some way. Well, faith in general isn't enough... you have to have faith in the right being. And since we're taking a leap of faith regardless, aren't they all as probable as one another to exist?

So isn't there really about a 1/(infinity) chance that your Biblical faith (which, as a sidenote, has been massively changed over the ages through reinterpretation, translation, war, and politics, to mention just a few influences) will pay off?

Again, the conclusion isn't that having this faith is logically any worse than believing in some other god(s), merely that it's not any better either.

Just wanted to try to clarify what seemed like Billy's thought. I don't mean to get involved in all this, let's try to stick with the CrossFit eh? :)

Comment #45 - Posted by: Slav 22/m/5'8"/150 at December 9, 2009 7:54 PM

Greg/M2- love your posts.

Comment #46 - Posted by: matt at December 9, 2009 7:55 PM

You know, I think I've read a couple times that Crossfit tries to engender legit dialogue during these Rest Day forums. If that's the case, why post two articles, both of which call into question the majority of scientists' claims that (a) the world is getting warmer, and (b) our CO2 output is at least partially responsible for it? Would the dialogue aim have been better served if you posted two articles on the man-made global warnming, one advocating the fraudulence, the other advocating the legitimacy?

Comment #47 - Posted by: phil at December 9, 2009 8:03 PM

Just did my 5k.. And I forgot how much I dislike running on a treadmill. Weather up in Boston is terrible, so I dusted off the Woodway and logged another 3.1 for 26:55. So Boring! Let's make the rest of the week crazy, coach.. I'm craving something nutzz

Comment #48 - Posted by: Boston.Hodgson at December 9, 2009 8:09 PM

# 6 ...Barry Cooper... you sound like Ayn Rand, totally agree with you, nice post.

Comment #49 - Posted by: Jorge at December 9, 2009 8:13 PM

#46 Phil,

Your thinking is so clear and objective....maybe too much so. The "little man behind the curtain" (glassman) wouldnt hear of it. And it is sad.

Comment #50 - Posted by: tommy at December 9, 2009 8:18 PM

Ayn Rand did not believe in god.

Comment #51 - Posted by: Ayn Rand at December 9, 2009 8:20 PM

Where to start?

Jakob: have you had any education? If so, what good did it do you if you think that counts as an argument?

Joey, are you capable of grasping that "Capitalists" run this site, and every other site on the internet, except those run by academics and bloggers? And that even those sites are either provided by or funded (by taxpayers) by Capitalists?

Are you capable of grasping that Capitalists have children they love, and about whose future they are quite capable of caring? The issue here is not a stupid, non-existent choice between caving to the totalitarian impulses of the Socialists you are supporting (in fact, if not in your own self understanding), and doing nothing.

All sensible policy, as sensible people will agree, BEGINS with an objective assessment of the facts. The facts before us are that there is both a consistent pattern of data doctoring among those who represent the supposed "consensus"; a now-proven effort to suppress alternative views; and an ubiquitous commitment to world government and the implementation of an autocratic, oligarchic regime run by and for technocrats for whom science is a means, and for whom Truth is consequently a mutable concept, subject to all forms of abuse.

I do not support infinite growth. I would like to see an evolution towards small communities who use few resources because they have realized that the meaning of life does not reside in consumption. However, nothing but evil can come from the imposition of this outcome through force, as happened in Cuba. Cubans live in fear, and always will as long as sadistic thugs rule their land.

Source,

Upon what empirical basis do you claim that warming has "accelerated"? The link I showed demonstrated a roughly .5-1 degree increase over the last century, which is perfectly consistent with natural warming trends.

You answer my question, of course, in the next paragraph, in which you in effect claim that it doesn't matter if that data is correct, since you like the outcome. The movement as it exists today is away from freedom, and towards global tyranny, based upon "evidence" that has been fabricated. Surely you should object to the abuse of science once, since it can be abused twice? The Endloesung was "scientific", and Germany at the time contained most of the best biologists in the world. Our own university system--the Postgraduate part--is modeled on that of Germany. Is your historical knowledge so scant that you cannot see that the abuse of science leads to the abuse of actual human beings?

Slav,

What if it matters less in whom you believe, and more in your use of God-given common sense in living a life of decency, and that Christianity is merely one of the more useful faiths in that regard? That is what I believe, personally.

Phil,

Post your own link. Good luck finding one unconnected with Michael Mann or the CPU.

Comment #52 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 9, 2009 8:23 PM

30/M/5'10"/149 (MTN WARRIOR)

I would like to call what's comming tomorow, I am waiting for the Muscle ups workouts to come, I wonder what's the next 3 days are going to be like! HAHAHA! ANY CLUES?

I love Crossfit...

SANTI

Comment #53 - Posted by: Santi at December 9, 2009 8:23 PM

Dinosaurs were the original global warming causers! If they had not polluted so dang much, we'd still be in the last ice age!...Hacks

Comment #54 - Posted by: DavyJ at December 9, 2009 8:25 PM

hey Greg M2,
There was a little mis-quote, since we are on the subject of truth. John 1:1 says RS: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [also KJ, JB, Dy, Kx, NAB].” NE reads “what God was, the Word was.” Mo says “the Logos was divine.” AT and Sd tell us “the Word was divine.” The interlinear rendering of ED is “a god was the Word.” NW reads “the Word was a god”; NTIV uses the same wording.

What is it that these translators are seeing in the Greek text that moves some of them to refrain from saying “the Word was God”? The definite article (the) appears before the first occurrence of the·os′ (God) but not before the second. The articular (when the article appears) construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous (without the article) predicate noun before the verb (as the sentence is constructed in Greek) points to a quality about someone. So the text is not saying that the Word (Jesus) was the same as the God with whom he was but, rather, that the Word was godlike, divine, a god. (See 1984 Reference edition of NW, p. 1579.)

What did the apostle John mean when he wrote John 1:1? Did he mean that Jesus is himself God or perhaps that Jesus is one God with the Father? In the same chapter, verse 18, John wrote: “No one [“no man,” KJ, Dy] has ever seen God; the only Son [“the only-begotten god,” NW], who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” (RS) Had any human seen Jesus Christ, the Son? Of course! So, then, was John saying that Jesus was God? Obviously not. Toward the end of his Gospel, John summarized matters, saying: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, [not God, but] the Son of God.”—John 20:31
The God of the Bible is named Jehovah

Comment #55 - Posted by: Michael C at December 9, 2009 8:27 PM

Great. so now that we have a President that can speak in complete sentences he is an elitist "intellectual" that has "never worked a day in his life." Ive never ran for president or been a senator, but I suspect its far harder than any job Barry Cooper or these other clowns have held down.

But I do agree with the climate change skepticism. I'm just not gonna read it from some cornhole limey like the one writing this essay. I'm reminiscent for the type of "contrarian" science Gary Taubes presented in Good Calorie, Bad Calorie. why cant the climate people find their Taubes? Someone worth reading...

Comment #56 - Posted by: brendan at December 9, 2009 8:29 PM

Barry,

Over the next 100 years most reasonable projections place the earth warming 2 - 3 degrees c (not F), which is at a quicker pace. If you look at imaging of the polar ice caps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arctic_Ice_Thickness.png
it is easy to see the effects. As far as fitting science to the results, no, that was not my argument, my argument was that even if global warming is wrong (although nearly all of the educated scientific community says it is ongoing) curtailing carbon consumption is a paramount issue. Unless of course you want to continue to burn a resource that is running out and controlled by fundamentalists (personally, I don't).

Comment #57 - Posted by: Source at December 9, 2009 8:35 PM

Brendan: seek and ye shall find. I read that somewhere.

To be clear, I don't like our President because he has dedicated his entire life to ending America's experiment with allowing its citizens to govern their own lives as they see fit. He wants the government to own everything, and control everything, because the books he reads tell him he must be smarter than everyone else.

He shares this basic impulse with every other totalitarian whose views were inflicted against their will upon the "people" whose interests were rhetorically paramount, and actually utterly irrelevant.

Unrelated note: that place in India is very cool. Kudos to Speal for making a lot of kids very happy.

Comment #58 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 9, 2009 8:38 PM

take some day out of your days fellow crossfitters to look just at your hand. Just 3 quick minutes(a fran workout=)) and notice how it works together. The bones support the structure. Tiny muscles with blood pumping through them. Open and close it...unbelievably amazing right? Look into the science of how it is orchestrated/designed to work together more if you like but i dare you not to just be flat out amazed. “This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
- Isaac Newton

Comment #59 - Posted by: k rice at December 9, 2009 8:48 PM

Greg,
A few points. I'm sure that you've had this debate many times before, but please recognize a few points so that we can actually look at moving forward in a discussion, rather than dancing around each other's words.
You ask those who see evolution as a persuasive explanation of where we are today in biological terms (taken from your "evolv[ing] from apes" post at #4, which actually misstates the position entirely) to "explain to me how nothing becomes something?" (#32) "You can't". That is not the goal of studying evolution within the field of biology, and is likely a better question for an astrophysicist, if anyone. Please don't conflate astrophysics and biology.
In #32, you also write that: "I can not [sic] explain how God, has always been God. If I say God had no beginning, then you counter with 'the universe had no beginning.'" Again, you misstate, or at least oversimplify for effect, the position of the other side in the discussion. For most, the answer to the question of where the universe came from is a solid "We don't know. Yet." This is not a statement of faith, as you imply in the same post. It is a positioning of mankind as ready to continue seeking answers to such fundamental questions, rather than admitting ignorance and ending the inquiry into the origins of the universe there, as you seem willing to do regarding the origins of your deity. Would finding an answer as to the origin of God somehow negate him, or is the concept of him originating at all simply antithetical to your understanding of him?
Finally, your post at #40, responding to Billy at #34 pointing out the myriad of various gods available to those wanting to believe, cites the Bible for the proposition that Yahweh is the one true deity. Let me rephrase this and take it a step further to bring out the underlying logic: the Bible says that God is perfect (I’m expanding here upon the idea that he created the universe); the Bible is correct; it’s correct because it’s the word of God; God is perfect because the Bible says so. This is an exemplar of circular logic, which can’t be relied upon in rational discussion. Billy has an obvious response to your point: all of the gods he cites likely had dogma stating that they were the One True God, as well. If you want to stake your argument upon faith, you are free to do so, but please refrain from attempting to bring other arguments down to such a level, and understand when (and why) your argument is rejected as irrational.
You could, of course, always bring up the notion of Pascal’s Wager, the idea that if heaven is the reward, then a little faith down here certainly couldn’t be such a high price. This appeal is unfulfilling: it cheapens the idea of religion, by casting it in the mold of a nigh-commercial transaction, rather than an exercise of faith and reverence, and building upon Slav’s point at #44, monotheistic Christianity gives only one chance out of a constellation of equivalent options, if one seeks to win the wager, equivalent to playing Powerball and riding everything upon only one ticket (and again cheapening religion by seeing heaven as a mere payoff for which one must pay the price on earth).

Comment #60 - Posted by: Nick at December 9, 2009 8:58 PM

Barry at #52,
You ask: “What if it matters less in whom you believe, and more in your use of God-given common sense in living a life of decency, and that Christianity is merely one of the more useful faiths in that regard?”
That’s a strong and fair point, and kudos to you for seeing it in that regard. The problem, however, is that true Christianity would reject this position as insufficiently Christ-centric; it removes the locus of morality from God and assigns it instead to a sense of decency removed from (even if informed by) religion and God. Christianity, in the strict form, is the idea of living life according to the teachings of Christ and the apostles, and making Christ the center of one's life, rather than one’s own ideas. Removing Christ from the center of life, even if still seeing Christianity as a useful tool, is a rejection of its central thesis.

Comment #61 - Posted by: Nick at December 9, 2009 9:14 PM

Groan... another set of political articles... can we keep it to just the workouts please?

Comment #62 - Posted by: denverjn at December 9, 2009 9:18 PM

There's too much political banter here for a website dedicated to fitness. Even if global warming does not immediately threaten our lives, shouldn't we want to care for the world we live in. And in that endeavor, would it matter if we believed in God or Allah or Darwin? Should we not fight to see an environment safe for those still to come? What good is it to be so fit when the future is filled with garbage?

Comment #63 - Posted by: Squat Blues at December 9, 2009 9:23 PM

thoughts...

keep the political agendas off my workout site. not why i come here. i realize that this site is formed for functional workouts with military/police/fire/EMT folks in mind but does that have to mean the Crossfit community is subject to what is perceived as their perspective ideals? I didn't.

Comment #64 - Posted by: sprinternate at December 9, 2009 9:23 PM

Really? The people who post these awesome workouts don't believe in global warming? Really? Or evolution? Man, that's a bummer.

And we're supposed to believe that there's more vested interests in research money and some vague totalitarianism than in oil, gas and coal? Have you ever seen the money research scientists and academics make? It would take an awful lot of them to add up to one oil tycoon... Does it really make sense that we can increase wildly in population in the last several hundred years, and increase even more in the amount we each consume and pollute the planet and not have any effect on the planet? Does that make sense?

Comment #65 - Posted by: Really? at December 9, 2009 9:32 PM

All this arguing, i am going to contribute to this warming by doing an extra workout and breathing heavy, then i am going to eat some protein and fart some global gasses, then ill sit back at my computer and burn more electricity. I love crossfit.

Comment #66 - Posted by: Roadrash at December 9, 2009 9:37 PM

#4 mikes:

So humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor? Which one might that be? Was it:
"Lucy," who has been shown by her jawbone (one of the few recognizable bones on her body) to be a part of the gorilla family, and therefore nowhere near the theoretical lineage of humans?
Neanderthals, who have been shown to be nothing more than a group of homo sapiens, possibly somewhat inbred causing certain common mutations?
How about the so called "Piltdown Man," exposed as nothing but a orangutan's jawbone attached to a human skull, with the teeth filed down and painted to look both more human and older.
Then there's Java man, who consisted of a human femur, the skull cap of something, and three teeth, found 50ft apart from each other. There were other fully human skulls in the same area, which were conveniently not spoken of by the discoverer until 30 years later when he realized his skull fragment came from a giant gibbon.
And of course there is my favorite, "Nebraska man." Nebraska man caused quite the stir, since it was constructed from a single tooth believed to be the firs evidence of anthropoids in North America. In the end, however, the tooth turned out to belong to an ancient form of a quite different mammal, namely the pig.

Every "missing link" that has been fully investigated has been proven to be either a hoax, fully man, or fully ape. (Or of course complete stupidity.) Until someone comes up with something of a little more substance, I'm not convinced.

Comment #67 - Posted by: ericthered at December 9, 2009 9:37 PM

I'll be honest - before I went off to college, I thought this climate change stuff was bunk too (melting glaciers, phssh! spare me!)

But over the last few years I've been exceptionally fortunate to have ecology and evolution taught to me by multiple leading researchers in their respective fields. Admitting that climate change exists and really is destroying our incredible range of ecosystems on Earth doesn't make you a flaming liberal, or even a moderate. If anything, it makes you a rational member of society.

Comment #68 - Posted by: Elise at December 9, 2009 9:43 PM

Oops that should be #14 mikes. My mistake.

Comment #69 - Posted by: ericthered at December 9, 2009 9:45 PM

I clearly can't speak for all Crossfitters, but many of us believe (truthfully) that the science behind dietary cholesterol and saturated fat is highly suspect and has been influenced by political influences (bipartisan I should add).

It is certainly possible that global warming is an existent phenomenon, but I have seen little truly convincing data. The fact that it has become so highly politicized makes me more suspicious. Either way I think it is premature to conclude that its true or false. But we should all be as critical of global warming science (and all science) as we are of cholesterol science.

More importantly...some people on here are really mean. Isn't being mean worse than Coach advancing a political agenda? I mean if you don't like the politics, don't read them. The workouts are still good. And if you do choose to respond to someone you disagree with. It is also ok to be civil about it and not disparage people's education or make other personal attacks.

Comment #70 - Posted by: Joe England at December 9, 2009 9:46 PM

To the last part of your (Barry's) comment...if you can give me a "rational" explanation for the belief in "God" I may be able to take anything you say seriously. Even Aristotle believed that there was no independent alternative outside the natural world. And as a Political Science realist (if you don't know political theory you have no idea what am talking about) AND writing my thesis on how climate change effects security around the world I have 2 things for you to think about. 1. it is not global warming, it is climate change...it just happens that anthropogenic ( human caused for those of you who don't know) climate change happens to be increasing the average temperature worldwide. Not to mention the fact there are millions of more people on the planet which makes the externalities associated with climate change catastrophic. (part of the planet will be cooling, i won't deny that...but the parts that will be warming, will be doing so at a rate that we won't be able to deal with.) 2. the IPCC recognizes that climate change is a security issue for sovereign states. 3. if you don't believe that climate change is being caused by human beings at an unprecedented rate, you are ridiculously ignorant...sorry but after studying the topic in depth for a good 5 years and when the majority of sovereign states around the world are attending a conference to decide what to do about the issue...denying the importance of the modern man's destruction of the planet is just absurd.
i'd be happy to discuss this further...I'm not checking my grammar, I don't really care right now I'm too worked up about the debate about climate change....
oh and time for a 5k....21:53

Comment #71 - Posted by: J at December 9, 2009 10:02 PM

What would these guys have done if they wear around when the first person said the world was round?

Let the scientist do their job.

Save the propaganda for fun stuff.

Comment #72 - Posted by: nathan 30/5'9"/165lbs at December 9, 2009 10:16 PM

Thankfully glassman posted something that tells the truth about the whole climate change fiasco. The bottom line is:

If this goes through in Copenhagen, everyone of us will have to pay a CARBON TAX. The details of the taxes they will place on us is obsurd to say the very least. Just another way Big Brother will be keeping tabs on us. Al Gore and Global Warming is a HUGE FRAUD!!!

Google-Climategate
YouTube- "Fall of the Republic"

Comment #73 - Posted by: jeff at December 9, 2009 10:58 PM

Markets tell a powerful story.

The price of oil, historically speaking, is not high, particularly given the current state of Middle-eastern affaris. The price of gold is at its all-time high. And the price of the dollar, internationally, is low and falling.

So what are the markets telling us? Clearly two things: That fossil fuels are not terminally scarce and the world's energy equation is not at risk, and that American leadership is under question.

Our president found himself too busy to attend the anniversary of the toppling of the Berlin Wall, but has readily cleared his schedule to accept his Nobel Peace Prize and attend the Copenhagen climate-change conference.

So what is our president telling us? Clearly one of two things: Either that he believes American soveriegnty is so above challenge that token international gestures are cost-free, or that the American experiment was so flawed that overtures must be made to align our interests with those who would prefer the US to evolve toward Germany and France.

The prices of gold and the dollar point out a strong bias toward the latter.

An accommodative US, sacrificing the goal of growth and leadership for the consolation of international friendship, will easily gain that friendship but at the cost of respect. And the definition of "respect" here differs, dramatically, from the one inferred by those who proffer it to the US when demanding compliance with silly things like the Kyoto Accord or UN-style appeasance.

This has nothing to do with global warming. The world is a competitive place, and when fighting with lacking competency, a weaker competitor will always strive to hamstring the stronger. Can't compete? Offer your "respect" if the powerful would just acknowledge that they can, by dint of their superiority, change the game just by acceding some points in your favor. Suggest that, despite winning, they're actually "losing" because of their strengths.

In his actions, our president is willingly lying down to be tied by the Lilliputians. The "respect" he will earn is their thanks for doing so, but the gains he may seek to earn do not exist.

The toppling of the Berlin Wall was one of the most glorious victories of the American experiment. It represented the culmination of a multi-decade battle against various forms of totalitarianism; a market-based democracy, tested by its first correction and rebounding even despite the collectivist efforts of the FDR administration, showcased its might, highlighted the shortcomings of statism, and proved itself the shining city on the hill.

But rather than celebrate that victory, we are joining ranks, symbolically, with Yasser Arafat and Al Gore, offering apologies for our strengths, and sanctifying the weaknesses of others.

Markets don't lie. Markets divine strength and fade weakness. Markets are telling us that the repository of wealth, based on current events, is in assets far more reliable than the dollar. And while many may be loath to admit it, the dollar, the United States Dollar, is by far the most telling barometer of America's future that exists.

Comment #74 - Posted by: Chas at December 9, 2009 10:58 PM

Can someone please inform me of the benefit of high rep O-lifting that can't be achieved by other means?

Comment #75 - Posted by: B2 at December 9, 2009 11:02 PM

#17 Neat point that science does not pursue truth, but as a collective whole, scientist pursue truth (or at least what they think is truth)yes it is riddled with the corpuptions of man, like back in early England, you would find evidence to fit your thoery, not form a theory to fit ALL found evidence, yeah bad science takes place, but don;t let a few bad apples ruin the bunch. I can assure you as a scientist myself that truth (and dispelling notions of magic) really is the goal.

An interesting relation between science and truth is that science cannot prove truth, it can only dispell false hoods. Science brings people to truth by disproving other theories/beliefs.

#32 Greg/M2
REAL scientist and physicists are often more humble than what you describe. A real scientist probably would let you know that they don't KNOW those kinds of question, that there are many interesting and compelling ideas, and which ones they are more keen to. This is in contrast to most religions which say they have the answer with 100% certainty. BTW there really are some fantastic theories to the creation of the universe, if youre a nerd like me you should definitely look into it, the theories involving other deminsions are awsome! BTW, what are the consequences in believing in mechanical creation of our universe as opposed to creationism (aka. magic)?

Not to Greg anymore: just a general rant! :-)

I think I posted this last time GW came up, there is a question of motivation when it comes to global warming;
Say its real, ok we can't just pillage the earth, ok cut back, live more green, eat more local grown, we really would have to change the way we do everything to slow it and it would inconvenience everyone in their daily lives but give us more time with the weather we know.
OR
Say its fake, ok cut down more tree cheap, burn more fossil fuels, who give 2 S%$ts about MPG then? IT would keep life easy, for everyone, especially us Americans.

Well, if I'm in pursuit of truth I'll investigate both and accept the side with the most evidence, but, If I'm like most people and hate change, and will have to work harder and pay more (because green products aren't made from cheap earth harming resources), well then I might cling to any piece of data that says I can keep up my destructive life style. Don't be ignorant and think that your decision to reject global warming is a logical decision towards truth, its actually a decision driven by a lot of bias. Bias, towards convenience.

Comment #76 - Posted by: ksyco m/20/5'11"/185 at December 9, 2009 11:10 PM

Is that just tape on Rob's thumbs so they don't rip? I have gotten really sore on the inside of my thumbs when doing PC, cleans, etc.. Wonder if that would help

Comment #77 - Posted by: Sean M/5'11"/175/23 at December 9, 2009 11:21 PM

Here's the deal. I'm here for workin out. I don't mind the political articles, if ya don't like em don't read em. End of story. So quit crammin up the boards with your hate-filled political spews. Your not gonna change anyone's views. Ever. And calling someone stupid for beliving something you don't agree with when your own theories is stupid too. Grow up people. Btw tommorow's WOD will definately suck.

Comment #78 - Posted by: Joe at December 9, 2009 11:35 PM

"...an essential tension in the relationship between truth and power."

Interesting article. It is difficult to think about the world overheating when it is so freakin' cold outside (and I'm in CA and cold...I know some of you have it much worse).

Ready for the games site to be posted...

Comment #79 - Posted by: Rachel - CrossFit Sonoma County at December 9, 2009 11:56 PM

Chas wrote: "dollar is falling because American leadership is under question."

Dollar is falling because the Fed is pursuing an expansionary monetary policy to fight unemployment. Study Milton Friedman and stop parroting Fox news.

Currently the Treasury is borrowing money at near record low rates. That wouldn't happen if American leadership was being called into question. The US economy continues to be a safe haven for the world's capital.

Comment #80 - Posted by: Jack at December 10, 2009 12:03 AM

I can't believe how effective this propaganda has been at convincing the public to continue the climate debate. Scientists (the ones who devote their lives to this issue) don't have a debate. There was a poll where 80% of PhD's were "very concerned" about global warming. Among climate scientists, it was 97%. That does not leave room for debate!

You can't possibly believe that such a large number of scientists are all looking for "personal gains". Sure science will always have this sort of bias but these scientists publish PEER-REVIEWED papers.

Seriously, you're all worried that scientists are being swayed by politics? The media and politicians have been able to cause enough confusion about the issue that people don't know what to believe anymore.

If only more scientists were able to get out there and protest, maybe they'd be heard better. Clearly, the public isn't reading their papers showing the irrefutable evidence of climate change.

I'm only 22 but I'm trying to be part of the movement to combat global warming. It's very difficult to fight against the media's desire for debate.

I need a good metcon workout to help me sweat this off.

Comment #81 - Posted by: Eric at December 10, 2009 12:40 AM

By the way, the truth is that the glaciers are melting at an even faster rate than the worst case scenario proposed by the IPCC. It's happening and FAST!

Unfortunately, my expectations for Copenhagen are bleak. Hope I'm wrong.

Comment #82 - Posted by: Eric at December 10, 2009 12:42 AM

On darwinism and global warming: I was taught by my fifth-grade religion teacher that darwinism and faith are not oposits. It is quite acceptable that there is higher power that makes us good and human, while creation did take longer than six days...
Everyone that does not believe global warming is speeding up, should just look out of the house.
Do you really believe scientists want us to be afraid? of anything? that is what politicians do so much better...
Anyway, even if we do not believe in global warming, why shouldn't we leave Earth in good condition for our children? I don't drive any more, I bike (good for muscles, too). I open curtains so I can turn on lights later. I cook on gas, switch off heating or a/c whenever it is not really needed.
We do not have to think about politicians much: do small things and we can rest assured we did our part.

Comment #83 - Posted by: jos at December 10, 2009 3:19 AM

What is up with Crossfit today - you people need to stick with workouts not spreading a one-sided view of a very important topic like global warming!

All the ridiculous accusations on the side - why not revolutionize our economy for the world to emulate? Instead we get lost into meaningless debates!

Regardless what you think causes global warming, when our resources run out, who would argue with then?

Sad!

Comment #84 - Posted by: Ivan at December 10, 2009 4:15 AM

I have been a loyal crossfit follower for going on three years now, and a paying member for a year. I thought my contributions were going to the development and promotion of a cutting edge fitness program. I am disturbed by the political messages being promoted on the front page of your website. Some I have agreed with, others have the quality of tv talk-show punditry. Either way, it is offputting to bring up your website, cup of coffee in hand as I scrape the sleep from my eyes, to be confronted with partisan drivel as opposed to physical science and inspirational video. Is this really what you want to do with crossfit?

Comment #85 - Posted by: Scott at December 10, 2009 4:28 AM

For most, the answer to the question of where the universe came from is a solid "We don't know. Yet." This is not a statement of faith.

Do you see the problem?

Elise: #69: do you see why many of us argue that college is no longer intended to educate, but indoctrinate. If you choose to continue exposing yourself to alternative viewpoints--which will not be forthcoming from the formerly mainstream media--you may at some point realize you have been tricked.

"There was a poll where 80% of PhD's were "very concerned" about global warming. Among climate scientists, it was 97%. That does not leave room for debate!"

If they actually taught critical thinking in schools any more, you would realize that the CORE of authentic science is skepticism, which ALWAYS leaves room for debate.

To be generous, you likely do not realize that the inner workings of the suppression of dissent have been revealed by the CRU emails in all their naked ugliness. The way it works is you develop a thesis using bogus data, as Michael Mann did with his so-called Hockey Stick. You then convince a crony to publish it. He likes you, he also has a Ph.D, so that is now "peer reviewed science".

You make sure neither he nor anyone else publishes things that disagree with you. In this case, we have ACTUAL EMAILS from Mann saying that he was going to punish a specific journal for publishing something he didn't agree with by withholding future submissions. He literally wanted to dictate the contents of what was published.

This is how you generate consensus: you lie about the data, then use every trick in the book to keep it from being examined critically.

You do realize, don't you, that the primary data upon which virtually all of the AGW scenarios is based, has never been made available in raw form to non-IPCC members, and that even the IPCC does not appear to have full access?

Motive and opportunity are both present in spades for fraud.

It is interesting to me, too, how properly indoctrinated young people are only too happy to believe anything any academic or government official tells them--since they are supposedly "disinterested"--and yet skeptical of the very people upon whom their very cushy lives depend.

Which force has caused more harm in history: for profit corporations, or governments in collusion with some sort of unaccountable priesthood? Third Reich? Khmer Rouge? Islamic conquest of Jerusalem, or the Christian reconquest?

You're brainwashed. That's the point of modern schooling.

Comment #86 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 10, 2009 5:12 AM

100 burpees in 7.56 mins

Comment #87 - Posted by: Marty 42/5'10"/166lbs/Afghan at December 10, 2009 5:14 AM

Could not agree more with the two articles. I love the quote "global warming has become the fill-in-the-blank explanation for whatever happens to be the problem." This is so true, another way for those in power to excert control over the rest of us, which is evident to me. Pretty soon we will have to pay to exhale!!

Comment #88 - Posted by: Chuck D at December 10, 2009 5:36 AM

There sure are a lot of people on here that are experts on this and that. "conservatives" HA! More like "consumatives!"

"Oh, well I read such and such from >insert right-wing rag here< and it says I'm righter and more better!"

"Yeah, well I read in High Times that blah blah blah.."

Political party lines have nothing to do with the FACT that it's better to conserve our resources and lower pollution. Stop being retarded.

Comment #89 - Posted by: Jimmy at December 10, 2009 5:42 AM

Nothing random about Rest Day article selection. Pity because if the egos permitted truly randomized article and source selection, this could be a great resource. As it is, we're going over the same jumps again. And again.

It would put one in mind of the Protestant offer of soup to Irish Catholics during the 1840s famine... Take the soup (the fitness advice) but you have to listen to a preacher asking you to convert religion for a few hours first... Classy stuff.

(Cue cries of: don't read it then / this is the greatest country in the world because we can argue about different views / argue against it using facts if you disagree etc.). Yawn.

Comment #90 - Posted by: J1 at December 10, 2009 6:16 AM

Not to turn this into a religious debate....but #4, I assume you have some impirical evidence to back up your creation claim. Are you the curator of the Creationist Museum, sir? Come on, be honest!

I apologize, but I'll stick with the fossil record and Darwin. I think it's nice that some folks think there's this big old guy in the clouds watching over us. Although he's pretty jealous, and wrathful, and had his son murdered (brutally), drowned the whole world, and for some reason is really against anal sex....huh. OK.

Well said #88. Thanks!

Comment #91 - Posted by: MTR at December 10, 2009 6:17 AM

I'm far more concerned about our water supply than about Global Warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/ocean-mercury-increasing

Without clean water you die.

Comment #92 - Posted by: Bryan at December 10, 2009 6:21 AM

do you right wing nut jobs ever get sick of being on the wrong side of history?

Comment #93 - Posted by: Evan at December 10, 2009 6:36 AM

#68 ericthered- Once you understand the concept of evolution you too will be convinced.

Comment #94 - Posted by: Mikes at December 10, 2009 6:46 AM

Hooah #21!

Comment #95 - Posted by: Carlos P at December 10, 2009 6:47 AM

I love CF. I hate the pig-headed ultra-conservative views on climate change. There, I said it. Do you HONESTLY think the "scientists" Reagan/Bush/Bush II had on board didn't have a political, social, or FISCAL agenda? Really?!

Comment #96 - Posted by: dk m/32/6'0"/226 at December 10, 2009 6:49 AM

If this is what CF.com has become, I'll be going somewhere else to get my workout fix.

Maybe you people should not "Rest Day" and get your butt in the gym.

Comment #97 - Posted by: Rick at December 10, 2009 6:54 AM

Eric and others who are under the impression there is a scientific consensus:

The claims of universal scientific consensus that humanity is causing catastrophic global warming are absolutely false. If you poke around on the net you can find long lists of dissenting scientists. James Inhofe at Senate Environment and Public Works has a list of more than 700 very prominent scientists calling "BS" on this. Yesterday there was an open letter to the Copenhagen conference from more than 240 scientists calling "BS."

And no, they are not all in the employ of the oil industry.

But it doesn't really depend on consensus, because consensus does not invariably prove truth.

The claims of unprecedented warming are false. It's been warmer many times, including in the Medieval Warm Period, when Greenland was green and when wine grapes were grown in England.

The claims of unprecedented CO2 levels are false. It's been thousands of PPM many times, including when it was very much colder than it is now.

The claims of rising sea levels are somewhere between false and extremely suspect.

It is now emerging that the claims of rising temperatures over the last century are themselves extremely suspect - it may be an artifact of adjustments to raw data where the raw data show no increase. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

The climate models have a perfect record of never making an accurate prediction of anything.

This is because the processes they model do not comply with the laws of nature, and because they do not model and completely ignore processes that have dominant effects on the climate system. Like clouds, sunspots and other variations in solar output.

It doesn't matter how many scientists claim the models are valid. It's obvious and undeniable that they are not. Who are you going to believe, them or your lying eyes?

No one should surrender their common sense to such obviously false and ridiculous claims, or defer to those who make them.

The coincidence that we have warming and rising human emissions of CO2 is the sum total of evidence in favor of AGW.

They are selling a $10 trillion climate control machine that has only one knob, for controlling human emissions of CO2, which are themselves a very small percentage of natural sources of CO2. You might as well try to steer an 18 wheeler by sticking your hand out the window to deflect the wind.

Taking trillions of dollars from the industrial world and giving it to third world kleptocrats is order to "fix" global warming obviously has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with global redistribution of wealth.

Do not surrender your common sense to mad scientists, megalomaniacial politicians, gasbags with messianic delusions, or half-wit Hollywood actors who are peeing on your leg and telling you it's raining.

Best regards,

Comment #98 - Posted by: Harry W. MacDougald at December 10, 2009 7:46 AM

#91, J1

Really? you knock the debating then give a ridiculous analogy that doesn't fit? No one is "forcing" you to read while you take the CrossFit "soup." Noone is even preaching. God forbid people argue a little. You can yawn all you want but the fact remains, you don't like it, don't read it. It's easy to predict when these days are coming. Hint: if you worked out 3 days in a row, might want to avoid the site the next day.

And #98, Rick and #86, Scott: This is not what CrossFit has become, this is what it has always been. Take your money and run but it doesn't look like it's going to change.

Comment #99 - Posted by: wildman at December 10, 2009 7:56 AM

On a completely separate note, the 2010 CrossFit Games website just went live!

http://games2010.crossfit.com/

Comment #100 - Posted by: TonyB at December 10, 2009 8:08 AM

I'm not knocking debating. I'm knocking the idea that this is anything other than the willful pushing of an agenda by CFHQ . There isn't even a respectable distance between these latest anti climate change articles and the last ones! There is steering and manipulation going on here in a fitness website purporting to offer Rest Day discussions in an apparently neutral manner, where the readers are relentlessly exposed to articles promoting a very particular world view. It's laughable at this point that the same themes occur with such unapologetic frequency. Anti- AGW, pro-hard line laws on terrorist trials, anti Big Government...

The yawn is genuine. There is a boredom to this dishonest charade. Bleat all you want about my freedom not to join in but the fact is, I've been a CFer for over 2 years I'd like to feel part of the community and I'd like to feel that I can voice a serious gripe without the self-righteous protector-class here jumping all over me. The sacred cow of Rest Day article selection is ridiculous. Why is it off limits to point to obvious bias? This is an open source, collaborative community, no?

Wake up to what is going on here. You might all be fine with it, but stop pretending this is something rando
, unbiased and geared at "mental fitness". It ain't.

Comment #101 - Posted by: J1 at December 10, 2009 8:27 AM

it doesn't matter what your source is that you get your info from because it will be slanted one way or another...

as for evolution/ God debate... the reason humans have characteristics of other animals is that we "all" came from an "infinite energy" source, albeit mine is called God. but if you need to compare us to an animal we are more similiar to reptilians...read up on Carl Sagan, just my opinion keep in mind.

Barry Cooper you seem to be quite intelligent and well versed, and always a staple on the rest days....where you at on the 3 days on? just wondering.

Comment #102 - Posted by: kris kepler at December 10, 2009 8:39 AM

Michael, #56:
No miss quote here friend, just the truth! It would appear that your faith is with the Watchtower Society and its translation of the Bible, the “New World Translation.”

Respected biblical linguist have given a universal “thumbs down” to the New World Translation. Consider:

Dr. Julius Mantery, author of a Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the New World Translation “a shocking mistranslation.”

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, late professor of the New Testament at Princeton University, calls the New World Translation “a frightful mistranslation,” “erroneous,” “Perncicous,” and “reprehensible.”

Dr. William Barclay asserted that “the deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translation…It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”

Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek of the New World Translation, concluded that the translation “has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping the doctrinal considerations from influenceing the actual translation….It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some point it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly.”

British scholar Dr. H.H. Rowley asserted, “From the beginning to the end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated.” Rowley also said this translation is “an insult to the Word of God.”

The translators of the New World Translation of the Bible (The Jehovah’s Witness’s Bible), were NOT biblical linguists. It is well known that the Watchtower resisted identifying members of the translation committee. The claim was that the translators preferred to remain anonymous and humble, giving God the glory. However, such anonymity also prevents checking their credentials.

When high-level defector Raymond Franz, in his book Crisis of Conscience, finally revealed the identity of the translators, -Nathan Knorr, Freederick Franz, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel, it quickly became apparent that the committee was unqualified for the task. Four of the five men in the committee had NO Hebrew or Greek training whatsoever. In fact, they had only high school educations.

The fifth, Frederick Franz, claimed to know Hebrew and Greek, but upon examination under oath in a court of law in Edinburgh, Scotland, he failed a simple Hebrew test. Franz dropped out if the University of Cincinnati after his sophomore year. Even while there, he had not been studying anything related to theological issues.

In regards to your assertion that John 1:1 is a miss quote and that Jesus was not God Almighty, but rather “godlike, divine, a god.” consider this:

The full deity of Christ is supported by many other references in John as well as the rest of the New Testament (see John 8:58; 10:30; 20:28; Colossians 1:15, 16; 2:9; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8).

That Jesus is Jehovah (Yahweh) is clear from the fact that the New Testament consistently applies to Jesus passages and attributes that in the Old Testament apply only to Jehovah:

Jesus is the great “I AM” of the Old Testament (John 8:58; compare with Exodus 3:14).

Jesus as Yahweh was “pierced” on the cross (Revelation 1:7; compare with Zechariah 12:10).

Yahweh’s glory and Jesus glory are equated (Isaiah 6:1-5; compare with John 12:41).

Jesus’ identity as Yahweh is proved in His role in creation (Colossians 1:16; compare with Isaiah 44:24).

Both Yahweh and Jesus are described as having a voice like the roar of rushing waters (Ezekiel 43:2; compare with Revelation 1:15).

Further, linguist long pointed out that it is not necessary to translate Greek nouns that have no definite article with an indefinite article (there is no indefinite article in Greek).

In other words, the noun theos (Greek for “God”) without the definite article ho (the Greek word for “the”) does not need to be translated as “a God” as the Jehovah’s Witnesses have done in reference to Christ. It is significant that theos without the definite article ho is used of the Father in the New Testament (Luke 20:38). Because the lack of the definite article in Luke 20:38 in reference to the Father does not mean He is a lesser God, neither does the lack of the definite article in John 1:1 in reference to Jesus mean He is a lesser God. The presence or absence of the definite article does not alter the fundamental meaning of theos (God).

So Jesus is, without a doubt, Almighty God in the flesh, if He were not, He would not have accepted worship as Almighty God from Thomas as He did in John 20:28.

In Isaiah 43:11, God asserts: “I, even I, am the LORD [Yahweh], and apart from me there is no savior.” This verse indicates that 1) a claim to be Savior is a claim to deity, and 2) there is only one Savior –God. It is against this backdrop that the New Testament refers to Jesus as Savior (Luke 2:11). The parallel truths that only God is the Savior (Isaiah 43:11) and that Jesus is the Savior constitute powerful evidence for Christ deity.

Peace

Comment #103 - Posted by: Greg/M2 at December 10, 2009 9:10 AM

The argument that we can even do anything rational or effective about man induced climate change is a non-starter. The only sane idea to get us away from fossil fuels and start us moving towards a replacement is to use them all up. So I developed this 10 point plan for all of us to adopt to do our part:

1. Leave your lights on, all of them.
2. Only buy SUVS, the bigger the better.
3. Leave your refrigerator open and use it as a reading light.
4. Use your oven to provide extra heat.
5. Aim a hairdryer at your thermostat in the summer to keep your house extra cold (Refer to number 4 if you get too cold). NO BLANKETS!!
6. Washers and dryers are to be used for one garment at a time.
7. Get a shower installed that has internet capabilities so you can surf the net while you shower.
8. Use gas powered scooters for all WOD runs.
9. a. Get a big house like Al.
b. No sharing of limos, get your own.
10. Get a private jet.

Comment #104 - Posted by: Tom R at December 10, 2009 9:10 AM

It is supposed to be a rest day, yet the articles make my blood boil.
I think we should stick with fitness material here.

Comment #105 - Posted by: Jette 40/M/5'11"/175 at December 10, 2009 9:14 AM

#18 rodrigo

if macro evolution happened and you only base your findings on science - tell me - then repeat by experiment - how a single strand of DNA randomly formed

If you can't (which you can't) then consider yourself a person of faith - not in science because science has no explanation for this - at least now you can continue to spread your religion honestly

Comment #106 - Posted by: cl at December 10, 2009 9:15 AM

Definitely stick with what you know. Your strength is fitness, not global policies.

Comment #107 - Posted by: mp at December 10, 2009 9:22 AM

So what I've gotten from all of this is that I should ignore what anyone tells me about the scientific facts behind global warming and "think for myself" instead.

And kris, you're giving Barry too much credit for being intelligent and well versed. While the latter is true, he's simply being smothered by overwhelming propaganda.

Comment #108 - Posted by: Eric at December 10, 2009 9:26 AM

Michael C - read Revelation and then tell me when God died? If Jesus wasn't God then when did God die?

Comment #109 - Posted by: cl at December 10, 2009 9:31 AM

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091209/full/news.2009.1134.html

Comment #110 - Posted by: James H. at December 10, 2009 9:38 AM

Hey cl #108
Revelation is a big book, with many symbolisms, why don't you read it and get back to me with specifics

Comment #111 - Posted by: Michael C at December 10, 2009 9:39 AM

And a healthy alternative to today's discussion article might be... http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

Come on; 'tis the season to be Merry, not pr!cks. We've got enough of those in the world.

Comment #112 - Posted by: James H. at December 10, 2009 9:40 AM

And furthermore, there is FAR too much emphasis being put on the hacked emails. Sure, those scientists were wrong and immoral. But they are only a select few. There are corrupt police officers but that doesn't mean we don't respect the rest of them.

The programming code is available where some of the scientists apparently added an "artificial correction" to the data. Check it out here:

http://www.jgc.org/blog/2009/11/very-artificial-correction-flap-looks.html

You'll see that it's really just much ado about nothing. They even published a paper at the time stating the concerns with the model. How can it be some secret conspiracy if they publish it? And several programmers have come to the same conclusion about the code.

I do agree that data should be available to anyone. Being able to reconstruct a model and repeat the results is necessary. But because one small group of scientists (who already were considered somewhat sketchy) denies requests for information does not in any way whatsoever refute the existence of global warming. It simply reveals a lack of character both of the scientists and the hackers.

Comment #113 - Posted by: Eric at December 10, 2009 9:41 AM

Michael C- I hope you get a chance to look at the email I sent to you.

Comment #114 - Posted by: matt at December 10, 2009 9:41 AM

Eric - #107

check up on hacked e-mails please

You don't have to believe Barry - take it from true believers

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

since CO2 levels have continued to rise over the past decade this is very interesting - don't you think?

Is this part of the overwhelming propaganda?

Comment #115 - Posted by: cl at December 10, 2009 9:45 AM

The whole 700 scientists argument is laughable. There are over 700 scientists with the first name Steve who agree with global warming.

All the emails tell me is that post-modern theories of knowledge construction and deconstructive analysis of truth claims have a 'grain of truth' in them. What is truth has a lot to do about politics. The climate change community feels under attack from politicians and powerful economic actors so they police their ranks... big surprise.

Yes, that hurts science, but it doesn't mean the claims are untrue. It just means that it is political. That should be obvious given all the BS that has been made over this issue as of late. A lot of powerful actors have their livelihood at stake with the threat of climate change.

I would have liked to see an article on the board discussing the evidence that this past decade has been the hottest on record since we have been keeping track. We could than argue whether this trend is a fluke in the data or represents a trend. The Maldives and other island countries can disappear and we can have our cute little debate. The problem is hard enough to solve even when people realize that it is a problem. I find it honestly depressing that this great country sounds so backwards some times... we should be leading the world.

Comment #116 - Posted by: KPR at December 10, 2009 9:56 AM

Speal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment #117 - Posted by: Pat Sherwood at December 10, 2009 9:57 AM

I love when Christians use the bible as their proof for all of their arguments. It's just a bunch of stories compiled in a 2000+ year old book. It's no different than Aesop's Fables.

It should be filed under FICTION.

Comment #118 - Posted by: Jimmy at December 10, 2009 10:05 AM

I didn't think there was actually still debate about global warming. Doesn't everyone know the world is flat, so the carbon emmissions just fall off the earth when they reach the end and float into space. I am a republican, but it is unthinkable to keep debating this. We need to stop burning fossil fuels....Or we need to figure out a way to inhabit Mars so that we can destroy that planet.

Comment #119 - Posted by: Larry Thiel at December 10, 2009 10:10 AM

Just on the evolution bit by ericthered, mitochondrial DNA analysis as well as 16S RNA analysis confirm stark similiarities and indeed shared ancestry among apes and man.

Comment #120 - Posted by: Adam at December 10, 2009 10:12 AM

Im not arguing anything though just tossing out some food for thought.

Comment #121 - Posted by: Adam at December 10, 2009 10:16 AM

Similarities do not prove ancestry.

Comment #122 - Posted by: matt at December 10, 2009 10:19 AM

From what I remember reading about scientific discovery, the pattern of infighting and obstinacy has characterized much of the history of science. Dark matter, dark energy, and the rate of expansion of the universe are some recent examples. I wonder if the bishops who tried Gallileo had tribal tats and PVC pipe...

Comment #123 - Posted by: Sammy W at December 10, 2009 10:24 AM

Barry Cooper,

You kind of remind me of someone who hasn't left the days of the Red Scare. A lot of your comments seem very paranoid and fearful. Brain washing doesn't happen in todays schools, maybe you could say it happens in churchs but definitely not schools.

What is your experience and your qualifications that lead you to state with such certainty that your opposition is brainwashed? That schools where free thinking is encouraged are actually brainwashing? What if I say your brain washed?

Its weak sauce to say that your opponent is mentally inable to think for themselves and that is why your view is right.

Not an attack BTW, there no harsh tone intended.

Comment #124 - Posted by: ksyco m/20/5'11"/185 at December 10, 2009 10:27 AM

How can Crossfit believe in a commitment to excellence and post a link to that ridiculous and poorly thought out blog post? I have no problem with the expression of alternate views on climate change but whoever is posting this on the Crossfit site needs to spend some time finding writers who can do it intelligently.

Comment #125 - Posted by: dewy24 M/40/170 at December 10, 2009 10:29 AM


MEH, topic like this suck on forums, they get too big too fast, nothing gets done.

Comment #126 - Posted by: ksyco m/20/5'11"/185 at December 10, 2009 10:35 AM

#125: No, I haven't left the mindset which governed the thinking of those who RECOGNIZED that the Soviets and Chinese were mass murderers, imperialists, and vicious suppressors of ALL dissent, and TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD.

This is not speculation. This is not paranoia. That is FACT, and my allegation of brainwashing is based, very simply, on 200 or so of these Rest Days where it was painfully obvious to all with an ounce of common sense that one side--mine--was actually capable in general of martialing actual arguments in favor of their positions; and that the other side--that of Leftists--was unable to do much of anything but tell to shut up after calling me right wing or something else. Like we are seeing here.

The true story of the Vietnam War has not, to this very day, been told by the formerly mainstream media. ClimateGate, which involves virtually all of the leaders of the AGW hoax, has received virtually no air play on the major networks, absent Fox.

You see the same reactions of shock, and then outrage at being exposed to a non-PC view over and over and over, and I think any reasonable person--particularly one familiar with the methods and symptoms of propaganda--would conclude that brainwashing is the best word.

What are people angry at here? Not that CrossFit is posting political articles. No, it is that articles are being posted which CAN'T be true, because they are contrary to very comfortable complacencies our indoctrination system leads them to adopt.

Comment #127 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 10, 2009 10:41 AM

Comment #120: Based on what evidence Larry?

The 'climate models' that were being peddled as evidence are being systematically proven to be bunk and corrupted.

To make statement you have just exposes you as nothing more than a true believer not a man of thought and reason.

The AGW or climate change arguments never passed my common sense test. After watching the money flows and obvious political motivations by dubious people my shit detector started squawking.

Things that always bothered me about these great claims:
- Obsessing over the costs of warming but never a discussion of the benefits of warming
- Attacking the sources of warming versus analyzing alternatives to dealing with the consequences of possible AGW
- Hysterical, over the top claims of doom
- Lack of any discussion about other affect of other huge variables relative to man made gasses such as: sun activity, ocean effects, natural versus green house gasses
- Ignoring inconvenient data like huge rises in C02 following a warming period versus leading a warming period which would indicate CO2 may be a consequence of warming versus the cause
- Lack of explanation for other warming periods prior to industrialization
- Lack of good explanation of how you even determine what a 'global temperature' really is given all the micro climates and what constitutes normal or acceptable variation.

Given the lack of robust discussion around these points and politicians and business men like Al Gore very quick to announce the 'science' as settled led me to be extremely suspicious of motives and actual man made problem.

Welcome to the greatest fraud ever, greater than any business fraud.

This is just another example of our modern embrace of nihilism.

Comment #128 - Posted by: phil g atlanta, ga cf since 8/21/09 at December 10, 2009 10:46 AM

The warming of Earth's surface and oceans over the past century is very well documented, and climate research shows that most of the warming in the past half century results from manmade greenhouse gases.

In recent years, global warming has been the subject of a great deal of political controversy. As scientific knowledge has grown, this debate is moving away from whether humans are causing warming and toward questions of how best to respond.

Signs that the earth is warming are recorded all over the globe. The easiest way to see increasing temperatures is through the thermometer records kept over the past century and a half. Around the world, the earth's average temperature has risen more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) over the last century, and about twice that in parts of the Arctic.

This doesn’t mean that temperatures haven't fluctuated among regions of the globe or between seasons and times of day. But if you average out the temperature all over the world over the course of a year, you see that temperatures have been creeping upward.

This is without doubt.

Comment #129 - Posted by: Thomas_Truth at December 10, 2009 10:49 AM

#17 Prim,
Don't disagree about your concerns regarding funding hostile regimes with oil revenue, but your proposed solution buys us nothing viable in the near term.

Billions are being spent on research and subsidy of 'renewable' energy and it is nowhere near being able to economically meet your needs.

In addition to renewable research, in the near term to help alleviate our dollars going to hostile oil producers, we should start developing more of our own energy resources: Alaska and offshore oil fields, natural gas, shale deposits, nuclear.

This is also part of the biggest political scam in history that we would knowingly ignore our own resources driving up the cost of energy and putting more dollars in enemy hands.

Comment #130 - Posted by: phil g atlanta, ga cf since 8/21/09 at December 10, 2009 10:51 AM

New CF'er here, catching up and will do yesterday's 5K this afternoon.

Looking to see that 255 number dropping to the 225 range as I go on!

Comment #131 - Posted by: Doug (37/6'4"/255) at December 10, 2009 10:54 AM

#18, #27 and others agreeing with those:

It was a conspiracy theory until the CRU records became public. The conspiracy is no longer a theory but fact.

Sheesh talk about the irrationality of fundementalist Christians, tell me oh true believers if the science is so solid why the need to lie, massage the data, 'lose' the raw data, intimidate those who disagree versus simply arguing your case?

Comment #132 - Posted by: phil g atlanta, ga cf since 8/21/09 at December 10, 2009 10:56 AM

Eric #109

"he's simply being smothered by overwhelming propaganda."

Propaganda goes both ways. "Scientific research" has become nothing more than politics. Prove an "end" so funding from corporation X doesn't dry up.

Comment #133 - Posted by: NPW at December 10, 2009 10:58 AM

You guys want a challenge on workout days, and you want mental softballs on Rest Days? Why? The capacity to think is INFINITELY more important in a so-called Information Society.

You can protect your health with a good diet and a brisk daily walk.

Kris,

I'm 450 lb. and haven't left my bed in two years. What's your point? I don't question your presence on workout days, so why bug me here? If you want to post a result--a opinion you are willing to back with facts and logic--then do so. Until then, you're not playing the game but rather taking up space.

Comment #134 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 10, 2009 11:01 AM

"#18 rodrigo

if macro evolution happened and you only base your findings on science - tell me - then repeat by experiment - how a single strand of DNA randomly formed

If you can't (which you can't) then consider yourself a person of faith - not in science because science has no explanation for this - at least now you can continue to spread your religion honestly "

cl, please tell me and repeat by experiment how god came into being.

I can point to you the to the miller/urey experiments of the 1950's that show that if you run electricity through earth's early gases NH3, CH4, H2, and H20 you will get the amino acids and some of the base nucleotides of DNA and the carbon backbone sugars of DNA. So basically, from a simplified experiment you get enough compounds to get both DNA and proteins.

It's not a far stretch from there, given quintillions of these molecules that you will get a random order of a DNA and an enzyme such such as DNA polymerase which will replicate it. DNA is replicated all the time in test tubes. No godly magic required.

A person of faith such as yourself claims there is a god but by definition (since his existance is based on pure faith) then it is belief in the unproveable and based on nothing other than speculation. God if he exist, therefore refuses to interfere and doesn't even care.

Obviously, I don't know everything there is to know about science and I willingly admit that. But if you are going to claim that an invisible being created us and loves us and wants us to believe in him or he will burn us, and he impregnates virgins and turns blood in wine and parts the oceans and died for my sins and makes evil apples then you suffer from dementia. None of religion makes any sense. You are just afraid it might be true. You are like a little kid that still believes in Santa and the tooth fairy.

God does not exist and you will have wasted your life following something fake.

Comment #135 - Posted by: rodrigo at December 10, 2009 11:01 AM

#126 Dewy,
Please enlighten us on what is so ridiculous and poorly thought about the blog post? Simply saying it is so does not make it so.

It is actually a well documented and thoughtful post. Much longer and with much more supporting information than most blog posts.

Now if you disagree with the premise of the post then make your counter argument. Do you even know what the premise of that blog post is?

Comment #136 - Posted by: phil g atlanta, ga cf since 8/21/09 at December 10, 2009 11:09 AM

Thumbs up to Chris Spealler and HQ for sending him to India. Those kids are keen, love it!

As for climate change.....yes it will change continuously, it's called "the weather". One of the greatest qualities of the human race (either god given or evolved) is our ability to adapt. Coach calls this "adaptation". Our species will adapt to survive the weather or we will adapt the weather in order to survive. Failing that we will die off....which also could be an adaptation. :)

From what I can see, climate change/environmental engineering has become a huge industry. Kind of similar to religion. In my opinion, both need to take themselves a little less seriously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Comment #137 - Posted by: Ken M/46/5'11"/186 at December 10, 2009 11:11 AM

Some information about the issues of AGW as presented for those that might still have an open mind or are at least interested in the counter arguments:

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/category/uncategorized/global-warming

http://thedogatemydata.blogspot.com/2009/12/raw-v-adjusted-ghcn-data.html

Comment #138 - Posted by: phil g atlanta, ga cf since 8/21/09 at December 10, 2009 11:17 AM

not sure if this will get seen among these other posts . . .but here goes. I was doing the split jerk Wod on monday (with the clean added) and broke my wrist (end of my radius actually). when I did my second pull and transitioned to receive the bar at my chest, my right elbow hit my knee and at the same time the weight transfered to my hand thus causing my forearm to stay vertical. the weight must have come down on my hand just right and it snapped my wrist back. i think the problem is somewhat with my technique. some with shoulder flex. and some freak accident. My question is, what can i do to prevent this in the future, and how long do i hold off before i come back? thanks for any response.

Comment #139 - Posted by: knoxvegas at December 10, 2009 11:19 AM

#104 Signed Peace? Really?

Why cant people believe in God without trying to cram scripture down your throat?

I believe in God and I also believe he is so much bigger than all this ridiculous bickering and point proving. Give it a rest y'all.

How about this, Creation and evolution are one in the same. Whoa, there's something to think about.

Comment #140 - Posted by: SubPow at December 10, 2009 11:20 AM

#40 F Republican (does F stand for Fred?),

Or you could simply skip the rest day conversations, your choice.

You might want to consider some help for that anger issue though.

Cheers

Comment #141 - Posted by: phil g atlanta, ga cf since 8/21/09 at December 10, 2009 11:24 AM

"WTC" wod for time:

110 floors with 10 pushups every 7th floor. Time 40:16.

I just happened to be at police HQ today and couldnt get a WOD after work so I did this on lunch. You never know what day you'll wake up and hav to climb to the top of the tallest building in your city and save a life... maybe your own.

Comment #142 - Posted by: g at December 10, 2009 11:27 AM

Wouldn't it be great if we could evolve a vaccination from Jesus' secret stash of dinosaur DNA to cure global warming!

Ok, enough of that sillyness how about 2010 CROSSFIT GAMES SITE IS UP! 2010 CROSSFIT GAMES SITE IS UP! 2010 CROSSFIT GAMES SITE IS UP! 2010 CROSSFIT GAMES SITE IS UP! 2010 CROSSFIT GAMES SITE IS UP! 2010 CROSSFIT GAMES SITE IS UP! 2010 CROSSFIT GAMES SITE IS UP! 2010 CROSSFIT GAMES SITE IS UP! 2010 CROSSFIT GAMES SITE IS UP! 2010 CROSSFIT GAMES SITE IS UP!

http://games2010.crossfit.com/
In case anyone here feels like talking about something we all can agree on!

Comment #143 - Posted by: Jesco at December 10, 2009 11:32 AM

Rob is unreal!!! 100 body weight squats and now this. Incredible.

Comment #144 - Posted by: Nainoa at December 10, 2009 11:37 AM

KPR at #117

"What is truth has a lot to do about politics."

What is actually true in science has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. The laws of nature are entirely apolitical. The only loyalty they demand is to Truth with a capital T.

However, what is accepted as true in science has everything to do with politics. Just ask Lysenko.

We are being asked to accept as true certain propositions and to completely remake our civilization to save the planet on the strength of this proposition.

Except that the proposition is obviously false, and the proposed radical restructuring wouldn't fix the problem even if it were true, because China and India and the developing world aren't going to go along.

The WUWT post that I linked to poses the question of whether there actually is a warming trend this century, or whether the data have been fraudulently adjusted upward by our friends at CRU who "hide the decline" and "apply artificial adjustments" and "fudge factors" and who "Imply the calibration is much better than it is" and who, in their sanctum sanctorum, admit their models cannot account for the lack of warming over this last decade. If you want that debate it is in full swing over there.

And remember, the models have never made an accurate prediction. Ever.

To support their claims, the CRU boys faked the temperature record to (1) suppress the Medieval Warm Period (2) suppress the Little Ice Age (3) inflate recent warming and (4) falsely present dendrochronology as accurate when it is not.

To support their claims that the science is settled they rigged the peer review process.

To prevent critics from reviewing their data and methods they stonewalled, said they would rather destroy it than provide it, and now say oops we destroyed it.

And us little people are being told by our suave elites like Ed Begley, jr. that the science is settled.

Except that it's not.

The real deniers today are those who deny the compound fatal flaws in the claims of catastrophic AGW.

Comment #145 - Posted by: Harry W. MacDougald at December 10, 2009 11:43 AM

I love Cross-fit but this political bulls**t has got to go. Democrat, Republican, Centrist, Socialist, Libertarian, Communist, Tea Partiers, Reformists its all the same. Its like getting in shape: instead of arguing about the best way to do it, get out there and create change. Stop trying to pick fights on message boards. I still don't understand what climate change has to do with Cross-fit.

Comment #146 - Posted by: Greg at December 10, 2009 11:44 AM

Hey Knoxvegas,
I'd lighten the weight until your technique, flexibility issues catch up.

Comment #147 - Posted by: phil g atlanta, ga cf since 8/21/09 at December 10, 2009 11:53 AM

Most of the people in this country are NOT scientists. My guess is 95% of the people posting on this board are not scientists, and probably 99% are not climate scientists. This includes me. So here's how I formulate my opinions on things like this:

I take the scientists' word for it. If there is a debate, call me crazy, but I'm going to side with the MAJORITY of scientists. If 97% of climate scientists AGREE that man-made global warming is of serious concern, they why would any rational person who is NOT A SCIENTIST just decide that they are going to go with the 3%. I can think of two reasons: 1) bias - either this doesn't jive with their political viewpoint or they are upset because accepting global warming might mean they have to change their lifestyle (as a previous poster explained); or 2) they are the type of person who likes to be "smarter than everyone else" and sides with the minority (a conspiracy theorist, basically).

People like Barry can continue to post their papers and such that they found in the always-accurate World Wide Web, and I'm sure others can post papers with dissenting opinions. I'm sure the people on both sides writing this stuff have done so in a way that is convincing to someone who is not an expert in the field. So for everyone who says "think for yourself" or "prove it scientifically" - NO. I'm not a scientist and neither are you. I have a real job that prevents me from running well-controlled experiments on global warming. I won't try to pick apart some research paper online because I know I'm not capable of doing so with any effectiveness, and let's face it, most of us on here are not either.

I'm reminded of a South Park episode about 9/11 conspiracy theories. One of the kids says something to the effect of "Did you know that over 1/4 of the people in America think 9/11 was a conspiracy? Are you saying 1/4 of Americans are retards?" Kyle responds, "Yes, I'm saying 1/4 of Americans are retards. At least 1/4."

Comment #148 - Posted by: ral at December 10, 2009 11:56 AM

"cl, please tell me and repeat by experiment how god came into being."

Why - I never claimed to be able to prove the existence of God scientifically? You imply science proves macroevolution - I say it doesn't

Natural Selection - scientific fact - observed

"I can point to you the to the miller/urey experiments of the 1950's that show that if you run electricity through earth's early gases NH3, CH4, H2, and H20 you will get the amino acids and some of the base nucleotides of DNA and the carbon backbone sugars of DNA. So basically, from a simplified experiment you get enough compounds to get both DNA and proteins."

So you have a sample of gasses from that time period so we can be sure they were there? Who was around to run electricity through the atmosphere?

"It's not a far stretch from there, given quintillions of these molecules that you will get a random order of a DNA and an enzyme such such as DNA polymerase which will replicate it. DNA is replicated all the time in test tubes. No godly magic required."

You seriously don't know the difference between replication and random formation?

DNA is a three dimensional helix - asking a mathmetician what the odds of it randomly forming (even if all the elements were there) is about the same probability of a 747 forming when a tornado his a junkyard - our idea of "far-fetched" is much different.

"God does not exist and you will have wasted your life following something fake" - why the hotility?

"You are just afraid it might be true. You are like a little kid that still believes in Santa and the tooth fairy."

Not really - but if it helps you feel better to think so go ahead

"A person of faith such as yourself claims there is a god but by definition (since his existance is based on pure faith) then it is belief in the unproveable and based on nothing other than speculation. God if he exist, therefore refuses to interfere and doesn't even care."

Actually he has "interfered" in my life in many great ways - Thank you Lord!


Comment #149 - Posted by: cl at December 10, 2009 12:03 PM

#76 neoroendocrine response

Comment #150 - Posted by: dan colson at December 10, 2009 12:05 PM

OK ral,
But what does it do to your confidence in the scientists that you have faith in when it is exposed that they have lied, committed fraud in attempt to make 'evidence' fit their hypothesis?

Does that not cause you concern?

Furthermore as it pertains to AGW, there are a huge number of legit scientists who do not agree with the 'majority' of scientists supporting AGW.

When the 'majority' of scientists and affiliated politicians are willfully subverting apposing views, then how do you really know the 'majority' is actually a legitimate majority?

Comment #151 - Posted by: phil g atlanta, ga cf since 8/21/09 at December 10, 2009 12:06 PM

#103 kris kepler: "it doesn't matter what your source is that you get your info from because it will be slanted one way or another..."

This self-refuting. Even if it wasn't, it's untrue unless you beleive all the times, reps, ages, and the like posted here on non-rest days are also "slanted" because that is information as well.

Comment #152 - Posted by: penty at December 10, 2009 12:07 PM

OK, we're getting somewhere now.

KPR at #117 says

"What is truth has a lot to do about politics."

and ral at # 146 says "NO" to the suggestion to think for himself.

Your mileage may vary.

Comment #153 - Posted by: Harry W. MacDougald at December 10, 2009 12:09 PM

#146, ral,

I am a scientist (physicist and systems engineer) and definitely I don't believe in AGW and doubt GW in general.

For AGW/GW to get passed the hypothesis/guessing phase it has to make non-trivial predictions that prove true, this hasn't happened. Why? Because the models they are using are garbage. They have glaring omissions/errors/kludges/massages/tricks that I can spot in what they do publish? I don’t believe in conspiracies but I do believe “what happens in the light happens in the dark”; if I can look and catch you being dishonest in what you present to me then you probably are doing the same (or worse) in places where you think I can’t check?

Ral, you say we should trust these few Climate gurus because we aren’t qualified, that’s BS. As the article states: they have dropped the pretense of real science and chosen a path of “PNS” by their own admission.

Are you still eating a low fat diet (lipid hypothesis as it's called even by its advocates)? Are you not squatting below parallel? Both of these are supported by "professionals" too. It is facts and proofs that make science not majorities.

Comment #154 - Posted by: penty at December 10, 2009 12:56 PM

I say NO to the suggestion that I shouldn't listen to the majority of scientific research on the issue. I guess the phrasing "think for yourself" wasn't exactly right - of course I'm thinking for myself, but I'm accepting my information from people who know what the hell they're talking about and have devoted their lives to it. Yes, there are those who disagree with the majority, and in SOME CASES in the course of human history the vast majority has been wrong. But in the grand scheme, it doesn't happen often. There is a minority of people out there who honestly believe there is a hole in the Earth at the north pole (a cabbie in Vegas told me about it for 20 minutes on the way to the airport). Have I done any scientific experiments to disprove that theory? No, but considering I've never in my life heard of any evidence of that being true, I don't believe it. Maybe I was "brainwashed" by my public school education.

I'm not a genius, but unlike some people on here, I don't claim to be one either.

Comment #155 - Posted by: ral at December 10, 2009 12:59 PM

ral #153 - this is a link I posted earlier - I don't think you've had a chance to check it out. It is pro AGW scientists (the ones you believe) wondering why GW has stalled over the last 10 years - despite continued increases in CO2 emissions

So take it from the majority (for now)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

Comment #156 - Posted by: cl at December 10, 2009 1:07 PM

#137, knoxvegas,
Unfortunately, what happened to you is just about the only known way to cause injury while cleaning. A heavy barbell falling onto a wrist with the elbow trapped on the thigh will do damage for sure.

There is one solution, and that is what Coach Burgener (and others of course) call "fast elbows." Drive those elbows forward before you receive the barbell. Practice fast elbows at lighter weights until it becomes second nature.

Comment #157 - Posted by: Tony Budding at December 10, 2009 1:10 PM

Ral, at this point I'm pretty much calling shenanignas on you.

You seem unfamiliar with the lastest "climiate-gate" issue or even to have read the articles posted. Head climatologists are stating in their own words to have abandoned science, yet you say I/we should still believe/trust them? Data/email from their files have been revealed discussing how they can't get AGW/GW out of the data so they "trick" (change/ignore/fake)it and how to discredit/fire dissenters.

ral, claiming to not be a genuis is not an excuse for not being educated on a subject before you speak.

Comment #158 - Posted by: penty at December 10, 2009 1:19 PM

I am a big Crossfit fan, but the obvious political leanings of the articles posted on this site is a bit...aggrevating? I come here to make my life better, not hear what you think is the political answer. And you don't do it to create debate...as it is always onesided. What Crossfit seeks to do is not political, and cannot be seperated as such. What gives?

Comment #159 - Posted by: Brian Winegar at December 10, 2009 1:22 PM

WU:
400m treadmill @ 7 min mile
10 dips
10 pullups
10 GHD situps
10 back ext
10 overhead squats

AMRAP 15min: 10 renegade rows (45lbs), 10 overhead squats (45lbs), 10 dips. completed 7

Front Raise: 2x8 45lbs
Side Raise: 2x8 30lbs
Rear Delts: 2x8 45lbs
Shrugs: 5x1(5 sec hold) 365lbs
Farmer carries: 8 shrugs, 100lb dumbbells, walk while holding shrug, 8 more shrugs switch to 45lb plates, 12 shrugs, walk while holding shrug, 12 more shrugs
Neck harness, front & back: 2x8 45lbs

Comment #160 - Posted by: bw (m/5'7/180/30) at December 10, 2009 1:23 PM

ral in my opinion you have given yourself a good reason to not believe as you do.

If being considered right means simply gaining the majority, gaining the majority becomes the goal, not being right. Do you want to believe in a force with a lot of resources that has a goal of gaining the majority, without caring about being right or wrong.

Comment #161 - Posted by: Paul_C m/39/6'/175 at December 10, 2009 1:26 PM

I thought the articles were good.

Comment #162 - Posted by: Gill at December 10, 2009 1:27 PM

Right about now, I star looking for the next WOD.

Comment #163 - Posted by: bo_D at December 10, 2009 1:48 PM

I did read the articles, and I have also read articles from the other side. Am I 100% convinced of Global Warming - no, but I'd say 80 or 90%. For me, that's enough to warrant what's going on in Copenhagen right now.

Here's an article from the other side - it was like the third one that came up on google, I'm sure there are many more like it: http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm

I read that one too. To me, it seems convincing, but I'm sure some of you can find a way to pick it apart, just as pro-AGW scientists would pick apart one of these two posted articles.

Unfortunately, CrossFit continues to post only articles of Global Warming skepticism despite the fact that those views are in the vast minority in the scientific community. I would also add that it's always easier to be "skeptical" - for instance, there is no way to ABSOLUTELY prove the theory of evolution, thus we have people who continue to deny it despite its overwhelming acceptance in the scientific community. One method, which seems to be popular, is to call all the scientists who disagree with you left-wing nutjobs and claim a massive conspiracy. And for what it's worth, I'm a registered Republican, not a communist or a socialist.

Now I remember why I hate reading rest day discussions. Blast away.

Comment #164 - Posted by: ral at December 10, 2009 1:57 PM

Um. Yeah. Conversation good. Rediculous bitching, bad. Read. Think. Comtemplate. DON'T criticize, condemn, or complain. Dale Carnegie 101. If you can't then shut the hell up.

GHD Situps
Burpees
Jumping Pullups
Ring Pushups
1.5 Pood KB Swings

FIGHT GONE BAD STYLE!
3 Rounds

Comment #165 - Posted by: Eric Pelletier at December 10, 2009 1:58 PM

Good God, why do articles like this keep getting put up? I thought CF was supposed to be about the science of fitness, not the fitness of science.

Well, here are my two cents: First off, on the climate debate, #117's got a point; there are a lot of heavily entrenched and well-funded interests that are opposed to the fact that both CO2 and CH4 absorb light and that atmospheric concentrations have risen over the last century, so I’m not surprised that researchers working in climate science would want to be fairly defensive in making sure all their evidence in lined up before publishing and the heckling from energy-industry ghost-writers is kept to a minimum. As a biologist, the amount of BS we have to deal with coming from anti-vaccine nuts, opponents of stem-cell research, creationists masquerading as scientists, and pharma-funded sellouts is staggering. But at least we don’t have to deal with the oil lobby.

And about the “lack of evidence”, I’m going to bring up a terrifying little issue that’s been keeping the ecologist in me awake at night for the past 3 years, wondering how people think we’re not changing the planet when we’ve managed to raise the pH of the *ocean*:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

As for the skirmish that seems to be going on about evolution, there was a fascinating idea put forward a few years back on how a "how a single strand of DNA randomly formed"… I’m looking at *you* #107 cl:
- http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17987-how-life-evolved-10-steps-to-the-first-cells.html

Here's some of the papers that provide the basis for the article (some nice light reading):
- http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hydrothermal+vents+and+the+origin+of+life%2C+martin&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on
- http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja9029818
- http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2005.09.006

Enjoy your "science is awesome, and makes the world that much cooler" moment, brought to you by Rationality and Scientific Materialism.

p.s. Scientists aren't in science for the money. Stop acting like we're driven by the same greedy motives as, say... oil executives, or the owner of the WSJ, Mr. Murdoch.

Comment #166 - Posted by: Parker at December 10, 2009 2:00 PM

the milankovitch cycle.

Comment #167 - Posted by: ray bergeron at December 10, 2009 2:13 PM

Barry,

In the word of the moon people, "Your logic is strong Cup" (ATHF). So, basically, because you have read a lot of posts where people disagree with your opinions, that it is irrefutable that they are brain washed. I see... undeniable FACT...

I disagree with you in many regards, but I will not be insulting and say you are brainwashed. Maybe misinformed is a more reasonable and accurate word. Maybe the reason why your opponents tell you to shut up is because you use words like BRAINWASH, and LEFTIST, people don't like to be stereotyped or labled, its insulting, they get angry not because they have run out of aurguement or because you are winning, but because you irritated them with more than just your philosophy.


Also,
2010 CF Games Page is here!!! yes!!

Comment #168 - Posted by: ksyco m/20/5'11"/185 at December 10, 2009 2:14 PM

#92 MTR - Again, like I asked Mikes, please show me how the fossil evidence supports evolution. In fact, it is interesting to note that the fossils found in different layers of the earth's crust do not follow the same order as the supposed evolutionary timeline. (ie organism A came before organism B which came before organism C, but C is below A in the layers.) Furthermore, there is a huge lack of transitional forms. If for example, dinosaurs evolved into birds over millions of years, shouldn't there be millions of years worth of fossil evidence supporting this? We have plenty of dinosaur fossils and plenty of bird fossils, but where are the dino-bird fossils?

#95 Mikes - That's not a valid argument. If you understand the concept of evolution so well, please show me why I'm wrong instead of telling me I just don't understand.

#112 Michael C. - I want to see you respond to Greg/M2, not cl.

#121 Adam - I concede that there are definitely obvious similarities between apes (chimpanzees being the one you are referencing, I believe,) and humans. Like someone else already said, similarities do not necessarily point to a common ancestor. They could also point to a common designer. That said, those similarities are based only on letter (ACTG) order, and as a result there are differences in length and other differences that are not accounted for.
Another interesting thing to note is that DNA evidence is not always the best way to prove common ancestry among species. A chimp has 24 pairs of chromosomes whereas humans have 23. That means each species has 48 and 46 chromosomes, respectively. A person with down syndrome has 47. Does this mean they are closer in the genetic history to chimpanzees? Anyway, I know you didn't mean to argue and I have an exam to study for so I will leave you alone.

#134 Rodrigo - Even if those experiments had produced ALL the necessary amino acids (which, correct me if I'm wrong, i'm pretty sure they didn't,) in order to make even the simplest protein found in life you would have to arrange those amino acids in exactly the right order. The chances of this happening are about the same as the chances of being DEALT a royal flush 500 times. If you're interested to know what the chances of that are, ask a professional poker player what they think. And that's just for the simplest one of the more than ten million proteins found in life forms. That's a lot of royal flushes.

Comment #169 - Posted by: ericthered at December 10, 2009 2:23 PM

did the 5k today... my 1st one!
had to study for an exam yesterday

approximately 5k give or take a little distance
26 minutes on the dot

Comment #170 - Posted by: Samuel M/19/150 at December 10, 2009 2:23 PM

#134 Rodrigo - I forgot to mention that most scientists on your side of the argument discredited that experiment quite a while ago.

Comment #171 - Posted by: ericthered at December 10, 2009 2:25 PM

ral

I looked at your link.

In the very first sentence they make an elementary error by calling CO2 "the dominant greenhouse gas." This is false. The dominant GHG is water vapor, which absorbs a far broader spectrum of outbound IR radiation than CO2, which is only 387 parts per million at present, far less than water vapor.

Second, their entire first paragraph and use of the first graph is just dead wrong.

The Vostok ice cores show that temperature increases PRECEDED CO2 increases by 800 to 1000 years during each of the deglaciation cycles that are recorded.

Further, CO2 continued to rise for 800-1000 years even after the climate began cooling in the glaciation cycles.

Further, there was no runaway warming in the paleo climate record.

Temporal causality being what it is, this *definitively falsifies* the thesis that CO2 caused warming in these deglaciation cycles. To the contrary, it suggests that rising temperature is the cause of rising CO2, since it's solubility in water decreases as water warms.

Which obviously undercuts the thesis that CO2 is causing global warming now.

See http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html#more

Sorry you're not enjoying this more. I'm having a blast.

Best regards,

Comment #172 - Posted by: Harry W. MacDougald at December 10, 2009 2:29 PM

The claim that global warming is not man-made ignores one glaring fact. CO2 traps heat! How can introducing massive amounts of this into the atmosphere NOT affect the climate?

And even if you deny or refuse to believe global warming is man-made, is that still an excuse for inaction? Would you refuse to put out a fire in your house simply because it was hit by lightning - not a man-made fire?

Regardless of if GW is man-made or natural, to deny that 6+BILLION people have absolutely no impact on the rate of increase is garbage. The earth is not here as our trash bin. It does not exist for us to use and then toss aside when we're done. There is nowhere else to go. We only get ONE earth. And when the oceans DO rise and BILLIONS of people are displaced- including some people on this board - I hope your skeptic friends will open their doors to let you in.

Comment #173 - Posted by: d.dot at December 10, 2009 2:29 PM

#161 Ral,
That's probably because we've been drowning in articles and movies and tv specials and ads that bombard us with AGW messaging. You have to do some digging to find any alternative information. Why does this message board need to add to the already mountain of info on pro AGW? So those who in good faith who have accepted the AGW message and others who agreed with the underlying premise that man is bad can sit around and simply agree? What kind of discussion would that make?

The recent discovery of fraud and coverup at one of the primary climate research centers, CRU, is huge and worthy of broad discussion. Why did they need to do this? What does it indicate about the underlying validity of the AGW/CO2 correliation hypothesis?

Based on the huge costs and control that politicians are trying to enact based on these models and data, is it worth it? What is to be gained from massive CO2 emmission reduction? What is the cost? What is the net impact, honestly, on quality of life for the industrialized societies and the poorer third world societies?

What's the rush? Why now versus more study with better transparency?

Comment #174 - Posted by: phil g atlanta, ga cf since 8/21/09 at December 10, 2009 2:40 PM

ericthered,

Your biology background seems a little shabby... Then whole chromosome and relation thing.. look into it a bit more, genetics and evolution is actually very complex, much more complex than chromosome #'s. Yeah, the odds of getting a full functional protein is low, that probably why it took a couple billion years for life to show up, BTW the first life wasn't what we'd consider a cell, it was likely a barley self replicating, liposome containing some proteins, and no nucleic acid (DNA or RNA).

I don't know if this helps, to convince you that the science is solid, but Pope Jon Paul II said, that evoltionin the neo-darwinian sense is more than just a theory. If the pope can believe, I'm sure you can too.

Comment #175 - Posted by: ksyco m/20/5'11"/185 at December 10, 2009 2:50 PM

Jesus, Barry. More liftee. Less talkee.

Comment #176 - Posted by: SIFU at December 10, 2009 3:18 PM

For those injecting the idea of evolution, I beg that a bit of research is done before speaking on the subject matter. Does evolution exist? Absolutely! But it does not exist in the Darwinian fashion. There is no evidence in the fossil record for a slow drawn out process from single celled organisms to more complex beings, ocean going creatures, reptiles, then mammals and ending with humans. On the contrary, the fossil records indicate massive, sudden changes, which are consistent with the story told in Genesis. The time table given in Genesis is actually proven, but only if Einsteinian theory (the concept of space and time being intertwined) is applied. Remember, the earth was not created until day 3, so using earth time for a day is null.

ksyco, the idea of the formation of life coming millions or billions of years after liquid water was present on the earth is false. The formation of life followed immediately after the formation of liquid water (see Weinberg, "Life in the Univers").

Comment #177 - Posted by: DenverDanimal at December 10, 2009 3:34 PM

#177 ksyco - Really? Genetics, DNA, and chromosomes are more complex than the six sentences I devoted to them in my comment? Thank you for enlightening me.
Anyway, you say yourself that that liposome contained some proteins, which still leaves us with the problem of getting those amino acids to line up correctly.
Furthermore, a point I forgot to mention before is that even if that experiment had been successful, it would only prove that an intelligent being can put together a process that results in some of the basic building blocks of life. This hardly proves that chance processes in an uncontrolled environment could produce the same result.
And I'm not Catholic.

Comment #178 - Posted by: ericthered at December 10, 2009 3:35 PM

#94 - by "right-wing nut jobs" I am assuming you are referring to Republicans. Therefore, do you still hold that freeing the slaves was "on the wrong side of history?" (Lincoln = right wing)

Do not mean to bring race into discussion but I am sick and tired of people thinking their party/side is - and was - always in the right. All sides have skeletons in their respective closets. LEARN YOUR HISTORY!

Comment #179 - Posted by: Carlos at December 10, 2009 3:52 PM

It cracks me up to hear people get so pissed off that they'll never look at CF.com again over a blog post/ rest day article. Why are the lefties so personally attacked over a clearly controversal and theoretical argument...oh yeah that's right if the world's not gettting hotter and all the baby polar bears aren't dying then they've been wasting time and annoying people for years for nothing...oops. I also get a good laugh from the "more weights...less talking" knuckle draggers...there's some serious evolution going on there.

Comment #180 - Posted by: John at December 10, 2009 3:53 PM


Clearly there are lot better Biologist here than me... I must not understand evolution well, since I can only gave a likely theory, and wanted to point out a gross over simplification.

Comment #181 - Posted by: ksyco m/20/5'11"/185 at December 10, 2009 4:21 PM

#181 don't be so sure of yourself re calling me a knuckle dragger. I just have a low tolerance for supposed CF experts/blowhards that don't appear to actually exercise.

Comment #182 - Posted by: SIFU at December 10, 2009 4:22 PM

Rob Orlando and Chris Spealler both highlight my inadequacy to such a degree that I want to kill myself.

Thank you, that is all.

Comment #183 - Posted by: Brock Wilson at December 10, 2009 4:40 PM

I'm currently reading Michael Chrichton's book "State of Fear", and it's the type of book that completely knocks you on your ass. I strongly recommend it.

I am not a scientist or expert, but I can look out my front door, and look on the news. It snowed in L.A. last year. That just about never happens. Record cold temperatures have recently been reported throughout the U.S. The 1970s was an era where environmentalists were touting Global Cooling and the coming Ice Age. The 1990s now has scrapped that and changed to Global Warming. The term global warming has conveniently been masked in the new term climate change.

Has anyone turned on their five o'clock news lately and watched the weather? Why can't they predict the temperature 2 weeks from now? Why can't they predict when the next hurricane is going to hit? Why can't they tell us where it will hit?

Isn't it amazing that scientists can say that the sea levels will be at a certain height in 2025? They are predicting the temperature ten years from now?

Tell me if it's going to rain tomorrow. How about that?

Comment #184 - Posted by: Paul Szoldra at December 10, 2009 4:44 PM

23 / M / 5'9" / 135lb

Split Jerk 1-1-1-1-1-1-1
110-110-115-120-120-125PR-130PR(but ugly)

So close to body weight! Bringing the bar back down from overhead with no bumper plates was getting dicey, or I might have done one or two more of these to try to get 135lbs. Next time...

Comment #185 - Posted by: BC at December 10, 2009 4:44 PM

Wow Barry you should go for a Brazilian wax....you got a wild hair way up there buddy.

Loved your article in Maxim by the way...marijuana laws are b.s.

Comment #186 - Posted by: Jay in Brooks at December 10, 2009 4:51 PM

ksyco, sorry if I offended you, and for all I know you may be a much better biologist than me. But telling me that my biology background is shabby and implying that I somehow am ignorant enough to not know that what I wrote was not everything there is to know about genetics is a little offensive, so please don't go pointing fingers so fast.

Comment #187 - Posted by: ericthered at December 10, 2009 4:52 PM

haven't seen CFT in about a month or so... Just saying...

Comment #188 - Posted by: dan m at December 10, 2009 4:53 PM

F/16/5'7''/140
Have a basketball game tomorrow so did a workout today and take tomorrow off.
Did 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 reps of Power Cleans #90
and 20-19-18-17-16-15-14-13-12-11-10 reps of Push Ups
13:43

Comment #189 - Posted by: Shelby G. at December 10, 2009 5:30 PM

I used to post my results when about ten people posted theirs, some 5 or 6 years ago. Like the roughly 10,000 people who do CrossFit WOD's daily and don't post their results, I don't find it necessary. I work out when I feel like it, and I don't when I don't. I'm not responsible for being a first responder, military professional, or fitness trainer. My life is my own, and if your best counter-argument to what I have to say is to fold by asking me to compete with you some other day, then all I can say is you need to work out less, and think more. CrossFit is not the be-all and end-all of human existence: you do understand that, don't you?

On topic: it's always interesting to me how often we see the argument that CO2 traps heat, and that can't be good.

You know what? Global warming would be GREAT. It would create longer growing seasons, milder winters (you do understand many people die of cold, too, every year?), and make feeding the planet even easier than it is today.

Problem is, we are, if anything, due for another Ice Age within the next thousand years or so. This is common knowledge.

I will repeat: why do people assume that corporations--who are much more dependent on their customers than are publicly funded scientists or bureaucrat are on the electorate--are necessarily more venal than self proclaimed "public servants"? Mao was a public servant. Lenin was a public servant. Hitler was a public servent. Mussollini was a public servant. All of them lived relatively modest lives, compared to the richest of our rich, but oh, the body count was infinitely higher.

If we don't compete economically, the only real alternative is a return to traditional wars of conquest. Communists, of course, want this, since they lack any moral system whatever, and their economic system leads automatically to generalized poverty.

Genuine liberals understand that the free markets and freedom are indissolubly tied to one another.

Moving forward, I may not address all the people trying to get under my skin. There are quite a number of them, and frankly the overall caliber of responses--after being tolerable for a long time--has dropped quite a bit recently. Our general cultural mediocrity appears to have taken root here, too.

Regardless, if you think some point you have made is absolutely brilliant, point it out. You will likely find out otherwise, and have yet more cause to try unsuccessfully to try to switch the topic to my sundry imperfections.

Actually, one other thing: Harry, is there cause for some sort of class action lawsuit, if in fact laws are passed that create measurable damages, based upon demonstrably faulty data? Can we force an empirical discussion outside the Church of the IPCC?

Comment #190 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 10, 2009 5:58 PM

Funny I thought this was a CrossFit site? I wouldn't expect to see stuff about how Exxon fabricated science to suit their no-warming agenda and I don't expect to see the hulaballoo over "climategate" here either. There are plenty of sites to yell at each other in non-encouraging ways, lets try to keep this one encouraging.

Comment #191 - Posted by: Barney at December 10, 2009 6:10 PM

Ral,

Your link shows a graph of ice cores is from 2003, it's since been shown that CO2 FOLLOWS temperature change not the reverse as shown on the graph, the original error was due to the fidelity/accuracy of the equipment at the time. The fact it contradicted basic known science at the time of publication despite the less accurate equipment? I don’t know but it happened and is STILL used by folks like you every day as “proof”.

That CO2 absorption follows temperature follows BASIC long standing scientific relationships to a T. The amount of absorption of CO2 into the ocean is temperature/pressure dependent; CO2 does not and cannot change the liquid’s temp or pressure. Colder water can hold more C02 than warmer water. Take cold CO2 laden water, heat it up and CO2 gets released.

Further, Mars is following the same heating and cooling trends as the Earth when differences in distance from the Sun and atmosphere are taken into account. Yet we’re still the cause, right even on Mars?

Ral, You want to fix a symptom and not a cause.

Think of a system.. the Earth dampens oscillations naturally. JUST ONE EXAMPLE: Increase temperature,->evaporation increases-> cloud cover increases-> more sunlight reflected back into space-> eventually this cools the earth -> less evaporation -> less clouds Earth heats up again. (NOTE: the IPCC’s models however treats cloud cover as a constant because it helps prove GW out of control) The earth is full of systems and cycles that keep everything within “bounds”. If it didn’t we’d see THOUSAND S of examples of it ramping out of control all the time, it isn’t.

If GW isn’t following the scientific method then it isn’t by definition science. GW can’t get past the point of an unproven hypothesis because it can predict anything… therefore it isn’t science, it’s belief and BS.

Comment #192 - Posted by: penty at December 10, 2009 6:35 PM

d.dot:".. to deny that 6+BILLION people have absolutely no impact on the rate of increase is garbage."

Oh yes! 6 billion people sounds like a lot doesn't it? I mean look at the big number, it’s got a bunch of zeros.. it blows the mind! A number that big must make some huge kinda impact!

Until you look at the size the Earth... If you put ALL six billion people in Texas they would each still get 16+ square feet EACH. If you pick Japan everyone gets 678 square feet (a 26 ft x26 ft area) and that’s ALL the people EVERWHERE! Still think it’s SO huge a population?

Comment #193 - Posted by: penty at December 10, 2009 7:05 PM

Here's a good link on ClimateGate: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

What people seem unable to understand is that a small cabal that is sufficiently corrupt can generate "data" that appears valid, and upon which subsequent "peer reviews" are based. The people they ALLOW to review their work would never be so rude as to suggest the data is cooked, so you can get hundreds and thousands of "verifications" of the basic claims, by honest people, who have simply been hoodwinked by unprincipled charlatans.

That is what has happened here. The active conspiracy need not extend to more than perhaps two dozen people. The rest of the crowd is simply guilty of going along.

This complacency is supported, as suggested in the second article, by an apparently widespread sentiment that what OUGHT to be true, IS true. We have seen that repeatedly on this very thread.

Comment #194 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 10, 2009 7:12 PM

d.dot,", to deny that 6+BILLION people have absolutely no impact on the rate of increase is garbage."

Taken another way, the” densest” city (people per square mile) is Mumbi with 76,794 people per square mile. So at that density 6 billion people could live in 78,132 square miles. That’s a 279 mile X 279 miles square, a circle 315 miles across, or an area smaller than the UK.

Perspective.

Comment #195 - Posted by: penty at December 10, 2009 7:48 PM

Love you Barry Cooper....a ripped stud with brains ....hot!! Keep writing dude!

Comment #196 - Posted by: runnerfirst at December 11, 2009 2:37 AM

Barry for president!! Love you, man!!!!

Comment #197 - Posted by: runnerfirst at December 11, 2009 2:39 AM

Thsnks!!!

I have interesting dreams. Last night, I saw North Korea. It looked very much like dark land of Sauron--I forget the name--is Lord of the Rings. They were working on computerized, next generation brainwashing software.

Logically, if the brain is a machine, as many argue (and with which I would agree only in part), then it can be reprogrammed. Some people see the potential positives of the Matrix; some people see the ability to FORCE opinions on others. That was the logic of Maoist brainwashing camps as implemented in North and South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos (following our retreat), North Korea (following our failure to pursue victory there), and of course China.

People were systematically underfed, overworked, and forced to chant slogans daily, and to confess sins they hadn't committed in monitored "group therapy". This is torture, and it was done to millions.

The relevance here is that government, per se, is never the problem. Obviously, we have many government employees here. What is the problem is that any concentrated structural power will, sooner or later, be abused. The initial reasoning may be benign. They may be trying to solve some actual, short term problem.

But in the long run, government agencies acquire lives of their own, that seek to sustain their lives regardless of whether or not they are helping or hurting.

And if you follow the paths of almost any modern autocrat, you will see initial accomodations with the systems as they exist, then progressive concentration of power. Hitler was basically made Prime Minister, subject to Hindenburg, and theoretically the votes of a Cabinet that was mainly composed of enemies. Through genius, persistence, and trickery he took hold of everything. If memory serves, the military was the last hold-out; they didn't like taking orders from an Austrian corporal.

Lenin used the Soviets, which in the early days were actual representative assemblies, composed of various parties, and won election. He promised the nations of the Russian empire freedom, and land for the peasants. They voted him in, then he banned alternative parties from the Soviets. This led to civil war, which he won in large measure since he had the support of the cities. Following that, he broke every promise he had made, and his reign saw the deaths of many millions of peasants, who he held in contempt since they couldn't see he was "rescuing" them from servitude. This blind and arrogant grandiosity is a common trait of Leftists, who quite literally get angry at people who are raising legitimate protests against actually abusive treatment. Let's see what happens if and when the African American community wakes up and starts rattling Obama's cage. He won't take it well. They will be traitors to them. Jerry Wright has already weighed in on the subject, and our President kept coming back for many, many years.

The AGW hoaz is one means for the concentration of power. Leftists, we now know, want some sort of group to be formed, outside the auspices of the UN, that has regulatory authority over the WORLD. This is a means to concentrate power. It is apparently benign (if you still believe the hoaz), but the long term intentions are the very opposite.

As I see it, the other path they may well be contemplating is a currency crisis. We are spending our way into bankrupcy. We have a AAA rating, but the prospect of our failure could create a disastrously unstable monetary situation, which could lead to an economic melt-down. Leftists--in tandem with well meaning moderates and conservatives, who can see it is a real problem, even if self manufactured--might well call for some sort of global currency. This will require some sort of global agency to administer it, and, again, we have started down a slippery slope.

I truly believe it is very literally possible Obama WANTS to bankrupt us. This may not be simple ineptitude. And keep in mind that ALL Communists want GLOBAL revolutio America is and has been for the last centurey or so, the primary opponent of all forms of totalitarianism. If we are bankrupt, we are marginalized. Europe is a weak old man, and that leaves China, and possibly Russia.

I don't see anything as vulgar as an invasion. I see a progressive need to turn our government and lives over to people who are capable of exercising a modicum of financial prudence, and who have the patience to look more than five minutes into the future.

And it may indeed be the case that life is quite fair, and we no longer deserve freedom. We will see.

Comment #198 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 11, 2009 5:03 AM

What the !#&^$@?# is an editorial on climate change doing on Crossfit.com? This webpage is supposed to be about forging elite fitness, not silly political punditry a la MSNBC or Fox News. That topic has absolutely no business on this webpage.

Comment #199 - Posted by: Hungry Dawg at December 11, 2009 5:15 AM

Long one in the hopper.

Comment #200 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 11, 2009 6:13 AM

My favorite part of the rest day posts are the lame threats to leave crossfit unless they change the posts. Brilliant! It's like little kids who threaten to hold their breath unless they get their way.

Comment #201 - Posted by: tracy at December 11, 2009 9:45 AM

This Web page belongs to Crossfit, coach and crew can post anything they like. If you don't like it don't bother reading it.

Barry,
Keep up the good work my friend. You're a good thinker and writer.

Good posts Penty!

The howling is amazing when you pop sacred beliefs with real facts, logic and reason. The counter arguments in support of AGW given the latest revelations is pitiful.

Comment #202 - Posted by: phil g atlanta, ga cf since 8/21/09 at December 11, 2009 9:53 AM

Hey Folks, once again, if you don't like the rest day non-crossfit topics, feel free to leave. No one is forcing anyone to read them. This is a free site, and the owners have every right to post whatever they wish as a topic. Like it or not, the CrossFit community is comprised of many members who are conservative in their political views, Military, and in Law Enforcement. That is just a fact. It does not mean that everyone has to be in lockstep with the views expressed. Dissent and disagreement are a normal and expected part of a civilized society, as long as it is done respectfully. Personally, I don't particpate often in the politcal or non-crossfit related topics, but I have no problem with the rest day topic format. Again, if you don't like it, there are many other alternatives out there.

Comment #203 - Posted by: Tony at December 11, 2009 10:00 AM

Hey Tracy, do you know for sure that some of the people who threatened to leave are still around? This is the first time I saw this stupid crap on crossfit and I can always go to sealfit for free elite WoDs without the partisan hackery. I was thinking about getting some crossfit gear for christmas before I saw this crap, but not anymore. And on a side note, think of how many people, whose health could greatly benefit from crossfit, might get turned away by those op-eds. That political crap has nothing to do with forging elite fitness, PERIOD. So unprofessional.

Comment #204 - Posted by: Hungry Dawg at December 11, 2009 10:04 AM

Pre-WOD: So happy I had access to rings
Post-WOD: cursing my access to rings

My first ring workout, 3rd CF workout, and hoover dam...that hurt. My last round, I know i cheated and couldn't keep my arms straight...i don't know if it was because my core/abs were so dern sore from earlier this week, but i was puckered.

finished this, and then did 10,8,5 pull ups #25lbs, bench press #165.

Comment #205 - Posted by: Bryan D (M/27/165) at December 11, 2009 10:20 AM

#204: Are capable of expressing a coherent opinion on why this is "crap"?

If not, might I suggest that your fitness with respect to the ability to think and communicate is sorely lacking, making the opportunity here offered to develop and defend contrary views that much more needed for you.

Of course, if you just think it's hard, then by all means go find something easy, like only reading opinions with which you already know you will agree.

Comment #206 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 11, 2009 10:41 AM

Mods: could you please let my post through? I haven't filter shredded in a long time since I have developed some faith that I would see my work within a few hours.

If you don't want to let it through, I would appreciate a short email as to why. Obviously, some effort went into that.

Comment #207 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 11, 2009 10:43 AM

Barry @ #206

Stop begging already. It makes you look weaker.

Comment #208 - Posted by: Scott H. at December 11, 2009 10:51 AM

Hey Tony,

I could care less what politics the owners have. Whether someone is conservative or liberal in their views, or what their profession is (I'm in national security and have friends and family who are in law enforcement and the military too) IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the point that topics like climate change have nothing to do with health and fitness, and by embracing such topics (and only one extreme view of them) crossfit risks alienating people who could benefit from their program. And it can hurt their bottom line. Yes, the owner's have the right to post what they want. I have the right to sit around all day eating twinkies and watching cartoons, but that ain't such a good idea either. And yes, it is a free site as you say, but they do have a store. But hey, maybe Crossfit doesn't care about maximizing the store's profits. And maybe they don't care about reaching as many people, regardless of their politics, and helping them get into great shape. But I got news for them - the vast majority of people who need to get in better shape, and thus have the most to gain from crossfit, are not cops and military. Most of those guys are already in shape. But again, hey, perhaps the owners just don't care about helping everyone, they really just care about "Forging Elite Fitness" for just a few.

Comment #209 - Posted by: Hungry Dawg at December 11, 2009 10:55 AM

It's amazing to me the nerve of some people to come onto a site that is not their's and make rude, crude demands of what content should be allowed. Where are your manners. Everyone here is a guest of the Crossfit organization. If you don't like their content or WODs then leave. If you disagree with the content that's been presented then make an intelligent argument for why you disagree.

Comment #210 - Posted by: phil g atlanta, ga cf since 8/21/09 at December 11, 2009 10:57 AM

Phil,

It's the internet. If you don't like the tone of the people that post here - leave. No use trying to hold them to your imaginary higher standard.

That is for the moderators.

Remember: Check your ego at the door.

Comment #211 - Posted by: Arsloch at December 11, 2009 11:03 AM

Barry @206,

You're missing my point, man. It has nothing to do with how I feel about climate change. I never said what my opinion on it is! The point is that it's "crap" to post op-eds that have nothing to do with health and fitness on a webpage dedicated to forging elite fitness! Is this so hard for people to understand? And furthermore, it's "crap" to listen seriously to two people who know nothing about a topic! Doesn't matter what their politics are. Listening to Bret Stephens and Elizabeth "science is now a tool in the hands of socialists" Bury, two people with no background in earth sciences whatsoever, on the merits of climate change makes about as much sense as asking Jimmy Carter how to take down Kimbo Slice in an MMA fight. And really, you think my "ability to think and communicate is sorely lacking"? Really? Gee, I wonder how I managed to get a Master's Degree in International Relations with a flawless 4.0, run a successful business, pass the Foreign Service Officer's Test, teach English to foreigners, and learn Spanish and Arabic then? Yeah. Gee. My ability to think and communicate must be seriously lacking to be able to pull all that off. Must have just been dumb luck then.

Comment #212 - Posted by: Hungry Dawg at December 11, 2009 11:12 AM

Haha, props to Hungry Dawg just for the fact that he used Kimbo Slice in an argument.

Comment #213 - Posted by: Lost Boy at December 11, 2009 11:25 AM

@ Phil 209 - I assume you were referring to me, so I must clarify that I wasn't "making demands about what content should be allowed", I first asked a question about why such content was on this page, then merely expressed an opinion about why I think such content doesn't belong on Crossfit. I can't "demand" anything from Crossfit. Making demands about content here would be absurd. As you and Tony said, it's their free site and they can put what they want on it. But because it's free, I have the freedom to say that something they put on their site is stupid.

@ Lost Boy 210 - hahaha, dude, I've been trying to work Kimbo Slice into an argument for months! It ain't easy, trust me. :-)

Comment #214 - Posted by: Hungry Dawg at December 11, 2009 11:44 AM


My 2 cents worth which is not much considering the value of greenbacks. The Global Warming crowd is all about distribution of wealth to the undeveloped nations and control. No different than the agenda of Pres Obama's crowd on various issues whether foreign policy, health care, etc. Same goes to LA Times columnists, local gov and many academics who never oppose taxes. All about control. Thinking "Gov" is better to control aspects of your life as well as the distributor of wealth.

Comment #215 - Posted by: tracy at December 11, 2009 11:51 AM

I've decided to create my own website. Not a blog, but a place to post reasoned and coherent position statements on any number of topics. I need a full day to focus on it, though, and I'm currently quite busy.

Turning to evolution, it actually bears considerable resemblance to Global Warming since both are ill-defined by most people and consequently consistently abused.

For example, you see arguments like "the glaciers are melting, so we have to cut carbon emissions by 80% and turn control of our government over to Socialists". Not in those words, of course, but that is the actual meaning.

Comment #216 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 11, 2009 2:13 PM

You also see arguments like "we have evidence of fruit flies evolving in real time, so evolution is real." Or, "we can track to a fine degree of resolution the genetic similarities of any number of species, so evolution is real".

First off, a definition: "Darwinism is the doctrine that morphogenesis (speciation) is the result of random change coupled with random benefits over a very long time.

The simple reality is that Darwinism, with this definition, posits that there will NECESSARILY be an almost infinite number of transitional fossils. Not one or two, here or there, but MILLIONS of them, everywhere. Darwin knew, in his own time, that the fossil record was unkind to his ideas--he said so explicitly--and the situation--as acknowledged explicitly by Stephen Jay Gould--has not improved. That's the reason Gould was forced to conclude, in effect, that "evolution" can be accelerated somehow, or that it can happen in such a way as to leave no fossil record.

Comment #217 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 11, 2009 2:14 PM

But this is directly contrary to the basic randomness inherent in Darwin's theory, and nothing has changed that. All Gould has done, and this is the sound reason for which Dawkins rejects his ideas, is take what is actually in the fossil record, and retroactively describe speciation in those terms, as sudden, discontinuous, and characterized by very long periods in which Darwinian notions of gradualistic, random progression are entirely absent.

Comment #218 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 11, 2009 2:19 PM

I have another one in the damn filter. I tried to get it through, to no avail. This may be my last post on Rest Day. Much as I enjoy exposing my ideas to criticism, I have better things to do. That's not whining; that is a simple fact.

Comment #219 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 11, 2009 2:22 PM

I absolutely cannot believe anyone is offended by this site allowing people to read opposing views and discuss things...this is SO important. I mean, without freedom, what are you even working out for?? Hungry Dawg, there are plenty of other places where you can continue to be spoon-fed your liberal propoganda...I can always tell a Liberal by their mean streak! Phony do-gooders....

Comment #220 - Posted by: runnerfirst at December 11, 2009 3:35 PM

@ Runnerfirst #221,

(sigh) . . . . I don't have a problem with "people reading opposing views and discussing things". Where did you get that from? Again, that's not what I was talking about. What I was talking about was keeping Crossfit topics to what Crossfit says it is: forging elite fitness. I'd love to see some discussion and opposing views about that. "Liberal propaganda"? What the hell are you talking about? How can you call me a liberal when I never even said what my position on global warming or any other issue was!?!?! And how is wanting a site like Crossfit to stick to health and fitness and be above politics "liberal propaganda"? You say I have a mean streak, yet I never made any assumptions about you, you're politics, or those of anyone else who commented here, nor did I call anyone names like you did when you called me a "spoon-fed liberal" and a "phony do-gooder". You don't know a damn thing about my political views. And yet you call ME names. Seems like you're the one with a mean streak.... man alive.

Comment #221 - Posted by: Hungry Dawg at December 11, 2009 4:38 PM

Actually, that was whininess, which is against my own first principles. In my own terms, that was a sin. Maybe the rest will make it out, maybe it won't.

I will say, though, that I do need to focus on other things. I am not a disciplined person--anyone can see that--but I categorically AM a driven person.

Here is a speech, from Alexandr Solzenhitsyn, which encapsulates EVERYTHING I have ever tried to say on any Rest Day: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harvard1978.html

Comment #222 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 11, 2009 4:50 PM

Since he is right--we are decadent--let me excerpt a few passages:

A Decline in Courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. . . Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?

Even biology knows that habitual extreme safety and well-being are not advantageous for a living organism. Today, well-being in the life of Western society has begun to reveal its pernicious mask.

I have spent all my life under a communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either. . . .Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man's noblest impulses. [This is the point I tried to make several Rest Days ago, with respect to trying the 9/11 terrorists in Federal Court]

Comment #223 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 11, 2009 4:51 PM

Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror. It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counter-balanced by the young people's right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil. [Categorically agree].

When a government starts an earnest fight against terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses it of violating the terrorists' civil rights.

Such a tilt of freedom in the direction of evil has come about gradually but it was evidently born primarily out of a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which there is no evil inherent to human nature; the world belongs to mankind and all the defects of life are caused by wrong social systems which must be corrected.

Comment #224 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 11, 2009 4:52 PM

The press too, of course, enjoys the widest freedom. (I shall be using the word press to include all media). But what sort of use does it make of this freedom?

Here again, the main concern is not to infringe the letter of the law. There is no moral responsibility for deformation or disproportion. What sort of responsibility does a journalist have to his readers, or to history? If they have misled public opinion or the government by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, do we know of any cases of public recognition and rectification of such mistakes by the same journalist or the same newspaper? No, it does not happen, because it would damage sales. A nation may be the victim of such a mistake, but the journalist always gets away with it.

Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic disease of the 20th century and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press. It stops at sensational formulas. [absolutely true]

Comment #225 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 11, 2009 4:53 PM

The press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. One would then like to ask: by what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? In the communist East a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has granted Western journalists their power, for how long a time and with what prerogatives?

Without any censorship, in the West fashionable trends of thought and ideas are carefully separated from those which are not fashionable; nothing is forbidden, but what is not fashionable will hardly ever find its way into periodicals or books or be heard in colleges. [directly relevant to todays topic]

The well-known Soviet mathematician Shafarevich, a member of the Soviet Academy of Science, has written a brilliant book under the title Socialism; it is a profound analysis showing that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death.

should someone ask me whether I would indicate the West such as it is today as a model to my country, frankly I would have to answer negatively. No, I could not recommend your society in its present state as an ideal for the transformation of ours. Through intense suffering our country has now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that the Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive.

And so it goes. For those still awake, you can read the rest.


Comment #226 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 11, 2009 4:53 PM

@ Barry Cooper,

How ironic you call it "whining" when I express an opinion when you've been on this website all day complaining ad nauseum about the climate change hoax, socialists, Marxism, etc.

Comment #227 - Posted by: Hungry Dawg at December 11, 2009 5:05 PM

Here is a nice link, directly relevant to today's discussion: http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11/un-security-stops-journalists-questions-about-climategate/#more-44722

A journalist literally has the cops called on him for asking a member of the IPCC relevant questions.

To be clear, the allegation--and the clear evidence--is that in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, executed per the laws of the United States, publicly funded "climate change" researchers PURGED THEIR FILES, which is against the law.

Not only is it against the law, it stinks to high heaven. This is not what real scientists do.

Pace Solzhenitsyn, where is the journalistic coverage? Where is the outrage? The New York Times had no problem publishing the Pentagon Papers when our fighting men and women were still in harms way. Why, then, the reluctance to cover manifest fraud in regard to an issue which has the potential to change all of our lives for the worse?

All the news that's fit to print? BS.

Comment #228 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 11, 2009 5:18 PM

ahhh! Rest

Comment #229 - Posted by: gregorioz at December 11, 2009 7:09 PM

Hungry Dawg: for someone as ostensibly as educated as you claim to be, you are certainly not very quick on the uptake. CrossFit posts political articles, normally--but not invariably from a conservative/libertarian viewpoint--and it's not going to stop.

Therefore, continuing to pout about it, which is certainly your right as an American, is simply an act of self important contrarianism.

Please post an actual viewpoint of some sort, or remove yourself. Surely it is easy enough to see those are the honest options?

Comment #230 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 12, 2009 5:39 AM

Barry,

What's with the cheap shots, man? Seriously, I admire your passion about political issues, but you seem to insist on making thinly veiled insults at the people you disagree with here a la "you're not quick on the uptake", "you're ability to think and communicate is sorely lacking", and so forth. With respect, you're obviously a thoughtful guy, but such cracks are unnecessary for you to get your points across and in fact detracts from their overall credibility. The whole "not quick on the uptake" serves here: I've just started crossfit and this is the first time on a Rest Day that I read past those two words on the home page. Your comment is like calling someone stupid who enters a mall and doesn't immediately know there's a banana republic in the building.

The past 24 hours have been an eye opener, no doubt. And again, I find it incredibly ironic that you claim I am continuing to "pout about" my opinion about the choice of topics, yet you have been all over this page for more than a day COMPLAINING in length about climate change, totalitarianism, the media's sham analysis, etc. So, when you have a strong disagreement with something, you're expressing an "actual viewpoint" but when I have a strong disagreement with something on this webpage, it's "pouting" and I should "remove myself". Agree or leave. Nice logic, man. I encourage you to consider that my viewpoint that Crossfit should stick to health and fitness IS an "actual viewpoint"; it's simply one you disagree with. Again, I'm new to crossfit, and I can't help but observe that for an instructor, you sure have a strange attitude towards learning, dissent, and opposing views.

Comment #231 - Posted by: Hungry Dawg at December 12, 2009 8:02 AM

Ah, but Hungry Dawg, Barry's "strange attitude towards learning, dissent, and opposing views" is precisely his aegis. Since all "reasonable" people see everything one way (his), following the reasoning precisely is learning, and all opposing views are thereby the irrational products of "Leftist" government boot-lickers, knowing or unknowing. All Leftists, like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Rev. Wright, et al. - nevermind the difference - reject freedom (freedom which includes not believing in climate change or understanding evolution). Rejecting freedom is a Bad Thing. We don't like Bad Things, because they involve rejecting freedom. Thus, we shout down Bad Things. Because the ideas brought up in their discussion are inherently dangerous, it's better to shout them down and ridicule anyone who might be skirting the edge of things we've decided are Bad Things.

It's all perfectly logical, really. Communism = everywhere = Obama = CRU emails = Glenn Beck is right about the need to buy gold.

Comment #232 - Posted by: Nick at December 12, 2009 9:58 AM

Please note, of course, that I don't actually think that my last post is a large share of what's happening here, and it wasn't addressed just to Barry, though it did reference him. Instead, it's more of an illustration of the worst parts of online discussion; unfortunately, threads of those discussions do come up here from time to time.

Comment #233 - Posted by: Nick at December 12, 2009 10:00 AM

Hungry Dawg: you are well within your rights to state your opinion that we should not discuss political topics. After all, you've been here nearly a week. Why say it twice, though? Three times? Four times? At what point are you simply being difficult?

As for me, in my view the POINT of these discussions is to help people learn to think who were never taught that skill anywhere in our educational system.

Nick: can we perhaps not define political hackery somewhat precisely as the desire to discuss people and not issues? It is not absent on the Right, but it is the only option on the Left, as you are implicitly showing here, once again.

Insult is the sincerest form of flattery.

I likely won't be here much longer, though, so you won't risk unwanted pressure on the perceptual bubble you live in, at least from me.

To the extent you two represent our nation, we are effing pathetic. We deserve to be enslaved, since we have rejected rational thought, and sincere, serious engagement with large problems.

To be clear, rational thought is not where you whine about me whining about the lack of rational thought. It is where you show you have read the posted pieces, thought about them, and have something substantive to say. If you can't do that, but still want to insult me, then I will fire at will all day long.

Comment #234 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 12, 2009 12:59 PM

"Man has a single basic choice: to think or not, and that is the gauge of his virtue. Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality—not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute."
-Ayn Rand

Thanks Barry.

Comment #235 - Posted by: MikeE at December 12, 2009 3:35 PM

What a load of horse manure, Barry. And Hungry Dawg, why are you kow-towing to this nonsense?

There are a few points to make about "Rest Day" discussions.

1. This is, primarily a fitness website. Its tag line is "Forging Elite Fitness". The three on / one off format lends itself neatly to doing something other than prescribing a WOD, every fourth day. So far so good.

2. The idea that the "one off" should be used for some sort of discussion / argument / debate is a really smart idea. And some of the stuff I've seen here has been fantastic - like the Ted.com talk on dangerous things kids should do. Brilliant stuff.

3. Unfortunately, the bulk of Rest Day discussion is deliberately started and so slanted, by a posted article from the right wing only. It turns out that the site is not using Rest Day to help us to hone our rhetorical skills, but is rather using it to steer the tens of thousands of people who use it towards reading articles critical of climate change theory, urging harsher treatment of terrorist suspects and pushing a "small Government" agenda. It's propoganda.

4. Saying "This is the way it is" or "The people who own this site can post what they want" as some sort of ultimate answer to the querying of what is going on is laughably incomplete. I can still express my unease, disapproval and wish for change, without disagreeing with either of those two statements.

5. I cannot escape the conclusion that what is going on is fundamentally dishonest. That's a strong word - why do I feel justified in writing it? Because there is no express articulated statement anywhere about what is actually happening. There is a purportedly neutral "Rest Day Discussion" forum, which starts, invariably, with a right wing view. Hard to join a debate without having had to read the right wing articles, isn't it? Someone coming to this website for the first time and seeing the Rest Day Discussion will reasonably expect some element of balance in how the thing is operated. Instead, they hang around long enough and they'll see as a matter of absolute fact that the articles come, with TINY exceptions, from that one angle. Over and over again. It's indoctrination. It's biased. It's not randomized. It's premeditated pushing and influencing. And that's fine. But it's dishonest where it is put out there as some sort of harmless adjunct to fitness advice.

Finally, the idea that I'm someone who doesn't think for myself, or someone who can't put up a rational argument and debate something, is just wrong. It's lazy on the part of those crowing from the right about how "the Left" should just debate or shut up. If the shoe were on the other foot, we wouldn't hear the end of it. You'd all be screaming from the rooftops about the unfairness of it all. But the right wing articles don't offend you so you don't bother to empathise and see how it might look to neutrals or those with a more left-wing outlook.

Nothing random about Rest Day. Nothing elite about it either.

Comment #236 - Posted by: J1 at December 12, 2009 6:19 PM

@ Nick - hahahahahaha, well said.
@ Barry - I felt I had to say the same thing over because so many people (you, Tracy, Runnerfirst, etc.) couldn't help but miss the point the first, 2n3, and 3rd times and instead go off topic and just lob insults. But relax, I won't repeat it again.

And sorry Barry, having written 30+ page papers at the graduate level about rationalism (and received A's on all), I vehemently disagree that rational thought is reading crappy, irrational op-eds by non-experts and commenting on them in substance, as you basically suggest. That's what I call a waste of time. Instead, I offer that rational thought is in part being able to quickly realize that someone who claims that "science is now a tool in the hands of socialists" (E. Bury) or claims that all climatologists are Marxists (you) is not someone to be listened to by anyone with a serious concern about the climate change issue.

Also, nice job at turning a constructive critique into another insult a la "to the extent you two represent our nation, we are effing pathetic". Hahahaha.... ah, you just can't help yourself, huh? Have it your way man. Seems civility and enlightened debate truly is not your thing, as Nick astutely pointed out. But I guess that makes sense, seeing as how you choose to spend so much of your free time online ranting ad nauseum about totalitarianism. So to your delight, I won't "whine" anymore here, I promise. I'll just keep it short and sweet and have me some fun instead. This forum is all for you, big guy. Now get back up on that soap box and let your douche flag fly!

Comment #237 - Posted by: Hungry Dawg at December 12, 2009 6:29 PM

@ J1 - you're right, I shouldn't be kow-towing to this nonsense, and I sure won't anymore. Also, I agree 100% with your comment. All 5 points. I tried to argue the same thing in points 2,3 and 5 in a complaint to customer service, but they blew me off. Oh well. Now I know what to expect here.

Comment #238 - Posted by: Hungry Dawg at December 12, 2009 6:41 PM

Anybody want to talk about jury nullification? Where's Jakers?

Comment #239 - Posted by: AUSA Mike at December 13, 2009 5:50 AM

"Finally, the idea that I'm someone who doesn't think for myself, or someone who can't put up a rational argument and debate something, is just wrong."

J1: you are given an opportunity to prove that every Rest Day. And your memory must be short, since "left leaning" articles HAVE been posted. The result was I and other conservatives critiqued them in detail, and the leftists said "great job, I agree with that entirely."

With respect to this particular topic, if you are discussing something other why we should wreck our economy to reduce global CO2 emissions by maybe 5%--when CO2 itself AT MOST accounts for maybe 40% of the overall greenhouse effect in the first place--then you are not being rational.

To be clear, reason is a tool. It can be used for many things. What you are using it for here is simply to distract people from your actual failure to offer up a coherent perspective. We are discussing people, not problems: in this case me and several others, and Lauren or whoever chooses and posts these articles.

THAT is dishonest.

Most CO2 released into the atmosphere is not anthropogenic. It is released from the oceans, where it is stored.

The nations that produce the most have refused to commit to their reduction. This means that we are talking about a fraction of a fraction of a percent, so EVEN IF the AGW fraud had ANY validity at all--which I don't believe for a moment--we would STILL not accomplish a DAMN thing.

And if you want to deny that a desire to impose a global government underlies the thinking of the many politicians pushing this agenda, please tell me why. All the evidence I've seen--and producing it won't be a problem--shows quite the opposite.

Comment #240 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 13, 2009 8:09 AM

Barry, you're the one with a short memory. I engaged, with honest endeavour, with an "anti-AGW" Rest Day article on November 23 this year. That's not even a month ago. The lack of respectable distance between the one-sided indoctrination pieces is actually laughable. That's simply a fact.

But rather than acknowledge and deal with that fact, you're choosing to stick to your boring old formula of typing the odd capitalised word, adopting a sneering superior tone and burying your head in the sand about what is actually going on.

Are you seriously disagreeing with the statement that the majority of op-ed pieces posted to spark Rest Day discussions are from a narrow spectrum? Had I the time I could trawl back the Rest Day discussions of the last 2 years and demonstrate this. I don't have to, for anyone who's been here. And boy, you've left a lot of evidence of your presence here, so I know you've read the same articles I have. So rather than acknowledge this and launch some sort of spirited, rational, logical reason why this is ok, or even admirable, you're chickening out and repeating your old formula that anyone who disagrees with a particular Rest Day article is free to offer reasons why. Nice swerve, Bar.

Comment #241 - Posted by: J1 at December 13, 2009 1:04 PM

Hungry Dawg loves Hungry Dawg....

Comment #242 - Posted by: runnerfirst at December 15, 2009 2:39 AM

gs slalom training in davos

Comment #243 - Posted by: Jon A at December 15, 2009 11:17 AM

Having written 9000+ page papers at the Post-PHD level about rationalism (and received A's on all except one ... because I stole his girlfriend he gave me a B), I vehemently disagree ...

Comment #244 - Posted by: Cincinnatus at December 16, 2009 3:39 PM

Rest day = Mental challange day. Love the articles, controversy, and debate.

Keep it coming

Comment #245 - Posted by: gregorioz at December 17, 2009 7:16 AM

I had to give it a go
50 cleans at 225lbs
11:30

Comment #246 - Posted by: TROY at February 2, 2010 12:48 PM
Post a comment






Remember personal info?