Session: connection failed

The Cause of the Earth's Climate Change Is the Sun by Dr. Jeffrey A. Glassman - CrossFit Journal

In Rest Day/Theory

April 25, 2010

PDF Article

The CrossFit Journal is proud to present this extraordinary article by Dr. Jeff Glassman. Formerly the Division Chief Scientist for Missile Development and Microelectronics Systems Divisions for Hughes Aircraft, Dr. Glassman has dedicated his career to improving the quality of science methodology among his peers and the community at large.

For years he has been disturbed by the lack of credible science identifying human activity as a cause of global warming. This paper is the latest of six papers published on his blog, Rocket Scientist’s Journal, and the first to advance the Sun as the cause of global climate change in the fine detail of the temperature record since the invention of the thermometer.

Dr. Glassman is the first scientist to show that the modern temperature record is contained in the reconstructed history of solar activity, and to advance a model for how that occurs. In his model, the ocean acts to absorb solar energy and return it to the atmosphere decades to centuries later, causing certain patterns in the Sun’s activity to be suppressed and other patterns to be reinforced as they affect Earth’s climate. The variations in the Sun’s activity are small, but are quickly amplified by clouds. This is a novel model for cloud reflectivity, called cloud albedo, in which increases in solar activity cause decreases in cloud cover by direct atmospheric warming, allowing more sunlight to reach Earth’s surface.

This rapid decrease in cloud cover to solar activity runs opposite to the slow increase in cloud cover caused by global warming, which adds humidity to the atmosphere to increase cloudiness. In this way, he says cloud albedo regulates Earth’s surface temperature in warm interglacial periods, capping Earth’s temperature within a few degrees of the present temperature. This, he says, doesn’t stop the greenhouse effect, but reduces its effect by at least one fourth. In the deep cold of the glacial minima known as ice ages, he notes that the atmosphere will be extremely dry and cloudless, turning off any greenhouse effect. In this condition, Earth’s temperature is controlled by the albedo effect of the surface because it is then covered by ice and snow, turning off the Sun and leaving Earth’s temperature to be the result of its internal heat.

Because the Sun variations match Earth’s temperature extremely well, human activities can be ruled out as a cause of observed global warming. However, the global warming movement, since 1988 headed by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), claims that the “fingerprint” of human activities are found in climate related measurements. Dr. Glassman investigates each of these claims and shows how they are false and scientific error.

In his first paper on climate, Jeff showed that the pattern of the solubility of CO2 in water as it varies with temperature is found in the ice core record. From this result, he concluded that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a result of global warming, and not the reverse. This, he noted, is confirmed by the fact that the CO2 concentration lags temperature at various rates, with a dominant component at about one millennium, the cycle time of the ocean conveyor belt. He also noted that this natural source of CO2 into the atmosphere is missing from IPCC’s climate models.

In his second paper, Jeff responded to criticisms from a noted federal government champion of human-caused (anthropogenic) global warming, known as AGW. In this third paper, he showed the evidence for concluding that CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere, an assumption essential to the human-caused global warming notion. In his fourth paper, he showed how Earth’s climate is strongly correlated with one measurement of solar activity, the solar wind, a phenomenon missing from IPCC’s models. He shows that connection is approximately twice as strong as the connection between climate and the El Niño/La Niña effect, which IPCC claims exacts a terrible toll on humanity.

In his fifth paper, Jeff documents eight flaws in IPCC’s climate modeling, each of which is sufficient to invalidate AGW and IPCC’s work.

His sixth paper, reproduced here in the CrossFit Journal, draws from his earlier papers, which are critical of IPCC’s modeling efforts. It critiques IPCC’s fingerprint claims, but states a novel, positive model for Earth’s climate, one that stems from discovery of Earth’s entire record of temperature measurements in the radiation from the Sun.

About the Author: In addition to climate and economic research, Dr. Glassman is Chief Scientist for CrossFit, and is the author Evolution in Science, Hollowbrook, 1992, currently being prepared as a series for the CrossFit Journal. Additional biographical information is on the last page of the Solar Global Warming file. His blog is the Rocket Scientist’s Journal.

Free Download


249 Comments on “The Cause of the Earth's Climate Change Is the Sun”


wrote …

One of the things that sets science apart from many other types of inquiry is that there is always room for a new hypothesis, a new viewpoint, or a new explanatory framework. Dr. Glassman's papers and his counter-arguments to the human centered view of global warming are fascinating and very well argued. That does not mean they are "true"; that means that they should be investigated further and pushed out into the wider scientific community. As anyone familiar with the community of science should know--and I am sure Dr. Glassman knows--there is a long (and to the general public at large mind-numbingly) slow process of argument/counter argument, peer-review, and eventual change embedded in the scientific methodology. There are good reasons for this inherent conservatism. So, before we accept any argument--whether Dr. Glassman's or his opponents--we need to step back and remind ourselves to be patient. The "truth" in science is about the future possibility of convergence and not about the right now.


wrote …

Well...we're just gonna have to tax all those people who use the sun then. We have to work to reduce our sunshine footprint, darn it!


wrote …

I'm sorry ... are any of these "findings" reported in peer-reviewed journals? Can someone give me the citations? If not, I'm afraid these reports can not be taken seriously.


wrote …

Ironic, in related articles there is one named "Silly Bullshit"


wrote …

The mother earth worshipers are out.


wrote …

WTF? Thought this was a fitness journal. Surely this is well beyond the scope of the journal as discribed in their introduction to the journal. Please tell me I'm wrong.


Jay Ashman wrote …

well I can appreciate the "rest day/theory" tag on this, this is inappropriate for a fitness journal.

you are assuming that fitness enthusiasts are even SMART enough to decipher this 48 page dissertation, which isn't always the case.

I checked it out, and I would like to see the peer-reviewed studies of this article as well.

this is a hot-button political/environmental issue and has no business being talked about in a fitness journal. Maybe on the forums yes, but not in a journal.

not to mention that fact that not everybody who participates in CF or reads the journal is on the "right" side of politics, and I am sure they won't appreciate a fitness system being used to peddle an idea that is politically and environmentally on the right.


replied to comment from Daniel Healy

This is a fitness Journal. The fitness definition that we promote is the first in the industry that is based on measurable, observable, and repeatable (MOR) data. MOR data is one of the primary criteria of science. Prior to CrossFit, there was no one practicing this kind of science in relation to an overall definition of fitness.

Dr. Jeff Glassman, father of Coach Greg Glassman, had a profound impact on this extraordinary commitment to science in fitness. To this end, we all owe him a major debt. He is also the Chief Scientist for CrossFit, and we are going to be including a broad science education curriculum in the Journal. We are not going to reduce our other content one bit, so nothing is being taken away. Instead, we hope to provide tools for improving the quality of our thinking and our ability to discriminate legitimate science and argumentation from bogus claims and argumentation.

Olivia and all of you claiming bullshit or illegitimacy of this argument because this argument is not presented in an established science Journal should be ashamed of yourselves. CrossFit has never been published in peer reviewed articles and that doesn't affect our reality. Dr Glassman published this paper on his blog, and it has already received substantial recognition for its impact. We are proud to republish it here, as we're confident it will have a profound impact on the worldwide discussion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Furthermore, this paper is not presented for you to "believe" it, nor for it to be political posturing. Instead, it is an example of good science. Claims are made and evaluated on existing evidence. You shouldn't speak to the conclusions of the paper until you have evaluated the strength of the claims and evidence on both sides of the argument. There is a ton of data and interpretation happening in this article. Please don't get wrapped up in faith-based politics, at least not here. Let's debate the claims and evidence.

Or, if you find the topic too foreign, the politics too threatening, or the science too rigorous, skip it and enjoy the other article we published this morning.


Shane Skowron wrote … I on the right site?

What does this have to do with fitness?


wrote …

I second that! WTF.


Jay Ashman wrote …

Tony, science or not, no amount of justification on your part can explain why a paper on global warming is presented on a fitness journal.

Wrong place for it. Maybe you enjoy it and feel like you are doing a service but it is one side of the story and presents a right-wing argument.

If I wanted news and info about global warming, I know where to search, and it isn't on the CFJ.

Since when does CF feel the need to educate its members on science matters not related to exercise? Stick to fitness.


wrote …

Keep politics out of an area dedicated to fitness, not needed here. Much like when the government wants to tell me what I should and should no be eating, none of their damn business.

Tony Budding said:
"Prior to CrossFit, there was no one practicing this kind of science in relation to an overall definition of fitness."

That would be open to debate and would be willing to wager on the side that you are incorrect on this, ut that is a debate for another day.


wrote …

No disrespect Tony, but dont patronize your readers. No it is not foreign or threatening or even rigorous,but I suscribed to a fitness journal not MSNBC. Good attempt to try to tie this to fitness. Jay is right on target. Just my opinion!


wrote …

Hahahaha! A right-wing argument?? This is a science article, not a political article. Or are you saying that bad science is left wing? Or any contradiction of AGW independent of evidence is a right wing political argument? Do you know the difference between science and politics? Sure, this article might have very broad political implications, but that doesn't make this a political article.

From my perspective, this is just an article on science, a profound one at that. Read it if you want or skip it if you don't.

Whether you recognize it or not, there have been many efforts throughout the years in the Journal and on the main site to educate all of us about science, logic, quality argumentation, mathematics, and even art and politics. We're not trying to tell you WHAT to thing. We're trying to support high QUALITY thinking, which when it comes to evaluating fitness, requires at least a modicum of competency in understanding the difference between good science and bad science.

Again, I don't remember requiring or even asking you to read this. Why are you so upset about it? If your world view is so narrow that a science article on top of our regular content in the CrossFit Journal is so offensive, email me privately for a refund and I'll gladly give it.


wrote …

Is there a "For Dummies" version of this :) ? cuz this thing is LOOONG and really complex, but i would still like to get the at least a summary of the article.

why is everyone getting all crazy? its ONE article, written by Coach Glassman's DAD. relevance aside, if you had a world wide publication, and your dad had a cool new article wouldn't you put it in said publication? either way i think Tony nailed it when he said
"if you find the topic too foreign, the politics too threatening, or the science too rigorous, skip it and enjoy the other article we published this morning."


wrote …

Im inclined to agree with Mr Budding on this one.

Guys its simple, if your not interested in a posted article, don't read it!

There are many things posted on this Journal in a variety of subject, not all of them i find of particular interest. I think what is to be appreciated about CrossFit and the CFJ, is that we are advocates of open-mindedness and critical thinking. This, i believe can, and should be applied, to all aspects of life, not just fitness and health.

If HQ use the medium they built, to spread new ideas and thoughts, props to them!
Im all for it.


Jay Ashman wrote …

Tony, are you so naive that you can't see that environment is a political issue as well? Really? It has a major political implication and you know it. Al Gore

Tell me you don't believe that. If you believe this issue doesn't spark a political debate then you should REALLY stick to fitness only.

And don't come off smug about my worldview being "narrow" or insult my intelligence, you don't know me personally whatsoever, I didn't attack you personally, so save that for someone else. Stick to the topics and don't ask stupid shit like "do you know the difference between science and politics?"

well science and politics often intermix, which is why all those environmental scientists were caught with their pants down years after Al Gore's little movie about global warming. If they were on the other side would they have misrepresented facts? Nope...

If you want to discuss science on the CFJ, wouldn't it be more appropo to discuss how it relates to exercise, improving the fitness system, etc. rather than a hot-button topic unrelated to exercise completely?

Wayne, I agree with you about the science and exercise part... I bet some Russian scientists are laughing about that one as well. ;)


wrote …

I should be "ashamed" of myself Tony? I'm not even sure what to think of that, since I consider you a friend.

I never claimed "bullshit". I'm simply pointing out that the only results that receive serious consideration by the scientific community are those that get subjected to a rigorous review process. While publishing in scientific journals is a long, and very competitive process, the majority of scientists (at least the ones I know) welcome having their work undergo scrutiny by their peers (i.e., scientists working in the same field). Frankly, the more people researching climate change, the better. I just find it a shame (not to be confused with being ashamed) that these particular efforts by Jeff Glassman will most likely not enter into the general scientific community's dialog on this issue.

Personally, I think CrossFit SHOULD be published in these types of peer-reviewed media. I am optimistic that the theory of CrossFit fitness would hold up well. I'm not sure what you mean by this "not affect[ing] our reality". I think you mean that even though CF might be considered unsubstantiated, many people have experienced the "truth" of crossfit firsthand and passionately believe in its effectiveness. I would most certainly be one of those people. But, as was pointed out in one of the recent pose-running videos, perception and reality are not always, or even often, the same thing. You can't choose what is real, but you can choose how to perceive what is real. This is, fundamentally, one of the biggest struggles of science and one of the reasons why the peer review process (while, unquestionably flawed) is so important.


wrote …

As Jay Ashman and most of the previous posters pointed out, the subject material is wrong for a fitness journal. Moreover, what possible purpose does it serve to post 48 pages of dense statistics and graphs?

Most of the rest day posts are things that thoughtful people could legitimately have different opinions about, so they could serve as a catalyst to discussion (that might be a little bit charitable, but it is certainly possible to discuss them). Nobody but trained scientists can possibly make heads or tails of such an article. Almost none of the readers of the journal can responsibly form any opinion as to whether it is correct or incorrect any more than they could be expected to "debate" whether a paper on particle physics is true.

Or is the point of this article to give the impression that there must be serious science behind a minority point of view because it can be presented in a very technical and "scientific looking" manner? Just because something looks intimidating and technical doesn't mean it's true (or false). As other people observed, none of this is peer reviewed work, and while that does not automatically invalidate the paper it is should be taken as potential warning sign. As Tony Budding pointed out, crossfit is largely based on non-peer reviewed work, but it can be empirically demonstrated to ordinary people in a way that a theory about climate change cannot be demonstrated.

Without getting into the technical details of the article, another warning sign is that neither the author nor his source for half of the citations (Scafetta) appear to have any background in climatology or oceanography. They appear to have strong credentials in engineering, statistics, dynamical system (a type of applied math), and information science - none of which suggests a consummate expert being forced to self publish outside of academic journals merely because of their unpopular conclusions.


wrote …

I have no issue with science being discussed on this fora. I think to be dismissive of peer reviewed journals is naive. Even if the peer review findings are not in favour of the article, often further points of interest are raised in criticism and debate that are important for joe public in making up their own mind. I also agree that crossfit would stand up in peer review.

As feedback in general, from an overseas perspective, this journal does dabble into political argument. Whether thats wanted by your paying readers or not, I don't know. I've noticed a strong lean against the Obama administration.

This is a high quality fitness journal. I just read what interests me and leave the rest.


replied to comment from Olivia Cheriton

I also consider you a friend. Please forgive my strident language. Perhaps I grouped you unfairly with some of the other early comments (some of which got removed for being utterly devoid of substance). My point is very simple. We are changing the fitness world completely independent of peer-reviewed articles and acceptance by established fitness "authorities." To dismiss a concept or position because it hasn't been accepted by "peers" is to misunderstand a fundamental reality. Wasn't Einstein completely rejected by his peers at first?

Please read what I write before responding. You have very much misunderstood what I said. I didn't say the topic was apolitical. I said the article was a science article, not a political article. I acknowledged the broad political implications of the article, but that doesn't change it from a science article. And Jay, look at what I said about science and the definition of fitness. Show me any broad MOR definition of fitness (not exercise as you claim) by the Russians and I'll retract my position publicly.

Your position is fair. One clarification is that Dr. Glassman didn't self-publish because of the unpopularity of his conclusions. With the reach of the internet, there is no real need to use existing publications if the intent is to spread ideas.

I wouldn't say we're dismissive of peer review, just of the need for peer validation to legitimize an idea. The idea is right or wrong independent of anyone's agreement or disagreement.


Jay Ashman wrote …

Please read what I write before responding. You have very much misunderstood what I said. I didn't say the topic was apolitical. I said the article was a science article, not a political article. I acknowledged the broad political implications of the article, but that doesn't change it from a science article. And Jay, look at what I said about science and the definition of fitness. Show me any broad MOR definition of fitness (not exercise as you claim) by the Russians and I'll retract my position publicly."""

I know what you said, but when you insult my intelligence as you appeared to be doing, I will come off that way.

It doesn't change it from a science article one bit, but it also doesn't belong on a fitness webpage. I went back to the other rest day/theory articles and they all can have some sort of segway to what CrossFit does. Even the earlier Dr. Glassman piece can be. This is wholly unrelated to what CF does.

Supertraining does a very good job of defining fitness, CF just chooses to discredit it. I still have Glassman's quotes about Supertraining, and Mel Siff's rebuttal to that, if you care to have your memory refreshed.


Jay Ashman wrote …

correction... Glassman's definition of fitness and Siff's rebuttal to it, he wasn't necessarily addressing Siff in the entirety but he did refer to him a few times during it.


Adam Kayce wrote …

Correct or not, science or not, left or right, this is a fitness journal, and this is not a fitness article.

Even if you agree with scientific principles, the Journal isn't the place for papers on chemistry, earth sciences, pharmacology, etc. The "don't read it if you don't want to" is a bullshit position; if I wanted this kind of material, I'd go in search of it. Instead, I want fitness information, and so I subscribe here. I subscribe with my money and my attention, and I expect that subscription to be respected, not abused because "you" want to push some off-topic content of your own.

HQ, please realize that the disgruntlings you're hearing are your constituents' voices and votes for clarity and singularity of purpose. Keep the content here on target, regardless of its origins. There are plenty of other venues for plenty of other sciences to air their positions... the CFJ is just simply not the place for this.


wrote …

Has anyone here actually read the article yet?

Whether you approve of Tony's decision to include it in the CFJ or not, I don't think you're going to change his mind. So just let it be. Don't read it if you don't care.

This little argument did bring up some interesting points though. Why doesn't Crossfit get articles published?? I understand the view that peer validation doesn't prove whether something is right or wrong, but if you know it is right, why not get it published? The theory of CF, 'What is Fitness', those early articles and many new ones that clarify the points, in many people's eyes are valid. Obviously, the people the read the CFJ probably also agree with most of it anyways. But why not spread the truth, so to speak? Either articles get accepted and understood by more people. (Imagine gym teachers everywhere teaching real physical education!) Or they get criticized. Criticism can be good eliminate mistakes (aka the idea behind the peer review) or you don't believe the critics and continue on your merry way, disregarding them anyways. Olivia said it well, you can't change what is real, but you can change how to perceive what is real.

Maybe the first paper could even be "Why running a 15 minute circuit everyday is not CrossFit"! haha

Time to try and read this beast.


wrote …

I hate the fact that this is published in the CF Journal. If this article was written by anyone without the last name of Glassman, would it have been posted here? Can we look forward to lots more articles like this? Maybe an opposing view? Since CF is now in the game of determining what "good science" is when it come to the climate what other great things can we look forward to here. If there is more of this crap that has nothing to do with fitness, I want out.

When people are paying for a fitness journal, that is what they should get. The argument that "we don't have to read it" is bogus. If you want to talk about what good science is, then stick to fitness.

CF is now officially selling a new flavor of Kool Aid.

Brad Jones


Joseph Powell wrote …

Seems like a relevant article to me.

Good job Journal Crew and Dr. Glassman!



wrote …

What are the policies for removing comments on the journal? When is that standard applied? If it is being utterly devoid of substance, then that standard is not consistently applied. I know comments are regularly deleted on the main site and crossfit forum but I was surprised to learn someone filters them here.


wrote …

Who runs the website? Coach Glassman. He doesn't have the right to put whatever he wants to on his own website? You have read some of the other rest day articles right? They do seem to lean a little right most of the time so you are suprised by a article like this? Most people after seeing this article would just not read it if it was'nt in line with their beliefs.. If your'e really that bothered Tony said he would refund your'e money. Not much more you could ask for.


wrote …

According to this lecture (link below and around the 11:30 mark), a review of 1,000 peer-reviewed articles published between 1993 and 2003 found 0% of the articles questioned the consensus that man's activities are contributing to global warming. The same review looked at 600 articles in the popular media between 1988-2002, and 53% of those questioned the basic consensus.


wrote …

The extreme reaction from almost everyone is very interesting. Apparently most of the naysayers aren't aware of "Climatgate" and all the rigorous science that was fudged by top flight scientists in order to push a certain agenda. And anyone who has dared to openly question that dogma in public forums is ridiculed and shouted down. The emotionalism displayed by many posters when faced with intriguing research is to act shocked and dismayed that such heresy could ever be presented on a fitness forum. Open your minds just a tad folks.


replied to comment from Olivia Cheriton

Hi Olivia,

The idea that peer-review is inextricable to science is an unfortunate fallacy.

Newton's Laws? Self published in Principia Mathmatica
Einstein's Relativity? Not peer reviewed.
Quantum Mechanics? Not peer reviewed.

So claiming that peer review is a pass/fail test for science just isn't correct. In recent times, especially within Climate Science, peer review is claimed to be essential to good science. Since last November, we know why. A leak of 10+ years of email from one of the premier climate science departments in the world showed disturbing evidence suggesting that the peer review process has been subverted in this field to pass "convenient" papers and reject "inconvenient" papers. The definition of convenient? Well, anything that might reduce the millions of dollars per year in grants that now flow into climate research.

Whether this article is correct, I don't know. The fact that they aren't peer reviewed simply means that they are controversial.


wrote …

I love how people started saying "leave the politics out" Ha ha. That little slip revealed the "politics" that have corrupted the science of climate change. Tony is right this is not a political article. Al Gore, who was also mentioned, was one of the main culprits who politicized the issue of global warming with his silly movie. (Don't even get me started on the Nobel Peace Prize.) The fact that so much emotion comes up reveals that science has been subverted. Where science rules there may be disagreement but thoughtful discussion of the data and method are essential. The political left has used in global warming a classic tactic to establish fear of something to mobilize a political base. Weather is an interesting choice for this but hey it's sure causing a stir. I don't know what the right answer is (I'm not a climatologist) but I can tell by the tenor and character of the arguments that rationality left the scene for most people long ago. Climate Gate was a hoot, Gore's silly movie should only have fooled gradeschoolers.

The funny thing is one big volcano can make it all pointless!


Bart Pair wrote …

I just became a member of the Journal a few weeks ago, so I really don't know what the standard/protocol for the rest day article is.

I can say personally this article seems out of place, but I am glad you posted it.

I am glad because it has reminded me to read the rest of the articles on this site with a lot more skepticism. (Which I hope you will agree is a good thing.)

As some of the other comments have pointed out, much of CJ isn't peer reviewed science - its theory based on experience. (Experience with a biased data set - i.e. people who get good results continue with CrossFit - those who don't drop out.)

Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with publishing theories based on experience. I gladly pay the subscription fee here for them.

But I have to remember to keep my objectivity when reading them and this article will help me do that.


wrote …

Today has been the most disappointing crossfit day for me, ever. First, and foremost, a venue change from the crossfit ranch to some stadium 400 miles away and second, hosting of this right wing propaganda in the journal. Yes, I can ignore it, but I'd rather express my displeasure with both of these events. If CFJ wants to present "scientific" technical studies why does it have to be something so politically charged. It separates the community more than it brings it together. The stadium separates the community more than it brings it together. The community is what makes crossfit. Of course, if the long term goal is to further unite the meat-head, pro-anything-military, pro-life, teabagger communities, at the expense of the rest of us then by all means continue with this strategy.


freddy camacho wrote …

Seriously people? I saw this article and thought to myself, "Well that looks like a weird topic for the Journal." I never opened it. It doesn't interest me, but when I saw that there were over 30 comments I was intrigued. I thought maybe I was missing something. So I checked out the comments and its just folks with way to much time on their hands arguing about whether it should be in the Journal or not. Since I have too much time on my hands today, I thought I'd comment!

Get a grip! The Journal posts one, sometimes two times a day. If an article comes up about midget rodeo clowns addicted to rock cocaine, I'm just not gonna read it (okay bad example because I am totally gonna read that). Does it really matter?

If the Journal is entertaining or informative a majority of the time, that's good enough for me. Hell its pretty cheap for a one year subscription :)


Michael Brady 100425

What happened to peer review was aptly stated:

>>The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability - not the validity - of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed [RSJ: jiggered, not repaired], often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.>>

Richard Horton, MD, editor, The Lancet., citing from .

And how it has come to be employed in climatology is painfully clear:

>>So what do we do about this [Soon & Baliunas paper]? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board... . >>

Michael Mann, PhD 3/11/03 email to Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, R Bradley, … .

Einstein declined to submit his famous papers circa 1905 to peer review. Watson & Crick intentionally avoided peer review in publishing their foundational paper on DNA. You would not have CrossFit if the theory had had to pass peer review muster first.

Brady observes how the peer review process became "mind-numbingly slow", and that was a prime reason for the Internet to have come into being as Arpanet in the first place. It was to be a free and open forum for the discussion of science, which includes technology. It is the defense against the fortification erected by academic science to defend dogma.

Industry employs over half the PhDs in physical science and engineering, and it produces new discoveries at a rate in my experience triple that of academia. That industrial science is carried out dominantly in secret, absent peer review and absent public revelation, meaning publication, in journals.

The notion that science requires peer review and publication is demonstrably false. It is a fortress for academia.

In climate change, in particular AGW, we have an urgent problem according to both proponents and opponents, one for impending, irreversible catastrophe, and the other for international bankruptcy, the fraud of the former driving the imminent reality of the latter. The issue is ripe for public debate, not the nit picking, toadying of peer review and for sale in professional journals.

Science doesn't deal with truth -- it deals with non-trivial predictions that can be validated. CrossFit exists because it is sound science. It predicts that following a certain regimen, you will enjoy greater fitness than by any other known method. Its intellectual property is made freely available to the public for debate and experiment. The article on Solar Global Warming exemplifies that spirit, and for the fitness of the nation (and the World), we hope it might meet with the same success.


You should be sorry, Olivia, for not reading the article before commenting on it. Your questions are answered in gory detail there, and if you need more, speak up, and it will be forthcoming.


Jesse Gray wrote …

@Chad Caleo and Kieran Barry,

Um climate gate? Apparently you don't pay attention to the news much the scientists have been completely exonerated and found to have in fact NOT made anything up.

Anyways, I digress. Is climate change a politically charged issue? Of course but like Tony said, this isn't a "right wing" science article, it's a scientific article and if done properly, should in no way be influenced by politics or anything else other than data. Is the CFJ the right place for this article? Maybe not but c'mon, it's Glassman's dad and any good son would give his dad a forum to publish his papers. This is a site run by Crossfit which has many liberal readers but is run and read by many people with more conservative view points as well. Getting into a tizzy over this is a waste of time. If you really have a problem with it, review and refute it. That's what scientists do! I'm giving every person who wasted their time arguing about this 50 burpess, go!


replied to comment from Michael Brady

I don't understand the point of this article. What does any of this have to do with the pursuit of fitness? This is an extremely charged issue on many fronts, and it only serves to distract.


wrote …

Sigh, Why?... This is a major turn-off... I like this site for fitness, Its kind of my escape from the rest of life's affairs, but then I see these articles and the arguements, makes me un happy. I understand it can just not be read, but thats like me blowing smoke in your face and saying you could just move on, and then wonder why your pissed. I also don't like seeing the quote "If your world view is so narrow that a science article on top of our regular content in the CrossFit Journal is so offensive, email me privately for a refund and I'll gladly give it." Its really a low blow, where you're using your power as an administrator, to make your opponent out to be weak and dependent, and in a stretch wrong by declining the offer (Most people would decline the offer because there are articles here otherwise). Really, I can only express my frustration and a depressed sigh. These hot button topics create a rift and stire up controverey in a community that is otherwise very tight knit, these kinds of articles this that are supposed to strength the indivdual members, really only weaken the community. QUALITY of thinking is also a very subjective statement.

But now to comment on the content of the article, you know the problem with theories. Everyone wants their to be the ONE. They want to be recognized and finding THE right answer.. etc. But the thing is systems can often be very complex and therefore a number of factora and mechanisms can contribute to the end result. I think it is very posible that solar radiation changes may have had and are having affects on the eearths climate, but that doesn't mean that this is the only mechanism involved. The article says that is THE mechanism, but that very well may the author try to make the claim to fame, his and his only. Its very common for articles not just just try and support their own theories but damage other in the process, even though they both may be correct. Its kind of a sad thing to see time and time again, "THis is THE RIGHT one" "No THIS one is", many of us scientists in the non-competitive community go, uh duh, you're both right, but when its your funding or fame on the line, you tend to change your presentation of whatever is going on. So hey he might be right an trend in solar radiation may influence earth temp, but the atmosphere is a complex system with may variable acting on it, CO2 levels as a result of man may also be contributing as well. SO when you read any article where a complex system is involved take it with a grain of salt. The info. might be good, and conclusions may be accurate, but may also be over-stated, over-sold or over-emphasized.

(BTW I hate dry science articles, I usually just look at the abstract, conclusion and charts, usless its super important to something I'm doing.)


wrote …

What I find troubling about inclusion of this article in the CF journal is the knowledge that the vast majority of readers, myself included, do not have the background or adequate knowledge of the scientific research on this subject to critically evaluate the article one way or the other. It is easy to talk over people's heads and then claim to have the "truth." Your audience would, by and large, not know the difference. That is the purpose for PEER reviewed science. It allows the people with the training and experience to critically evaluate the research and to determine its credibility, or lack thereof. As a pharmacist/pharmacologist researcher, I could easily write an article over the heads of most of the readers here and then claim some truth. However, that same article presented to a group of my peers would expectedly receive a freat deal of criticism, challenge and evaluation. For those reasons above, I find the inclusion of this article in the CF Journal to be disingenuous.

Scientific discovery is a very slow process. Many research finding are influenced by the bias of the researcher(s) and a number of known and even more unknown variables. The history of science is littered with discredited "truths."
We could easily get into the weeds discussing the nature of reality and truth and how scientific researchers often influence the "truths" they hope to find.

For Dr. Glassman to title his articleas he did, clearly indicates his bias. The issue of global warning is far from settled scientifically. Additionally, it is a hot button political issue with passionate OPINIONS on both sides. I don't know the answer (personally I believe anyone who says that have the final answer is full of it), however, I would find it suprising that the number of humans on the earth and the amount of industrial activity would have no global impact whatsoever.

Since it has to be understood that most readers here cannot critically evaluate Dr. Glassman's paper, and given the title, I can only conclude that the motives for including it here are political ones, or to advance the author's/editors opinoins. There is nothing wrong with that, but it should be stated as such.


Daniel Carney wrote …

Fascinating article! Much of it way over my head, but fascinating, none the less.


wrote …

As a midget rodeo clown who is fighting an addiction to rock cocaine I find this whole article disturbing.....LOL dude that made me spit on my computer.

The thing I LOVE about CrossFit is the need to seek the best...the best ways to train..the best ways to eat...the best ways to recover. I'm all for anything that teaches me how to think better(i'll never think the best but I'll keep trying).

The journal is great because of the volume of pick and chose information and I don't care what gets posted.

From what shoes to wear to how to make Kalipa better...bring it all on if I'm not interested I won't watch or read.

Train Hard....and Smart :)



wrote …

Tony Budding, CF Journal Staff, et al.,

I applaud and salute you for posting this article, and for your intentions on a science curriculum in the future. It didn't take long to figure out CrossFit is much more than a fitness program. Not only am I glad the Journal hasn't veered from it's intentions, but I hope it never will! Thank you.


wrote …

There is a tendency in our society to imagine that our mental fitness and our physical fitness are somehow two separate things.... This is not the case as many studies have repeatedly shown (I can cite them if anyone is interested). Improving the body improves the mind (which of course we must differentiate in order to explain) and improving the mind improves the body. Whatever your position on Dr. Glassman's article--encountering it and (perhaps) struggling through it will recruit aspects of your mind--and body--in new and important ways. If we stretch our mind out of its normal ruts by encountering something we may not agree with or fully understand, we will learn how to do the same in our workouts and hopefully our lives.

ps Jeffrey Glassman: 1) I could not agree more about the many problems associated with peer review (many of which I have encountered though in a different area of academia). 2) I had hoped to imply that truth is not about right now (as you noted) but that it is a normative ideal--something we should try to approach while knowing this will never actually occur.


wrote …

It is bad enough that we have to deal with all the libertarian nonsense in order to drink the crossfit coolaid. Now they are throwing in random climate change rants from some blog? What's next a Tea Party fundraiser?

You guys have such a great product, and you are poisoning it with all this. Stick to fitness that is what you are good at. You guys are qualified to render an opinion on fitness, nothing else.


The lecture quotes liberally from Al Gore, and the study was a reference at least in part to an article by Naomi Oreskes, "Undeniable Global Warming", carried by the Washington Post on 12/26/04. She says, "There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. … The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)"

Validity in science is never determined by consensus. Advances come one person at a time, and in opposition to the conventional wisdom.

To support her position, Oreskes started with 928 abstracts from refereed scientific journals published between 1993 and 2003 and containing the key phrase "climate change", or some say, "global climate change". Among these, she found that 75%, or 696, articles discussed what she considered the Consensus proposition: global warming is occurring because of manmade greenhouse gas. Of those 696, 100% agreed!

Her sampling, not being of all scientists, was scientific error.

These results prove not Oreskes' conclusion about the existence of a consensus, but instead that with a high probability, the refereed journals in her survey have, for whatever reasons, published no papers disputing the anthropogenic climate change conjecture.


wrote …

I am quite frankly astonished at the vituperate attacks on Dr. Glassman, and on Tony Budding. CrossFit has not shown any reluctance to confront controversial topics in the past. They have regularly confronted positions that were, and still are, widely accepted reality, (i.e., fat makes you fat, the triathlon champ is the fittest man in the world, etc., etc.). In fact, that is their modus operandi. When you start where they started and come to where they have come, that approach is most likely necessary and appropriate. I, for one, appreciate that quality in CrossFit. Why does this topic make so many crossfitters uncomfortable?


wrote …

Thanks Tony and Dr. Glassman for the article. I found it an interesting read on my rest day and never heard that argument made. I don't understand all of the outrage. I believe sparking debates is a good thing. Debating increases our understanding and broadens our perception. I can speak only for myself, but I don't mind you guys throwing an article like this in especially if you aren't taking away from the others geared towards "fitness". A little lagniappe as we call it down here won't hurt anybody.


replied to comment from Jeffrey Glassman

"Validity in science is never determined by consensus. Advances come one person at a time, and in opposition to the conventional wisdom."

I agree that consensus is not the sole determinant of validity but, would you not agree that if an aurguement or finding were valid, that the consensus of the community interested in such affairs would favor that aurgument?

To aurgue that consensus is unimportant undermines the entire reason that a community of scientist exsists as well as peer review, official commitees and organizations.

(I'm bored and theres nothing good on hulu... So I'm here doing this)


wrote …

Settle down liberals! It is just a science article. Please picture me smiling as you are angered over this post.


wrote …

Oh CF, why do you make it so hard for non-kool-aid drinkers to take you seriously?


wrote …

The politicization of theorized anthropological global warming and associated governmental policies based on theory and weather modeling will most definitely have an impact on our health, ie fitness. To not believe that is naive indeed. So in essence this article is relevant although not obvious to the layperson.

If people feel so strongly in AGW they should give up intense physical activities as the current presidential administration has deemed carbon dioxide, you know the gas we breathe out, a pollutant. More oxygen you take in the more c02 output.

Also by participating in crossfit it's most likely you use fitness products and facilities that require non green energy to produce thereby increasing your carbon footprint.

Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?


wrote …

I would just like to point out that at one time, there was scientific consensus that the Earth was flat.

Furthermore, there was at one point, scientific consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

Scientific consensus has also been shown to favor the lipid hypothesis, which states that fat is the cause for heart disease.

Whenever you hear "consensus" in a scientific argument, it ceases to be science.


Daniel Schmieding wrote …

The article has been available on Jeff's website for quite some time. It is a fantastic study, whether you agree or disagree, though the latter is difficult after reading and understanding the material.

I'm glad Jeff's work found a larger audience, even if they are not emotionally or politically ready to accept something against the mainstream. Ironic, considering that's what they accept within the fitness domain.

If you don't like what the article has to say, don't click on it. This journal posts a ridiculous load of content compared to when it began. Often multiple posts per day, all related to measurable, observable, repeatable results. This one is no different.


wrote …

Wow! I have no idea why this is even an issue.

If you don't want to read the article DON"T READ IT!

Seriously, you pay $25 for the CFJ subscription - $25 f'ing dollars! IMO you get $25 worth of info a week, even most days.

This is CrossFit's journal - CrossFit can publish whatever they wish. Get outside your comfort range. Tony is right, take a look at the additional links on the main page the last several months - many science related articles that were not directly related to fitness. I believe CrossFit wants to inculcate a scientific, critical MOR mentality in its trainers because that's what it is built upon. Are you complaining because they are offering links to classical music and not pop music?

Read / watch what you want, don't read / watch what you don't want but I would not presume to tell them what they can / should publish or not.



wrote …

Thanks Dr. Glassman! I loved your article. I was feeling so guilty about my consumption patterns, but now I can be at ease, because I have you in my corner--a genuine scientist.
I don't have to think about how much gas, oil, coal and meat that I consume anymore! I can finally enjoy the comforts of my air-conditioned, fully illuminated McMansion and SUV without thinking how it might affect the planet and poor people. Those tree-hugging-hippie-liberals were really making me sweat, saying things like, "there is no doubt, within the scientific community, that AGW is real," and, "your children will suffer the consequences of your actions." If my children suffer, I know now, we only have the sun to blame.
And now that we can all consume with a clear conscience, industry and the economy will surely benefit! God bless America!


wrote …

Jay Ashman

well I can appreciate the "rest day/theory" tag on this, this is inappropriate for a fitness journal.

you are assuming that fitness enthusiasts are even SMART enough to decipher this 48 page dissertation, which isn't always the case.

I checked it out, and I would like to see the peer-reviewed studies of this article as well.

this is a hot-button political/environmental issue and has no business being talked about in a fitness journal. Maybe on the forums yes, but not in a journal.

not to mention that fact that not everybody who participates in CF or reads the journal is on the "right" side of politics, and I am sure they won't appreciate a fitness system being used to peddle an idea that is politically and environmentally on the right.

Me: Took the words right out my mouth man: what the hell is this doing on the crossfit journal. wtf d00d


wrote …

Am I the only person who is going to come on here and admit that I can't understand what the hell this article is talking about because I haven't studied this field and am not versed in the terms and definitions that are used in the article?

Seriously, at least you could of written it in layman's terms so some of us who were interested in seeing where you were heading with this could get a good read out of it. I opened it, tried to get interested but it made no sense to me, obviously because of my lack of education in the subject.

Because of this I have to agree with everyone and ask why it was posted in a fitness journal that clearly has a totally different demographic that I am sure doesn't understand this just as much as me. I agree with whoever who wrote "wtf". Seriously wtf..

But I'm also laughing at this.


replied to comment from Mike Cipriano

Didn't see your comment before I posted Mike. Well said.


Jeffrey Glassman wrote …


My favorite thought experiment about the nature of science goes something like this. Imagine a man with a black box, with wires and antennas of all sorts. He will reveal what's inside to no one, but the box has a couple of little windows, and from time to time, they read out a latitude and longitude, and what turns out to be a Richter number. And from time to time, the whole world comes to see that the black box is providing advance notice of earthquakes over 7 on the Richter scale within 48 hours and a hundred miles. It proves, say, 90% accurate.

What are we to make of the man and his black box? It is a mystery, but undeniable science to the naïve and the most skeptical.

Predictions that prove better than chance by events are the essence of science. It has been so since the first accurate equations for the catapult. It's not about discovery, or consensus. Science grades its models increasingly as conjectures, hypotheses, theories, and laws. Sometimes a consensus will prevail on whether a prediction is sufficiently novel, or whether it has actually been demonstrated well enough to move a hypothesis to a theory. A consensus will ultimately prevail on whether all ramifications of a theory have been validated to advance it to a law to bear the scientist's name. But science is about measurement, and all measurements have a degree of randomness, and so must the predictions. All predictions have a zone of accuracy. It's no different with the gradation of the models. Whether the model crossed the line to the next level is rarely black and white, and may be left to historians.

But a consensus can't waive the requirements for predictions, or for experimentation. It cannot dismiss failures of a model to fit all the measurements in its domain, or to respect applicable laws of physics. But this validity by consensus instead of experiment and consistency is the state of affairs in the anthropogenic global warming movement.


wrote …

Bravo for expanding the material offered in the journal. Wrapping your head around this stuff makes you a better trainer. Comprehension of science in general changes the way you see the world. Correct or incorrect, understanding both sides is a good use of time.

Just because 9 out of 10 dentists choose Colgate doesn't mean that #10 doesn't have a valid argument against it. This sort of thing is a great exercise for the CF world because it teaches people to read scientific articles, and the fitness world is full of BS science. Getting angry because an alternate view to your own is presented is unbelievably shallow, you guys should be embarrassed.

Science is based on evidence and data, not your feelings. For many who would read this, that fact alone is more important than perhaps the content of the article.

Perhaps there should be an eleventh aspect of fitness: Capacity for Rational Thought


wrote …

I am sitting in a chair in Chicago. It is 48 degrees outside. Roughly 12,000 years ago some scientists say that the place where I am now sitting was covered in a sheet of ice nearly a mile thick. Clearly, something has melted that ice. In order to melt that ice, warming had to occur. Was it the sun? Maybe. Was it the smoke from all those people cooking their paleo meals before doing their gpp workouts? Maybe.

I just don't see the harm in looking at new ideas, and the "but it shouldn't be on a fitness site" complaint just doesn't make any sense. Coach Glassman owns this site and can direct his staff to put up anything he wants. My chiropractor used to have a calendar featuring funny quotes from Bush II. Is it OK for a chiro to decorate her office the way she wants to . . . even if it isn't related to medicine? Even when I was paying? I would say so.


wrote …

Feels like this cheapens the Journal, not because its a bad article but rather out of place. Links to articles like this are fine on the main page but the Journal? Are trainers suppose to present these ideas to their athletes tomorrow?


wrote …

Final WOD of the 2010 CF Games

3 rounds for time:

Find the derivative of: y = 3√x
Read 1/3 of this article
15 mind burpees

As a science teacher I always warn my students about mixing up correlations with causality. Global warming research is loaded with correlations that are assumed to be causal in nature. I applaud Dr. Glassman in his search for causality.

As for the article in the Journal. It definitely gave my mind a workout but it does seem a bit out of place and it wouldn't be the Journal I'd choose to present my Magnum Opus.


wrote …

"in concordiam mentis et corporis"


wrote …

No wonder that a cheap-oil-dependent economy has to blame it on the Sun...


wrote …

first i thought the posting of links to non fitness related stuff on the main page was weird. Like on april 25, Rachmaninov, Edgar Allan Poe, and Up from Slavery. They are nice but not exactly fitness related. Then i saw this one, am Im like, what the hell?? Earth?? Climate?? Sun?? Is this exercise physical activity related??

I guess you can always find an argument it is. You can say that Without the Sun, there would be no Earth, no Earth means no human beings, no human beings means no workout, no workout means you cant do crossfit workouts!! Hahahaha. Same thing with music. I'm assuming the person who posted Rachmaninov music makes he or she feel better listening to rachmaninov and therefore do better at crossfit workouts. hhahahahaha. so i guess you really can post whatever on this site.


wrote …

Could it be... the most important muscle to exercise is that between the ears?

I love CF because it makes you use brain and brawn.

Keep posting the thinking articles CFJ!

"Thinking is hard work, which is why you don't see a lot of people doing it."
Sue Grafton


wrote …

What Kyle said + 1 (not that they need a champion).
I don't think Dr Glassman really addressed what Kyle said in his comment (my $0.02) either; if he did it was a bit too subtle for me.
For people really keen on doing a brain WOD, I would recommend Dr Glassman pops up there, so it can't be that biased.
I thought the following is also pertinent, probably obliquely:
"McVenus further proposes that there is also a wealth of information to derive from all the “gates” and network analysis, because their number is rather limited and their identification is easy. Usually, a “gate” is a label telling the media to start a hype, being proposed by someone with limited imagination. But there are exceptions to this rule, such as “Colgate”. This notion also exists in plural form, such as “Billgates”." from (which article contains the Glassman comment).


wrote …

So Tony's argument, and the argument of all of those who say that Coach Glassman can publish whatever he wants, is that there should be no limits on CrossFit muckety-mucks' nepotism?

I'm sure that attitude/policy will do wonders for CrossFit's reputation.

I look forward to his niece's essays on the sacredness of prom, or his mother's recipe for pot roast (which actually would be more relevant to CFJ's mission than this article), or his plumber's trenchant examination of class inequality in America.

Publishing divisive and UTTERLY UNRELATED material is hardly going to enhance CrossFit's credibility in the fitness world or make more people take CF's fitness credentials seriously. Shouldn't CFJ focus on fitness-related battles and debates?

This from the journal's own mission statement:

The CrossFit Journal is a chronicle of the empirically driven, clinically tested, and community developed CrossFit program. Our mission is to provide a venue for contributing coaches, trainers, athletes, and researchers to ponder, study, debate, and define fitness and collectively advance the art and science of optimizing human performance.

This article is relevant to this how?

Honestly, publishing this just makes it seem like the eds have neither focus nor spine. What's the point of having editorial staff? This makes it look as though you just publish whatever is dictated to you from above.

Don't get me wrong--I have the highest respect for the coach as a fitness expert and as a founder of something as positive as CF, and I'm glad his dad raised him to value science and all. But, if the coach and/or CFJ staff want to express their gratitude to the senior Glassman for instilling a love of science in his son, is using publication in CFJ as a thank you gift appropriate?

Seriously, if you guys want to go this route, how about a separate website for publicizing and promoting family's and friends' projects/products/ideas/etc. that comes with the disclaimer that no standards related to CF's mission are applied whatsoever to content on that site?

And as for the "if you don't like it, we'll give you your money back" attitude... you guys are shooting yourselves in the feet. If your readers care enough to demand focus, relevance, and integrity, they're showing they care more about this Journal than your editorial staff. The vast majority of readers who complain do so because they care about the quality and mission of the Journal, not to personally piss you off.

Or, if you have no intention of even giving the appearance of respecting readers' dissenting viewpoints, how about you follow your own advice and just ignore and pass over the comments that rub you the wrong way? It's what you're asking annoyed readers to do, even though we have the CFJ philosophy backing up our protests.


wrote …

It amazes me that a community of people that spend their time sucking it up in the gym can be so precious when something out of the ordinary comes up. Read it or don't read it. For those not interested, it hasn't taken anything away. For those that are, it's a bonus.

Coach; stick to your guns and keep publishing whatever the hell you want. It might weed out some of the idiots that seem to have infiltrated our ranks.


wrote …


You are seriously concerned this will hurt CF's reputation? I guess you have a point, you don't see any of this drivel in Gold's Gym's professional journal.....

Definitely not in anything published by Joe Weider either.

I have been a CF Journal subscriber for about 4 years; this is the first article of this nature I can recall being published.

The people that gave us CF and the CF Journal have the absolute right to publish whatever they see fit. To believe any differently is naive.

I stand by my earlier statement, if you find no value in the article don't read it, just watch the Violent Disagreement video, if you find no value in that, don't watch it. If the CF Journal is not what you hope it to be, don't renew - you have a great many choices.



wrote …

I too am disappointed that the CF journal is not sticking to its aims: "Our mission is to provide a venue for contributing coaches, trainers, athletes, and researchers to ponder, study, debate, and define fitness and collectively advance the art and science of optimizing human performance." I'll pay money from that, not for articles on climate change, no matter how supposedly breakthrough they are or from whichever direction the come from.

If the research done in this article really is new and revolutionary, it will be picked up by those with an understanding of the topic. If not, it will fall by the wayside with so many other theorems and breakthroughs.

I would prefer Crossfit's Chief Scientist made some sort of contribution to the science of fitness.

And I'm not looking forward to a series based on Dr. Glassman's book.


wrote …

Don and Chris,

Of course they have the "right" to publish whatever they want. Guns and Ammo has a "right" to publish pro-feminist sociological studies in support of unlimited abortion rights, too. You think the reputation of Guns and Ammo wouldn't suffer if they started doing that? Editors understand that they have an agreement with their readers to provide them with on-topic content.

We readers have rights, too. When we, as subscribers, object to CFJ's choices, we have the right to speak up and voice criticism in the hopes that it will contribute to the editors' thought process next time they decide what should be published.

Honestly, I don't understand how people who think so much about science have no ability to properly contextualize the act of disagreement. It's amazing to me that people who routinely suck it up in the gym are so "precious" that any deviation from a "CF can do no wrong" party line makes them act as though criticism is some kind of treason.

CF and CFJ should welcome objections and complaints. Giving member/subscriber objections due consideration is one of the only mechanisms that keeps any publication or organization honest.

The eds are free to ignore our opinions. They are free to consider them and let them inform their future decisions. They can shut down all commenting. They can rescind dissenters' subscription and kick us off the comment board. CFJ, too, has a great many choices.

Personally, I'm fine with keeping my subscription AND speaking up when I think CFJ has done a poor job, and hoping my opinion makes a difference to future publication quality. The question is, why do so many other readers have a problem with that? Even though I strongly disagree with people who support the publication of this article and find their rationalizations disingenuous, I am in no way suggesting they leave CF or stop subscribing to CFJ--or even that they shut up.

When an organization fills up with too many locksteppers who tell people who offer honest crticism to shut up or get out... well, that's pretty much the sign of a cult, not a thinking outfit. CF is always in danger of turning into that, and I hope they manage to keep avoiding it.


replied to comment from Tony Budding

Thankyou Tony for the explanation but does it still doesn't fit into the fitness journal criteria. I'm all for thinking more scientifically about fitness and even for thinking more scientifically in general but I think there's more direct ways to achieving this. I mean, even if Dr Glassman wrote an article on the philisophy of Science and related it to fitness health and well being. But global warming?
If you want to lose cred as a fitness journal and lose enthusiasm from your loyal fans start doing things that have no relevance to your charter. Or just change your charter, deviate from purpose and dilute your message. If you feel thats the right way to go who am to say your wrong.


Bill Ellsworth wrote …

Dr. Glassman's thoughts have been, and remain, one of my favorite things in the CrossFit Universe.


replied to comment from Daniel Healy

I have always thought that the role of CF's "Chief Scientist" should include analyzing the exercise and nutrition studies that are published and publicized on a near-weekly basis (for instance, all of the nonsense that has been hitting the media lately about how exercise is useless for weight loss).

Dr. Glassman's perspective on these studies' design and execution as well as his take on the often skewed interpretations of their results which get publicized in the mainstream media would actually fulfill the purported mission of CF exactly while still teaching us about how to judge good science from bad science, how to engage in discourse about science, etc.

And such contributions would be hugely valuable to our TRAINING instead of dividing current CFers, driving away potential CFers, and diminishing CF's credibility as a source of information about exercise... all for the sake of topics that have NOTHING to do with training.


wrote …

I understand that it is nearly impossible to motivate our species to inconvenience itself, and that a large part of the scrutiny of the science of global warming is to make sure that scary/motivating numbers can be believed. However, I don't care about the soundness of global warming science. I don't need to be scared or educated into action. I can study something much more tangible than the sun's behavior; I can study the history of our horrible species.

Of course we are destroying the earth. Of course we are going to make irreversible changes and damage ourselves and every species on this planet. Its not science that we should rely on for predicting our future, and I do agree with this article in that we need to study history. Unfortunately, the history of solar activity, says nothing about the inevitability of the terrible things we are going to do to this planet and any other for that matter.


wrote …

The cause of global warming is a bit of a red herring, or at best a puzzle we can just leave to the experts to debate. The outcome of this debate will have no impact on my certainty that man-made emissions, wanton use of fossil fuels, and the ravaging of the earth in order to get those fuels, is a BAD thing.

So, let these guys duke it out in labs and on cable news. I propose the rest of us get to reducing emissions, supporting sustainable energy sources, and worrying about the well-being of our planet (even beyond it's median temperature).


I pay for the Journal. If I wanted a journal of fringe climatology beyond my layman's grasp, I would have subscribed to such a thing. I did not, and don't now. If this is indicative of things to come, I'll be canceling my subscription and saving up for MILO or something.


Russell Berger wrote …

It seems very obvious to me that disinterest in this sort of content would result in you casually finding something else to read. The extent to which many of the comments on this article show outrage, disgust, and near hysteria at the idea of the CFJ publishing non-fitness related scientific theory exactly shows the need for this type of article.

Learning how to separate bad science from Junk science in controversial subjects like this, and more importantly, learning to interact with those who's emotions, rather than reasoning, drive their responses (see the majority of comments above) is so relevant to what we deal with every day as CrossFit trainers fighting the fitness industry that this type of article probably deserves its own category in the journal.

If you don't get it, you didn't plan on getting it before you ever read the article, if you even got past the title.


wrote …

I support the borad definition of human capability CrossFit embodies. That coach Glassman thinks capabilities should not be limited to sports alone is shown quite well by the regular posting of classical music and thought-provoking articles. Scientists should always be open to evidence that DISproves the currently prevailing theory; actually many scientists devote their lives to just that and that's much preferable to those who only look for evidence that they're right. It's good to read contradictory opinions!

Here's some food for thought on this article:
1. The solar pattern's impact on the global temperature is not disputed by most climatologists. However, most argue that this is merely superimposed on top of the upward trend caused by global warming.
2. The CO2 concentration increase does not track the O2 consumption: quite right. There's a lot of research on the effects that the temperature increase has on the (previously frozen) tundras and the resulting CO2 release on top of fossil fuel consumption & deforestation. Nevertheless, the author has a point here: it is not impossible that there is an effect going on where the CO2 concentration cycles through a pattern triggered by the sun. On the other hand, all that carbon from fossil fuel consumption and deforestation has to go somewhere.
3. The models developed here are only representations of the past. If you take a sufficient number of parameters, you can always configure your model in a way that reduces the degrees of freedom enough so that it will track reality. Therefore the true test of any theory is NOT how it explains the past, but how it predicts the future. (Relativity was accepted in the scientific community only AFTER the predicted (and different from classical mechanics) solar eclipse phenomenon in 1919. )
If I understand the author correctly, he thinks that the sun's cycle will at some point in time cause a reverse in the temperature's upward trend (not just one year but a real trend). Question is at what point in time the author thinks that this will occur. (And YES you have to make the prediction instead of waiting for the data to come in) When it actually happens, it will prove he's right.

As far as policy concerns: are we really willing to take a risk in making the planet a lot less fit for human inhabitation in the future instead of taking some common sense but inconvenient measures to reduce fossil fuel consumption? For those opposing climate change regulations: what if YOU are wrong?


wrote …

I know I'm late on this and its been said already, but what does this have to do with fitness? If this were a free site, I could why it would be ridiculous to complain, but we all pay $25 a year for the Journal, and at least expect the contents to be things that are fitness related or related to the industry. Giving a freeby to a relative is not what I have in mind when I check to see what's new.


wrote …

Typical contemporary knee jerk reaction, not surprising at all. Frankly I have missed Glassman Sr's articles, and wondered why we haven't seen one in a while. Its a sad testimonial on our society when simple debate is turned into vitriolic insult and character assignation. You either have your head in the sand, or so far up your , that you aware unaware of the Climategate controversies and that several of the worlds leading climatologists and scientists believe Al Gores assertions to be largely BS.


wrote …

The comments on this article are worth my $25. I personally didn't read it because it doesn't interest me. I didn't really think it belonged in the CFJ but it's not up to me to decide what belongs and what doesn't. All of you who have commented to complain should just check out some affiliate web pages on your rest days instead of writing lengthy comments to argue about something YOU have no control of.

BTW the new venue for the games looks awesome and it's unfortunate I can't make it. I guess I'll just have to download the videos when they are published on the CFJ!!!


replied to comment from Jeffrey Glassman

Yeah, I get what your saying, but basically I think the point I was saying above is something that you agreed with in your response, that is a idea is correct, that the consensus will shift towards that idea eventually, maybe there will be lag time, if the model proved accurate and consistant.

What I was pointing out with your quote, was that you seemed
"Validity in science is never determined by consensus." you seemed dismissive of consensus, and i was arguing just to argue, that eventually consensus is important, it means nothing in the early stages of discovery, but eventually it can mean much more, once the idea has had enough time to be proven consesus will follow and that will be used to validate.

The second half of that quote I completely agree with you though. "Advances come one person at a time, and in opposition to the conventional wisdom." Yep always question. Even recently, common knowledge is being revoked by new studies.

On a more serious note I have a couple of questions. Has this been submitted to other journals? If so when do you hope that this article wil hit the scientific community? Do you feel that your aurguement could be more easily accepted if the title were less aggressive? What made you decide to publish here in the CFJ, instead of only putting the article in a more conventional journal?

Here I'm not just trying to argue for fun, I would really like to know your response to these as I would like to better understand you and your article's direction.


replied to comment from Russell Berger


This has nothing to do with learning to judge scientific discourse. There are unlimited ways to do that while staying within the topic parameters of CFJ.

The issue here is that CFJ seems to be under the impression that they can publish whatever they feel like publishing using the rationale that readers can always just ignore what we don't like.

What you fail to understand is that this approach undermines the trustworthiness of CFJ. It basically makes it seem like some kind of amateur operation in which people with influence get to publish whatever they want under the aegis of CFJ without being held to CFJ's mission. Instead of a rigorous, objective source of information on exercise, training, performance, and nutrition, it starts to look like an outlet for prominent CFJers' personal agendas.

And that's simply not attractive to anyone who doesn't fall into the cultish sector of CF. We want CFJ to stick to its objectives. We want it to be professional and credible. We don't want to subscribe to a fitness/sport science publication only to be exposed to things that belong on someone's personal or non-training-related professional blog.


replied to comment from Veronique Oomen

Very well articulated!


wrote …

Jeff I would be very interested in speaking with you on this matter personally. I have written a paper that is currently under peer review on this very issue. I will tell all that read this it was not very popular nor do I know whether or not it will be published it has been sent back several times. Mainly due to the fact that I challenged the current thought process and the science behind it.

As for this type of article being in a fitness journal I would say yes it needs to be here. This is a great example of a heat engine system and how the effects are being seen on that system. Which by the way I believe that we just saw a three part video post from an interview from Dr. Scott Connelly about insulin and in that, he talked about the thermodynamic system of the body. Seems to be very similar science since both deal with thermodynamics(the study of heat transfer and fluid flow). So to study that system gives knowledge thus creating thought thus creating dialog thus creating question thus giving way to people trying to find solutions to problems. In this case how to improve fitness(the more you know about it, the more you can learn how to affect it).

What if he is wrong? Nothing will change. If we are wrong then the whole science community is also wrong on the issue. While researching my paper I can not count the number of mistakes in Data that I found. Not just little ones either. Major issues with data and models that are predicting what our climate will do. Just using Statistical Process Control on the reporting of data I found there was a margin for error greater than 25%. That to me is not even acceptable if we were making anything for use, yet it is acceptable for data used in computer modeling of the climate. Seems like the conclusions would be off greatly if we used that kind of thinking.


wrote …

please get your politics out of my fitness. I want my subscription money back.


wrote …


Completely concur. It's beyond me why this is such a big deal to people - just don't read it, if you are uninterested.



wrote …

Wow a lot of passionate people out there on this subject.

Bottom line - don't read the article if you disagree or are not interested. I love reading different opinions and learning all sides whether it is in fitness or science. Exercise the body and mind!


wrote …

Wow...this has been a very interesting read. It was worth posting this just to read all the comments associated with it.

Regarding the people who are upset that they are paying for this, this is a free article that requires no log in to download the pdf, and there is a link from the main site. It is available to the general public who navigate here. So really, you're not paying for it. It's hard to ask for your money back on a free article!

I think its cool that the author himself responds to comments... for those interested in this subject, I say take advantage of that fact. There have been interesting comments from all four sides of the issue (post or not to post, sun or not sun).

As far as its placement in a fitness journal...again, this article is free - think of it as an insert in the local paper. If you don't like it, toss it. If you do, be happy you discovered it here.

Also, am I the only one that doesn't need a weatherman to tell me its raining? Of course the sun causes global warming. WTF!


wrote …

To Tony and all who are bothered by the comments:

I get it. After all, it's your journal and you can do whatever you want.

"If you don't like it, don't read it." Nice response.

But there is a COMMENT BOX here. If you don't like the comments, in all politeness, shouldn't you take your own advice? Don't read them.

Do what you want, but if you truly want to dismiss the dissent, don't add a comment box for these off-topic articles. No one would complain. It is YOUR journal, after all.

Keep up the fantastic work!.. wacky off-topic articles and all! CrossFit and the CFJ rocks my world!

All the best in you health and your endeavors, everyone!


Simma Parks comment is the best thing I have read in the comments so far.

There are many exercises and diets that crossfitters don't use because they are inefficient. Using them would be the slow dumb way to achieve our goals.

Well, if CFJ wants to educate us about proper science then use CrossFit principles and do it in the most efficient way possible.

Don't use a tool (global warming study with language few understand) that is ill suited for the goal because you will end up with less than desirable results. (these comments can attest to that.)

As for all the comments stating "Don't like the article - don't read it." I go back again to the principle of efficiency and getting the most out of what you put in.

The editors job is to supply me with the best information possible so I don't have to sort through the reams of fitness garbage or unrelated content that's out there. My time is valuable and my subscription fee pays for the editor to do this service.

I and many others here feel the editor failed to do his job with this article.
I am not calling the article invalid. I am just saying that I don't want to have to spend time sorting through non fitness related articles on CFJ.

And if you feel it is fitness related then clearly as I said above it is the wrong tool for the job.


replied to comment from Bart Pair

Bart you are completely correct the example was not the best to be using. As a Instructor of Mechanical Engineering, I know that very few would know that the article even had any relationship to fitness at all. It was a great read for me and maybe a few others that deal with things like this on a daily basis.


wrote …

To me articles like this signal very interesting times for CrossFit. I have been thinking this for a long time now. The growth of CF has been extraordinary and it deserves great credit for that. I enjoy the approach (both practicing and coaching it) and the community it has worked so hard to generate. However, as it continues to grow, will it find a way of further binding together & strengthening its community? Will it proceed with a policy of inclusion and tolerance? Or will grow too big for its boots, explode and ultimately divide/fragment the community? The latter would be a pity but I suppose would just be part of the process of change. Change is the only constant. The question is: what type of change will it be?

Important to ponder. Listen to your readers and be careful how you proceed CrossFit.


wrote …

This article, good or bad, has no place in this journal.


wrote …

Here is one final thought: At my previous unit, I had an extensive required / recommended reading list for the Soldiers I was in charge of. Some of it was obviously professional some of it not.

The goal was professional development of cognitive capacity. Books like The Elegant Universe may not have directly applied to the daily mission but they were successful in expanding the horizon of my Soldiers' minds, which was the goal. Perhaps Coach is working toward a similar goal. Not all mentoring is obvious.

If all you digest mentally is of one nature, then that is inherently self limiting.



wrote …

If I wanted opinions or studies on politics, religion, environment, etc. I would subscribe to the appropriate source. If this is what CFJ needs for "FILLER" or if CFJ is going to become a soap box for random ideas, I won't renew my subscription. Keep focused!!! Do what you do best!!! Keep Crossfitting!!!


wrote …

I am a college student and I understand what it means to pay a tremendous amount of money for education. I go to my classes expecting to learn about whatever that class may be about. I go to my exercise science class expecting to learn about exercise science and I go to my statistics class expecting to learn about statistics. BUT, if my teacher wants to preface one class with... "this doesn't specifically have anything to do with this class but I wanted to talk to you for a few minutes about something I've been working on lately that pertains to your everyday lives..." I would sit there and listen. Yes, if I didn't like my teacher or the class to begin with I would probably be pretty angry that he was wasting my time on money on this nonsense. But if my teacher had provided me with years of tremendously useful information and done everything they could to educate me (as the Glassmans have... and mostly for free), then I would, at the very least, sit there respectfully and let him talk. I don't necessarily have to listen, I could tune him out and I wouldn't even have to understand anything he said, but I would let him talk nonetheless. The Glassmans have done amazing things for everyone sitting at their computers reading this right now and if one of them wants to post something they are proud of in the journal then I don't see why they shouldn't be able to. It was posted as a free article (so it isn't costing you any money), and it is electronic so it is not taking up any space which could have been filled with fitness articles.

Yes this article may have absolutely nothing to do with fitness but it has everything to do with the people who have created this journal for us. I care a tremendous amount about the fitness literature posted in this journal, but I care equally as much about the people who make it possible.


replied to comment from Mike Hazboun

*time and money.


wrote …

Despite the merits,or lack therof, of this article, I beleive it is inappropriate to The CrossFit Journal. JJ


wrote …

What is next? Off shore drilling? Abortion? Health Care? Immigration?

I guess it all depends on what the Glassman's are writing about in their fitness journal.

To whoever put this article here: I hope that you got the brownie points from the boss that you were after.


wrote …

Correlation does not imply causation. To state in the title that "The Cause of the Earth's Climate Change Is the Sun" made me question the validity of the paper without even reading it. I've really only skimmed through and read a few of Dr. Glassman's arguments, which are clearly presented and appear to be well supported, but based on my academic and scientific background a bold title such as this doesn't typically go far in the sciences, particularly in an area where there are so many unanswered questions such as climate sciences.

Trying to keep an open mind, I suppose as a rest day topic this is a good contribution to expand the breadth of content in the CF Journal.....???

Tony B, I'm really trying here.....


wrote …

maybe there should be a section called "off topic" or something like that for non-fitness related content


wrote …

This is so cool Dr. Glassman just shot another bullet into the brain pan of climate change. It could have been shorter and said ITS THE SUN STUPID.


wrote …

Sorry, but I agree with the other other posters/subscribers. This is totally inappropriate for a fitness journal. It has no place here and you are alienating readers/subscribers like me when you post it here.


Olivia de Santis wrote …

As a subscriber, I feel the Crossfit Journal is the wrong venue for this article. I hope Dr. Glassman can find an appropriate audience within the climate science community.


Simma Park implied that my paper on the Sun and climate was divisive and, in html format, shouted that it was utterly unrelated. I disagree with both conclusions.

The paper was pure science, so devoid of divisiveness, and that is a lesson to debate for the enhancement of science literacy for everyone. CrossFit includes a requirement for its trainers to understand the principles of science, a prerequisite to the science of fitness. While the paper was on a topic well removed from physical fitness, it was considered by Coach to be on target for mental fitness. The comments here do seem to validate that position.

Divisiveness us like today's popular argument about a faux conflict between science and religion. Science models may not contain a supernatural being or force, explicitly referring to God or an Intelligent Designer. That bar assures that, from the science side at least, a distant standoff between religion and divisiveness. A scientist may comfortably consider his work as divinely inspired, arising from God-given talents, and exploring what God miraculously set in motion in the Real World.

Nevertheless, conflicts do exist between scientific models and scripture, and that is a different matter. No divisiveness exists between the SGW paper, including its predecessors, and the science practiced in support of the AGW movement. Not so, however, when IPCC Reports are accepted on faith, as a belief system, and scripture. And there is where the SGW paper is related to fitness, and where it has something to teach. As science is forbidden supernaturals, it has no belief systems, and no consensuses.

Science is the rational, objective branch of human knowledge. To apply it, you need to understand it in principle by studying it somewhat in abstract, and what better way than in a field you think might be utterly unrelated?

And while you're at it, you might as well engage in a practical field, where your schools and your governments from top to bottom are engaged in a pursuit of a fantastic belief system, all at the expense of your standard of living, your freedom, and your safety.


wrote …

An interesting analysis; time to short the carbon credit market?


wrote …

Dr Glassman

Thank you for your article. I didn't actually read much of it because it looked a bit long and boring. But I looked at some of the pictures and graphs and found them to be very impressive, so impressive that I have now come to believe that climate change is caused by the sun.

Thanks again



Danielle Vallee wrote …

I agree with all those who feel that this is somewhat an inappropriate forum for the discussion of climate change. The science of fitness, of which we are all participants, is entirely relevant to what is presented in the CF journal. It behooves us all to learn as much as we can about how science arrives and its conclusions and to ask relevant questions. This is our responsibility not only as Crossfitters but as thinking members of society. Science is neither "right" or "left" but unfortunately most (read nearly all) politicians know about as much as the general public on how to interpret data. What they do know is how to spin it. Both sides are guilty of that and both sides hinder science by making us skeptical about science itself rather than some of its conclusions - there's a difference.

I welcome articles and information about all the sciences of fitness but this is quite a specialized topic that requires an enormous amount of expertise to interpret properly. That said, I have heard the Sun theory before and the studies base themselves largely on a temperature sample that is too tiny to be statistically significant. If anyone wishes to have a look at both sides of the argument on climate change at a glance this excellent website has summarized it nicely. You'll notice Dr. Glassman's chart that appears on page 2 of the PDF front and center.


wrote …

Climate change and diet have uncanny parallel's regarding consensus and politics mingling with science. I have found it instructive to examine one to help gain perspective on the other. So, for me, while it does, at first blush, seem odd to see the topic pop-up here, it is not without worth relative to the CFJ charter, IMO.

The article is beautifully dense. I'm not anywhere near getting all the way through it. It's obvious that a ton of research and work went into. I hope to be that prolific when(if) I retire.

The majority of the discourse seems to be focused on whether the topic is appropriate or not. Veronique's was the only comment that spoke to the actual content intelligently and without rancor. Thanks for that. It made me think. (add Danielle's to that now).

Simma, Tony, and Dr. Glassman: your comments are always well articulated and I enjoy reading them.


Kyle Sikes asked if this paper had been submitted to other journals.

Here's a thought experiment for you. Imagine that a professional existed somewhere in some field of science, dedicated to promoting its field of interest to the highest standards of science. I submit that it would publish those standards, and accept papers in its field scored solely on that basis plus originality. It would seek out controversial papers, perhaps even relaxing the standards if appropriate, and feature them prominently. It would engage in the field of debate, eschewing indoctrination. Such a journal would advance science and its field.

Any journal is free to do what CrossFit Journal has just done: publish one of my papers and solicit comments. A formal request from me would add no weight; the paper was already published freely and openly on the Internet, where it is undergoing an equally free, open, lasting, and vigorous review.

Among professional journals, CrossFit is the exception. I could give you a list of valuable articles in climate that have been denied publication, requiring investigators to seek out lesser journals. This is born out by the practices enunciated in the purloined emails, and by Oreskes' statistics.

The answer, Kyle, is no, at least not directly. Still, my papers stand as a test for journals to demonstrate dedication to their science.

Professional journals, along with book publishers and mainstream media, are in a death spiral. Regardless, science and news will thrive, thanks to the Internet and a healthy dose of caveat emptor.

Kyle also asked whether the title might be too aggressive. For some, perhaps. But the EPA and Congress are today enacting draconian measures to remedy what the Sun is doing, based on an aggressive campaign of slogans.


replied to comment from Jeffrey Glassman

"While the paper was on a topic well removed from physical fitness, it was considered by Coach to be on target for mental fitness."

Since everything else in CF is well defined. Can you define mental fitness? Is it a measurable, repeatable and observable concept? While the problems with peer review (and the media) are well documented, why does it feel expected that everyone 'believe' your article? I chose believe on purpose, since much of the article is written at a level beyond what many people understand. Without a certain level of scientific knowledge, they just have to believe you. Jumping to such a level so quickly is mental rhabdo.

I appreciate the idea of testing your knowledge of something, in this case science, in a topic that is utterly unrelated to what it was learned in. But that does not mean I am convinced that it was appropriate for the CFJ. The arguments for the inclusion of the article are weak.

Also, I just don't understand your last paragraph. Can you please elaborate?

Russell Berger,
"The extent to which many of the comments on this article show outrage, disgust, and near hysteria at the idea of the CFJ publishing non-fitness related scientific theory exactly shows the need for this type of article."

No, it doesn't. I expect the pieces on the CFJ to follow the the Mission of the CFJ. Unless, I missed the part about the sun optimizing human performance?

"If you don't get it, you didn't plan on getting it before you ever read the article, if you even got past the title."

Well, then there really was NO point in showing the article. Identifying bad science in a topic most don't study, at a level beyond their knowledge, does not give you the required skills to identify bad science in an unrelated topic.


Steve, you should have read on in the paper. The title doesn't even hint that the conclusion is based on correlation. It is based on a climate model in which the ocean acts as a tapped delay line in absorbing solar radiation after cloud albedo acts as a short term solar amplifier. It is also based, out of necessity, on debunking IPCC's claims of finding fingerprints of human activity on climate, which if true would invalidate Solar Global Warming. The correlation was amazing, but discovering the faux fingerprints came first, then the model, and the correlation in this case was validating. The scientific method is a check list, not a recipe.


Matt, I find it funny that you've taken the position that you are more aware of how to follow the mission of the CFJ more than its founders and creators. I hope it's obvious why that is laughable- the chances are profoundly greater that you just don't understand what or why they are doing what they are.

My comment on "getting it" wasn't on "getting" the science of what Glassman was saying, but on the purpose of it being published. The latter requires little study or skill.


wrote …

This is hilarious. All the people upset here are acting like this article took the place of what could have been another fitness article. Like CFJ chose to substitute a "regular" journal article/video with this one. This is ADDED, EXTRA, ADITIONAL. All you subscribers saying "i didn't pay for this", ok, fair enough, you paid for the usual content that WAS posted AS USUAL today (A Violent Agreement), watch it, its pretty good.

It always amazes me how agressively defensive people can get when an idea comes up that goes against their viewpoint. Take a's ok to didn't lose any content......breath.....


wrote …

This does not belong in the CF Journal. Period.


wrote …

To give a comment besides I rather see something I pay money for on fitness to cover fitness, I read the article, or I should say I gave it a quick reading. Caught the main points, arguments seem good. However as one that has been reading and following the whole climate debate issue for a few years now these really aren't new arguments being presented


Jay Ashman wrote …

Russell, your comments are smug and condescending. If you want to present an argument as to why this should be in the CFJ, you could sure as hell do without the superiority complex.

Then again that seems to be your m.o.


wrote …

I agree with those who feel that this sort of article does not have to do with fitness and does not belong in the Crossfit Journal I would want to see and support.


Russell Berger wrote …


I already provided an argument ( around comment 83 or so), but others have done better.
My comments aren't meant to be smug or condescending. If they do it might be because I honestly cannot help but laugh at some of the comments posted on this article. you must be mostly referring to my last comment ( 120). Do you actually disagree with my reasoning or just not like the way I responded to Matt Solomon's comment? Some clarification would be helpful.



replied to comment from Russell Berger


I don't know more about the CFJ than its "founders and creators" (that was condescending of you). But in Comment #8, Tony Budding says

"Dr. Jeff Glassman, father of Coach Greg Glassman, had a profound impact on this extraordinary commitment to science in fitness. To this end, we all owe him a major debt. He is also the Chief Scientist for CrossFit, and we are going to be including a broad science education curriculum in the Journal. We are not going to reduce our other content one bit, so nothing is being taken away. Instead, we hope to provide tools for improving the quality of our thinking and our ability to discriminate legitimate science and argumentation from bogus claims and argumentation."

He infers that the content of this 'science curriculum' is new and different to the usual/standard CFJ content. With this article, Tony is changing the mission. If that's the direction he wants it to take, then ok, say that. Before this was posted, the article does not fit. I feel that it still does not fit, but that is an issue to take up with him, not you.

The intro to the article states nothing that is relevant to the Mission at the bottom of the page. The closest thing is the part that "Dr. Glassman has dedicated his career to improving the quality of science methodology among his peers and the community at large". It doesn't say that this article does that, or how it does that in relation to optimizing human performance.

And this is smug (because you seem pleased enough to announce that you get it and I don't): "The chances are profoundly greater that you just don't understand what or why they are doing what they are." If the editors can't convince a medical student of their point, then maybe it's bad writing.

Honestly, it's obviously laughable. Hah


1. To the contrary, the AGW model recognizes no solar pattern on Earth's climate. It attributes the current temperature to an imaginary radiation balance between the Sun and Earth, but relies on no pattern. Indeed, IPCC, et al. explicitly reject solar activity as contributing to the modern warming pattern. IPCC goes further. It ignores that Earth was warming before the industrial era, and then attributes that naturally and likely on-going warming to man. Furthermore, science cannot rely on "most climatologists". That could not be more obvious than in the case of AGW.

2. IPCC claims, to the contrary, that CO2 concentration tracks O2 consumption, and manufactured phony graphs to prove it. This is exposed in the paper. All that carbon from fossil fuel goes into the three reservoirs in the same proportion as does the natural CO2, which is at least 16 times as great. The paper gives some relevant numbers.

3. Your comment is quite true that given about enough parameters, a model can be made to fit anything. IPCC's climate models have that surplus of parameters, but its models in the end fit nothing. When you get around to reading even the abstract of Solar Global Warming, you'll see how 3 or 4 constants are sufficient to provide an excellent and unprecedented fit (sigma = 0.11ºC) to Earth's annual global average temperature for the past 160 years. Your observation is misdirected.

4. Contrary to your statement, scientific validation does not require future events. Models for extinction, as in dinosaurs, could never be validated under your model for science. Validating data must be distinct from the data on which the model is based, meaning different and uncorrelated with the foundational data.

5. We should not forcibly alter the free and civil actions of humans in pursuit of silly goals, and err instead on the side of freedom. Surely we can use the National Guard to evacuate the town when the dam is failing. But we didn't even go that far when Mount St Helens was set to blow, or when Katrina was a day or two off the coast.

6. On Sunday's Housecalls, Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld, cardiologist, professor of medicine, declared that the less red meat in your diet, the better. In fact and to the contrary, red meat is the primary source of the heme molecule, all but irreplaceable in the human diet to prevent the ravages of anemia and starvation. But it is the target of a movement largely associated with the left. By the logic Veronique Oomen adopts, it should be cut back in case it might in some other reality be harmful. It is wholly analogous to the CO2 hysteria.


Chris Sinagoga wrote …

people need to be thankful for what they have!!

think about what you are getting for $25 and how gracious that really is. if this article alone makes the journal not worth the money, then stop the subscription and miss out on the rest of the stuff that's coming.

if i had the patience to sit and read any type of 48 page article, i would love to see what this one has to say. but since i don't, i'm gonna catch up on some older videos or just wait for tomorrow's article.

the bitching is getting annoying


wrote …

It's funny how many feathers this ruffled. But it's the same way with any religion.

I guess not everyone's onto the fact that the scientific journals have made a mockery of peer review, and on this topic in particular serve more as censors than as promoters of science. What the hell, those journals are just doing business, they are corrupted by greed and the dollar just as everything else that isn't govt directed is, right?

The idea behind peer review back when that mattered was to get the science in the open so that ANYONE anywhere with any budget might examine the information.

To get the info that supposedly supports the IPCC's work would take thousands of dollars. This work on the other hand is available free for ANYONE ANYWHERE to review at ANY TIME regardless of what Journal they do or do not have access to. You can't get more review friendly than that short of someone knocking on your door to give you the paper. This is the future of science, the journals will have to compete with this level of openness or join the T Rex in the museums.

If your concern is science and the practice of science, you should be rejoicing.

If what you care about is centers of power within what is called the scientific community, and the established pecking orders and the sustenance of the institutions with their hands around science's throat, and continued control over the research dollars by those with specific agendas = well, then your kerfuffle over this article is quite understandable.

Steve, #107, it's a hypothesis. Hypotheses never prove anything. What will prove or disprove something is what happens for the next ten years - does the temp going forward correspond with the formula Dr. G presents, or not? That's the meaningful question isn't it? That's the test which the IPCC, and all its allies, and all their infamous models, have failed.

Excessive sarcasm deleted here:



replied to comment from Jeffrey Glassman

"CrossFit includes a requirement for its trainers to understand the principles of science, a prerequisite to the science of fitness."

Sir, you are perhaps unfamiliar with the general..... focus, shall we say, of people who get into personal training and fitness coaching. Most people who get into the practical aspects of human kinetics failed general science; Otherwise, we'd be, like, scientists. If you want to pander to a fitness audience, may I suggest the approach suggested earlier; "HEY, IDIOT; IT'S THE SUN"

Your comments equate to the exclusion of somewhere in the neighborhood of, say, 75% of your readership, as evidenced by the "I have no clue WTF you are talking about, but it's cool that it's on here" or similar (positive or negative) comments dotting the board.

Other than that, who cares? It's an interesting read. It has nothing whatsoever to do with fitness, no matter how stridently the HQ staff tries to justify it, but it IS a well-written scientific article. Besides, if the owners want to promote their own views or give their folks a chance to peddle their shtick on here, it's their business, even if most people think it's a waste of space for a fitness journal. After all, they own the damn thing.

So, like, stop yer bitchin' N stuff. :-)


wrote …

How can scientists defeat politics masquerading as science? The aggressiveness and vast resources of the political side will always win.


wrote …

It always strikes me as strange that opponents to the concept of anthorpogenic forcing of the greenhouse effect (aka climate change) are never themselves specialist atmospheric scientists, but rather geologists or missile scientists or crackpot British Lords.

If on the other hand we take this as a challenge to the IPCC and we re-evaluate the existing information, from both reliable historic information collected by meterologists and compare with other sources of information such as preserved atmospheric samples drawn from ice cores (tells information about atnospheric conditions ina very reliable manner) and preserved pollen counts (a very effective technique that tells you what plants were growing in an area at the time, thus giving you an understanding of what the local temparature was like). I am sure smarter people that i can find otherways to delve into our earths history to find answers to these questions and evaluate what is really happening.

Or you can accept the IPCC findings (right or wrong) and then you can reduce your energy consumption, preserving and more efficiently using finite fossil fuels for the future.

Sounds like a good opportunity to get rid of the car and ride a bike/run to your local cross fit box.

PS. Dr Glassman, what is your Fran time? This is very important.


replied to comment from freddy camacho

I think that means I'm going to write it Freddy!


wrote …

"For Dr. Glassman to title his articleas he did, clearly indicates his bias."
As all scientists might be inclined to do, since they all have many sources of bias, and knowing which ones they are aware of would be desirable in examining how that might affect their presentation. The point of the scientific method is the assumption of human bias in every human and especially in scientists.


wrote …

For what it's worth, Jeff, I like many already regret not reading more before responding. If there's a virtue to it, my comments leave proof I don't know half yet of what I would like to about the philosophy of science; I just know more than I did three years ago. Paul


wrote …

hahahaha!!! this is so funny. its like finding a global warming article in the sports section of the newspaper!!!


wrote …

Dr. Glassman …

I scanned some of the comments and stopped as the depression grew. How did we get to the place that science is validation of someone’s emotional beliefs? If someone “feels” AGW is correct, then it is correct and anyone with facts is expressing bias?

I have been reading a lot on this subject for many years. I think you did a good job summarizing a lot of studies. For those not familiar with the terms involved with this discussion I think the first paragraph on page 15 explains it all. Using a movie quote …. “the map is not the territory “. A model is not the solar system, or a plant, or a galaxy. GIGO.

I appreciate brave scientists like yourself who still put facts out there despite the vitriol. And I appreciate Coach putting it on the site.


wrote …

Simma and Matt do a fine job of summarizing the issues with this article post. This shouldn't be in the CFJ.

I hope there will be no "science curriculum" added to the CFJ - I simply don't subscribe to the editors' political views nor do I trust them to present all sides of an issue given the history of articles posted to the main site.

And I can't say how awesome it is to see several posts making the point that AGW/climate change or not we should reduce emissions and do what we can to live responsibly on this planet.


Russell, my reasoning has nothing to do with it, it is irrelevant how I feel on the global warming issue, this is about what is right. It is 100% off-topic to publish this article on a fitness journal, just as it would be 100% off-topic for the NSCA to provide an exercise science article to a climatology journal just because the journal owner's father happens to be a member of the NSCA.

When you are typing online you have the luxury of hiding behind the keyboard and pretty much using a tone, and saying, what most people would never say face to face. With that in mind, I usually try to keep my responses decent and do my best to keep sarcasm and personal attacks out of it, unless they are directed at me.

Your overall tone is smug and condescending and that is not how you prove a position.

You could do without the "I laugh at some comments posted here" especially since you are a contributing member of the journal, and by that alone speaking on the behalf of HQ. Other comments you made have the same tone, and if you can't see that, the problem is on you.

I could say the same thing to you in regards to your Gym Jones piece but it is irrelevant.

Regardless of your personal opinions on the comments above, it is clear that the majority of them are not in favour of this type of article being on a fitness journal.

That isn't to say there isn't a need for this, it is obvious Dr. Glassman is a very smart man and spent a lot of time in study over the years, and I hope this article is peer-reviewed and taken seriously.

Having said that, I glanced over it, but I don't have a background in that type of science, nor do I have the patience to scour 48 pages of graphs and data, but it doesn't mean that this article has a place on the CrossFit Journal.


Russell Berger wrote …


thanks for the response. It obviously boils down to a matter of opinion on what the Journal should or shouldn't be. I still think that the controversy surrounding this article is almost 100% due to the subject and not the content. That being the case, the parallels between this and the debates on high/low carb diets and high/low intensity fitness share a number of similarities. The relevance of this article is huge if you aren't busy getting wrapped around the irrelevant ( political implications, who wrote it, what it says about polar bears, etc). I apologize if my comments sounded smug, I was under the impression you were trying to say you better understood the mission of the journal than its founders. I believe what you were trying to say, if anything, is that you just disagree with their version of what you see as a fitness-only mission statement. Again, i disagree, but the latter lacks that imaginary sense of entitlement that was making me laugh.


I was asking if you actually disagreed with anything I said, or just didn't like the way I said it. I'm guessing you just didn't like the way I've said it. I need more substance than that if we are going to keep this going.

If you want to know why I was laughing at what I thought was Matt's comment, see above. Now I'm laughing at yours because you claim that this article was published only because of the relationship of Dr. Glassman to CrossFit, even though that is entirely false.

Nothing I've said in these comments is something I wouldn't be happy to say to you in person. I'm not going to be checking back in on this thread, so if you would like to continue our discussion, email me at and I'll send you my cellphone number.


I highly doubt this article would have been published here if it wasn't Dr. Glassman, period. Nothing can prove that otherwise.


wrote …

Wow. From Jeff's forceful response I guess I must have hit a nerve ;-). Debates are good so here's some more:

1. Rest assured: I have just as little affinity with the IPCC model as with yours. Actually I have no clue what the IPCC model is... But my own "common sense" model that I've heard genuine climatologists (which I'm not) explain on TV fits very well with the graphs in your paper: it looks like there is a cycle going on superimposed on an upward trend. The cycle fits the solar cycle; the trend... The more complex a model, the more it has to explain to be even considered. For a linear trend and a cycle we need 2 parameters only (if the cycle's frequency is a given).

2. The only reason that dinosaur researchers are exempt from the obligation to make predictions that can test the validity of their model is that they have NFW. For anybody else that exception does not apply. And even dinosaur research has the same scientific principles to contend with as anybody else: they have to validate their principles by experimentation designed to (dis)prove.

3. Common sense has always guided me against cutting any specific "natural" food and against consuming artificial sweeteners etc. A body evolved for maintaining balance using natural resources, will do so with these resources. However, the same common sense about balance applies when it comes to unbridled extraction and consumption of non-renewable energy sources and the corresponding dump of carbon into the atmosphere. Like it or not: we are whacking things out of balance, some of which we have no way to fully appreciate at this time. A prudent response would be to take common sense measures to mitigate the size of the whack. (This is actually exactly the opposite from changing natural eating habits based on assumptions.)I fail to see what is wrong with shifting taxation from labor towards the consumption of oil; the prudent approach would be to have less of the one and we definitely want more of the other...

4. The tone of the response indicates a political motivation more than a scientific one. I regret this for your sake. Mental strength (which I think is extremely important for happiness and of which CF btw teaches certain aspects very well) requires careful consideration of your own potential weaknesses so that you can improve them. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, although only a validated prediction diverging from more conventional global warming theory will convince me. Are you willing to give me the same?


Jake Di Vita wrote …

The ignorance in these comments is truly astonishing...OK, well maybe it's just par for the course.

How many of you people got your opinion on climate change from watching the news or "an inconvenient truth"(bullshit).

The powers at be know that man-made climate change is horse puckey. The science is quite evident (as any of you who actually read and understood the article would grasp). Unfortunately I bet 90% of the posters didn't read any more than the first word they didn't understand.

But, there are countless misguided fools out there who fall into the trap of emotional attachment without any actual facts or data. Learn to think and reason for yourselves...if you can.


wrote …

I haven't gone through the article, so I won't comment at all on it's content. The arguments presented seem to often relate to the article's usefulness in explaining "good science" and it's method. I won't argue this either- but can someone please explain how? Meaning that if the point of posting this article has much to do with explaining good science, then I (and likely others) will need some assisstance and reference in comparing this to other works of non-fitness related science.

Can someone specifically explain how this applies the theory of science? That's not a challenge, but if this article is posted as a mental workout, then there needs to be comments in the margin explaining the purpose of this particular work.

Perhaps there can be a "scientific method" section of the journal- it would then erase all of the complaining I think.


You asked if I could define mental fitness. Here's a first draft. Mental fitness is the ability to reason to the standards required for a particular activity. The standards are those self-imposed plus those externally imposed. Standards include the desire for self-improvement, to be productive, to be a good citizen, and not to look a fool. So mental fitness is situational.

I want no one to believe my article. I want people to argue it on substance. It's a tough read for some, but the abstract and conclusions should be relatively easy. If there is something not understood, post a question on where there is no such thing as a dumb question and where it will be answered.

You asked for an explanation of (I believe) this next paragraph. See if the bold helps.

>>And while you're at it [learning the principles of science], you might as well engage in a practical field [climate science], where your schools and your governments from top to bottom are engaged in a pursuit of a fantastic belief system [AGW, environmentalism, teaching that CO2 is anything but a benign, beneficial, and optimal effluent], all at the expense of your standard of living [e.g., cheap utilities, low taxes], your freedom [e.g., to live or work far from train stations, to drive a vehicle suitable to you, to be an entrepreneur], and your safety [sound roads and bridges, borders controlled, enemies foreign and domestic contained].>>

These considerations and our little dialog demonstrate the value in Coach's point for having rest day (esp. non-fitness) topics at all. Physical fitness absent mental fitness is the product of prisons.


The "off topic" section is called Rest Day.


replied to comment from Jeffrey Glassman

Dr. Glassman,

I apologize if it seemed as though I were shouting. In fact, the very few words I capitalized were for emphasis, as I notice that many people need to see something a little more eyecatching than simple bold or italics when a comments thread gets long.

You say:
The paper was pure science, so devoid of divisiveness, and that is a lesson to debate for the enhancement of science literacy for everyone.

I am perfectly able to believe your heart was filled with pure science when you wrote this article and told CFJ to print it. I do not doubt your personal motives, nor do I care about what they were when they researched and wrote this piece. I say that not to be harsh or sarcastic, but to emphasize that a person's personal motives are only relevant to a scientific piece in so far as they show in any distortion of his/her scientific argument.

However, I find it frankly naive for you to expect that scientific research which deals with hot-button cultural issues will be accepted by people with the same purity of heart. I have an equally hard time believing that someone with your knowledge and experience actually believes the statement I quote above. For to actually believe it would require that you have no knowledge of or experience with human nature and human history.

Note that I, personally, gave no opinion of the article itself. I simply acknowledged what is obvious: the topic is going to incite controversy and division. I have a hard time believing you did not fully expect this. The question is, if you are going to incite controversy and division on CFJ, do you and your son and Russell and all the other CFJ insiders wish this division to be about a topic which people here are likely to be ill-prepared to understand and about which people are likely to throw up all kinds of emotional barriers to understanding, regardless of their stance on the subject... or do you want to get people debating and discussing FITNESS (not shouting--this is for emphasis), the topic for which people have "signed on" to explore here, the topic about which people expect and want to be challenged here?

Let me clarify that I have no problem with people inciting controversy and division with their research. Iconoclasm is, obviously, essential to science. However, a key aspect of being an intelligent, reasoning human being is learning and understanding the proper venues for certain kinds of discourse. Do you honestly believe that a fitness journal is the proper place for this? To put it gently, I find all the convoluted arguments in favor of this article's publication here to be completely laughable.

First of all, the argument that the purpose of such an article is to "teach us" science and scientific thinking is ludicrous. If teaching science is in CF's mission, do you honestly expect anyone to believe that a 40 page dissertation on climate change addressing a very specific criticism of the current IPCC model and proposing a very specific alternate hypothesis is the way to "teach us" science and scientific thinking? It's kind of like saying speaking French is part of the job description and throwing A Rebours at someone, claiming that it's to help him/her learn French.

Secondly, does this mean that all scientific topics are germane to CF? Where are the papers about the raging debate over how to classify Florianensis in the Homo genus tree? Or the explanation of the Higgs boson particle? Or the potential role of nanotechnology in medicine? Or position papers on embryonic stem cell research? Obviously, I could go on and on forever. Which emphasizes the ridiculousness of the claim that any and all science is included in CF's mission. It also highlights the indisputable fact that this particular topic, climate change, was selected because it is an interest which you (I hope you will find boldface more acceptable than caps) have.

In no workplace or classroom would it be considered appropriate for a boss or a teacher to make presentations about his or her unrelated personal interests. But you know where such out of context discourse is often welcomed and occurs regularly? A house of religion. In fact, the inclusion of this article here in CFJ reminds me quite a bit of the lectures I had to listen to in Church as a child about the flaws and holes in evolutionary theory. Are there flaws and holes in evolutionary theory, especially human evolutionary theory? Sure. Does that mean that presenting this critique in Church wasn't an ideological move simply because the critiques may have been legitimate? So I find it interesting that you compare people who object to the inclusion of this article (most of whom object on editorial grounds, not ideological grounds) to people who believe in scripture. Because to our eyes, you're using CFJ as your pulpit to support your personal interests, not interests related to exercise, fitness, and health.

Secondly, the argument that you can publish whatever you want because CF "belongs" to you is only going to backfire on you. I'm sure, within the rarefied circle of CF higher-ups in which you dwell, people to see you and your son as father figures. As for the rest of us, we belong to a community, not a family. And the community is united around fitness principles, not around the personal whims of its father figures. We are not an army or a cult or a dictatorship in which your paternalistic decisions rule and in which we have supposedly signed on to learn about whatever you think is "good for us" to know about. If we want to know about climate change, we are supposed to be able to find out on our own. It is not your place to show us the way.

The head of a propane sales company can put a cross in his personal office or desk space, and most reasonable people will find that perfectly acceptable. But if he puts a cross above the reception desk, he's going to alienate quite a few people who aren't Christian... and a good many people who are Christians. So is his bottom line selling propane, or making a religious statement? If the second, then his success is going to based more on how people feel about Christianity and religion in the public sphere than about the quality of his products and service. If the first, then he'd be a fool to risk alienating people by making inappropriate statements or publicizing his personal affiliations in a place where they are not relevant. Sure, a lot of people won't care or notice. Some people will even support the business more because of their shared belief. But if the proprietor's goal is to reach as many customers as possible and help his propane business grow to the greatest extent possible, why even bother with any variables not related to his business practices, especially variables which could negatively impact his business, regardless of how wonderful his business practices are?

So are you in the business of fitness, or the business of finding an outlet for your personal scientific interests? Is CF your personal domain in which you dictate what is relevant according to your whims, or is it a larger community with a clear, focused and specific mission? Is CF a Cult of Glassman or a fitness movement? If you treat CF as the former, you're going to lose a lot of the diversity you worked hard to create and market. If you treat it as the latter, you have to exercise some control over scope.

Many of us are interested in what you, the coach, and other core CFers are doing in their lives. I'm sure if you provided an alternate venue for these things and linked to them, many of us who share your interests would check them out.

But publishing your climate change article here makes you seem like some kind of crackpot looking to shoehorn and leverage his way into any venue, regardless of appropriateness or relevance, to "get the word out". The fact that you "own" this venue makes it even worse. I'm sure your research deserves better, and CFJ and CFJ readers certainly deserve better.

In all honestly, regardless of my personal feelings about climate change, if I had read a brief announcement on CFJ that this article was available on your own website or blog, I would probably have followed a link there just to satisfy my curiosity. But seeing it presented as part of CFJ made me feel like I was being spammed by the company owner's dad. And that objection to being spammed is why you're getting a lot of the negative reactions to this article.

As for statements like this:
And while you're at it, you might as well engage in a practical field, where your schools and your governments from top to bottom are engaged in a pursuit of a fantastic belief system, all at the expense of your standard of living, your freedom, and your safety.

all I can say is that A) it betrays that you had an ideological motive for posting it here and B) it's incredibly patronizing. I will respect your son's expertise in matters of fitness, and I would certainly respectfully listen to anything you had to say about the science of fitness, nutrition, or athletic performance, but I do not need you looking out for my general intellectual development. If you can't understand why CFJ isn't appropriate for your article, if you don't understand human nature and history enough to realize that humans never digest anything in a pure realm that is free of ideology, and if you're not willing to let CFJ stay a fitness movement instead of your personal project for developing disciples in your intellectual image, then CF has already failed--it's just a question of time until this becomes evident.


wrote …

could not have said it better myself, thank you simma


wrote …

although it was an interesting article



Ultimately the objective of climatology is to predict the climate, but climate is defined between several decades and a few millennia. Fortunately, science requires models to make non-trivial predictions, not necessarily the ultimate prediction. In fact, a scientist should never advance a climate model for public policy before it qualifies as a theory. It must first be a hypothesis, meaning that it fits all the data in its domain (is not contradicted) and that it makes at least one non-trivial prediction. Then to be a theory, one of its non-trivial predictions must be verified by new data and modeling. If the ultimate prediction is to be a cataclysm, like AGW or an ice age, science does not require the catastrophe occur before issuing the warning.

Instead, the job of the scientist is to use his model for other predictions which might be demonstrated by timely analyses and data. For the SGW hypothesis, I can offer two such predictions. One is that cloud albedo acts, in part, as an amplifier to solar radiation. That is cloud albedo is a quick reacting, positive feedback to solar activity. That implies a correlation, which is already known to exist, plus a model that supports cloudiness decreasing as the atmosphere warms from short wave absorption. If that warming only raises the cloud level, the model might not be valid.

The second prediction is that first order, dominant ocean currents can cause Earth to favor absorption of certain solar patterns while rejecting others. Then the model calls for an investigation into whether the requisite delays actually exist in the ocean with appropriate volume flows.

Meanwhile, the political implications are far reaching and obvious, and the subject of another essay.


replied to comment from Jeffrey Glassman

Dr. Glassman,

I appreciate the article, and the rigor with which you communicate with our community. I'll look forward to meeting you, hopefully at the Games in LA.

Thanks again for your service.

Justin Bergh


wrote …

Jeff&Tony I'm sorry for the abuse, you have to love how how these people are trying turn this in to a debate that could go on till DEC 21 2012. The problem I have are the people who say this does,nt belong on this web site because this is a fittness web site and are they complaining about Sergei Rachmaninou-Piano Concerto No.2, what do,es that have to do with fit'ness, oh ya I listen to music when I work out and (I breath the air an soak up the sun when I work out). Thank you for all the different articles Tony and Jeff let me know were your going to be DEC. 2012. Thanks RB


Mike Cipriano #42 lept to this remark, "For Dr. Glassman to title his article as he did, clearly indicates his bias."

Bias means prejudice, which is an "opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason", or "unreasonable". Good grief! The paper has over 40 pages of reasoning.


replied to comment from Simma Park

With all due respect, please get off your high horse. You certainly have a right to your opinion, but you express it as if it were fact. It is not. I am glad to read the content of your posts. But there are many among us who disagree with you. If you conclude that Dr Glassman is a crackpot, so be it. But that doesn't make it fact.

You also need to understand that the CrossFit Journal is not in publication to become popular. It is to present material that supports our pursuit of fitness and health. We have never shied away from controversy or publishing provocative articles that some find offensive. We don't need you to like everything we do.

Honestly, I care not one whit that you don't want to see this article in this Journal. There are people that oppose almost everything we do on some level. Some people think we should distance ourselves from Louie Simmons because of his stance on steroids. Others think we should try to impose a certain politically correct tone on all of our authors and presenters. On the Games side, some have said we sold our soul because we are holding the Games at a large event center.

Every article we publish appeals to some and not to others. I have found that intelligent, wise, and successful people understand that there are many matters upon which reasonable people disagree. Everything in the Journal is published with the intent of giving the opportunity to learn something. This article is no exception.

And, at the same time, the Journal is structured the way it is for a reason. There are over 1200 articles now. You have access to all of them. Use what you want, discard the rest. Spending as much time as you have trying to banish articles like this from the Journal is laughable, really. Even if this article were pure rubbish, which it's not, your argument is like saying you're not interested in harvesting a fertile crop because there's shit in the field.


replied to comment from Tony Budding


Sorry--I seem to be having trouble hearing you from my high horse, because the stilts you've put on your horse are so very long.

Either you lack basic reading comprehension, or you're dishonestly rephrasing my comments to mean something I am not saying. If your post is an example of how CF teaches people how to reason and make arguments, then the org. should get out of the education business forthwith.


replied to comment from Simma Park

Thanks Simma. I share your opinion that this is the wrong forum to present this work.

I consider myself new to crossfit and am very proud of what my body has become. When asked how I got in shape I am quick to point to mainsite. I no longer will make this suggestion for one reason: I do not trust the editors enough to risk labeling myself with their work.

This article (well, the comments) does seem to be a sort of declaration that all topics are fair game.. and, well, I'm not so sure I want to have to direct people to ignore the non-fitness stuff.

And when someone does ask for less non-fitness material they may be told "Honestly, I care not one whit that you don't want to see this article in this Journal." Do I really want to bring my friends and family into a community who's leaders don't seem to care?


Ryan Lewis wrote,

>>It always strikes me as strange that opponents to the concept of anthropogenic forcing of the greenhouse effect (aka climate change) are never themselves specialist atmospheric scientists, but rather geologists or missile scientists or crackpot British Lords.>>

English has the expression "Strange but True" to emphasize that strangeness in the false is ordinary. What you find strange is not out of the ordinary because it is false, proved for starters by every one of these individuals popularly known as climate scientists:

Sallie Baliunas; Robert Balling; John Christy; William Grey; Marcel Leroux; Richard Lindzen; Roger Pielke; Nicola Scafetta; Nir Shaviv; Fred Singer; Willie Soon; Roy Spencer; Henrik Svensmark; George Taylor; Hendrik Tennekes; Jan Veizer; Antonio Zichichi

I'll leave it to you to determine whether these fit your definition of atmospheric scientist. For example, does one need a PhD specifically in that field, or does work experience count? Does a similar degree in a broader field count, such as physics, chemistry, or engineering? In the process you might want to check the credentials of some of the vociferous proponents of AGW.

When an atmospheric scientist opines on systems science, solubility, ocean chemistry, thermodynamics, radiation absorption, mathematics or statistics, should he not be criticized by specialists in, oh, let's say, systems science, solubility, ocean chemistry, thermodynamics, radiation absorption, mathematics or statistics? Or must his work be reviewed only by fellow climatologists, and indeed only those who agree with him?

And how about crackpot US Senators and crackpot Presidents? Did you know that the IPCC Reports are formally addressed to Policymakers? Those Reports are much, much longer than 48 pages and have many hundreds of graphs. Would it not be appropriate for policymakers to respond? Or, must they agree in order to respond?

Are there any CrossFitters or Journal subscribers in the House or Senate?


I Googled for football and global warming and got 3,300,000 hits.

You ought to find global warming on lots of sports pages. Many more times than football in a science journal.


What if the climate journal had a rest day in which it published non-climate articles like the WSJ column, "Was the Franken/Coleman Election 'Effectively Stolen'?" CrossFit Archives, 7/2/2009.

By the way, all my papers are currently undergoing unbiased and open review, and it's not limited to the peerage of climatology.


wrote …

Thanks Simma, I think you just told the Journal what us simple folks were thinking ( i think?). I guess it's better than WTF.


replied to comment from Simma Park

Ok Simma,
I'll bite. How am I supposed to interpret this?
"I look forward to his niece's essays on the sacredness of prom, or his mother's recipe for pot roast (which actually would be more relevant to CFJ's mission than this article), or his plumber's trenchant examination of class inequality in America."
I'd say this is strident and insulting, which I characterized as you being on a "high horse." I stand by that.

You also wrote:
"But publishing your climate change article here makes you seem like some kind of crackpot looking to shoehorn and leverage his way into any venue, regardless of appropriateness or relevance, to "get the word out". The fact that you "own" this venue makes it even worse. I'm sure your research deserves better, and CFJ and CFJ readers certainly deserve better."

I wrote this in response "You certainly have a right to your opinion, but you express it as if it were fact. It is not. I am glad to read the content of your posts. But there are many among us who disagree with you. If you conclude that Dr Glassman is a crackpot, so be it. But that doesn't make it fact." There are many comments above that have complimented Dr Glassman on the article and on its inclusion in this Journal. I'm pretty sure my reasoning is intact here.

And this?
"But if the proprietor's goal is to reach as many customers as possible and help his propane business grow to the greatest extent possible, why even bother with any variables not related to his business practices, especially variables which could negatively impact his business, regardless of how wonderful his business practices are?"

In response, I wrote: "You also need to understand that the CrossFit Journal is not in publication to become popular. It is to present material that supports our pursuit of fitness and health. We have never shied away from controversy or publishing provocative articles that some find offensive. We don't need you to like everything we do." Again, I'm pretty sure that this is a fair and rational response to your comment. You may not like the response, but that is not a cause for claiming faulty reasoning.

I think it's Devin who is guilty of faulty reasoning by saying that I must not care in general because I don't care whether you want the article included or not. That's like a girlfriend saying you don't care about her because you said you don't care which pair of shoes she wears.


wrote …

Simma is absolutely right.

I think when you get this overwhelming of a response you need to take a step back and say "yep, we hit outside the sweet spot on this one" and make note. This is a product, pure and simple. When you stamp a price tag no matter how small it becomes subject to scrutiny and you have to start listening to your customers. If you choose to ignore feedback then you send a strong message.

The wonderful thing about the internet is that you don't dictate the brand, the brand is dictated by the community. Its obvious by the number of responses that something is incongruent here. Its not a personal issue with Dr. Glassman, its an issue with the whole "if you don't like it don't read it." That type of dismissive response from someone speaking for CF Staff sends a strong message that what the community finds inappropriate for a paid product is irrelevant.

How would you feel if you went to your favorite restaurant and ordered your regular meal with mashed potatoes and they said, "yeah we mixed some peas in cause the owner likes that?" You would send it back promptly. Your product that you expected was not delivered as expected. Sure you could pick them out, or just not eat your potatoes but as a customer you would send it back because its not what you ordered.

Stay on topic in the pay areas. I think if you want to post something like this, stick to the free side. The main page with Mozart, Dostoevsky or whatever article you want discussed in the comments. The CFJ is for premium content that people pay for.(thats why you post teasers of the vids, right? to get more people to buy in.)

Again this is not to disrespect Dr. Glassman in any way shape or form. My point is strictly on product expectations and the dismissive attitude taken when you actually get a strong response. This amount of feedback should be noted for the future.


replied to comment from Nate Alexander

Since I'm here, a few points. One, this article was free. Yes it's in the Journal, but the Journal is not just premium content.

We post partial videos on the main site and full videos in the Journal. The partial videos are not "teasers" in the sense that we do indeed put solid content there, not just enticements that force you to pay to get the substance. They are segments though. You get more good stuff here.

I disagree that this is like putting peas in your mashed potatoes. This is like offering a new dish, which in your example is a side of peas. You can still get your mashed potatoes (other articles) exactly as you want them. No other Journal content was harmed in the making of this post.

The reason we might come off as dismissive is because it's a ludicrous stance. This is not a pre-running commercial on the videos that you have to watch to see the content you paid for. In essence, what you're saying is "I don't want to have to scroll past an article I don't want to read in order to access the rest of my regular Journal content." Or, "I am intolerant of you posting articles that I don't want to see."

Do you read the newspaper? Do you read every article in it every day? Of course not. Skip what you don't want to read.

You also wrote, "I think when you get this overwhelming of a response you need to take a step back and say "yep, we hit outside the sweet spot on this one" and make note." Well, we got a very similar divided response when we moved from a monthly PDF to this new format.

We also got a very profound response in every extreme to the recent Games announcement that we were moving them to the Home Depot Center in Los Angeles. Does that mean we hit it outside the sweetspot on that one too?

What about when we announced that the price of participating in the Sectional Qualifiers was going to be $100. The Games site was hit with over 100 complaints about how we were selling out and the Games had lost their soul etc etc. Ten days later when we opened registration, their servers got shut down because 6,000 people were trying to register simultaneously.

You are dead wrong in your conclusion. A strong emotional response from a tiny segment of our subscribers does not mean we made a mistake. If we thought like you, Nate, we'd have crumbled and been out of business a long time ago.


wrote …

Just let it go guys. It's Greg Glassman's dad. Even though very few people can even understand the article (I don't and I have an aerospace engineering and biology background) and a bunch of crossfit sycophants claim they do and even though the editorial staff may claim this is some kind of mental crossfit wod, and this is a run on sentence, the reality really is so what? Nothing last forever. I respect G. Glassman enough where I would read his kids musings on high school proms or whatever on the Journal. If he thinks his dad's work is worthy of being here then it probably is. I doubt this will be a trend as I doubt G. Glassman would allow this type of favor to anyone else and I really doubt Dr. Glassman can really pump out very many of these reports. It must have taken forever to write.


wrote …

I find both the "mental fitness" and the "don't care one whit" concepts expressed by HQ disturbing.


You say,

>> The only reason that dinosaur researchers are exempt from the obligation to make predictions that can test the validity of their model is that they have NFW. For anybody else that exception does not apply.>>

How about the whole of geology? We can measure small displacements, vertical and horizontal, attributed to plate tectonics. But does that phenomenon produce a truly non-trivial prediction, one that goes beyond linear estimates of the present day rates? When will the rate change? We might ask where are the plates going, and what are the effects in a glacial minimum, but that's analogous to the climate catastrophe problem. In our lifetime, we might like to predict something practical about earthquakes, major landslides, or especially supervolcano eruptions, even if the prediction is significant only statistically.

When you write about being prudent, in my head I hear David Spade's voice mocking George H.W. Bush.

Common sense and prudence are the antitheses of science. In fact, they may be the same thing, and so the antithesis of science. We create measurements, standards, models, predictions, and statistics to overcome all the error and strife that arise from the guesswork of common sense and prudence.

Science and the study of climate have been infused with politics and fraud. You seem to suggest, therefore, that any exposé of the fraud must be political. This is a nice parallel to the popular arguments that opponents of illegal immigration and Marxism are racists. Physical realism, as in climate, economics, and policing, does not inherit the propaganda of its antagonists.

You write,

>> … only a validated prediction diverging from more conventional global warming theory will convince me. Are you willing to give me the same?>>

I will do this: hold you to the same standards. You should insist (most excellently) on a validated prediction from AGW, which BTW is no longer on the scale of science, much less being a theory. And you should eschew all reliance on the conventional, notwithstanding your insistence on prudence and common sense.

We are far from out of the woods on the current deep recession. It's heading for a double dip in unemployment, Depression 2.0 with no relief in sight, all from three causes. (1) The federal government is going to take equity trading away from the big banks, and this is going to deflate the equity markets currently buoyed artificially with TARP money (The Big Bank Theory). (2) The massive debt accumulated in just the past few years and accelerating guarantees inflation on a scale seen only in the Weimar and banana republics, just as soon as a little recovery imparts some velocity to the dollar. And (3) Cap & Trade will deal a mortal blow to what's left of free enterprise -- change born out of a lethal mixture of scientific illiteracy, fraud, prudence, and common sense.


wrote …

WOW! These comments might make one believe that opinions regarding environmentalism are based more on something resembling religious fanaticism than logic, reason and evidence. As far as this paper being "off-topic," I will only say that many of the most interesting articles, ideas, presentations, etc. that I have been exposed to in the year that I have been crossfitting were rest day postings.


wrote …

"And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let's examine some of those beliefs. "

Please read a little more...


replied to comment from Jeffrey Glassman

Dr. Glassman, than you very much for responding and especially for this quote: "Physical fitness absent mental fitness is the product of prisons." I now number it among my favorites.



replied to comment from Jeffrey Glassman

To Clarify Doctor Glassman, in the general media I receive it does come across to me that most opponents of climate change are not themselves specifically in the area of climate change, as portrayed by the media, they are portrayed as Professors of Geology or other specialists. This tends to subtly invalidate their opinion if the person absorbing this general media notes that they aren't some sort of appropriately titled specialists. Recently in Australia we had a visit by a British gentleman named Lord Mockton who opposes climate change. In the general media, he came across as rather odd, to be polite. This makes the arguments for and against climate change murkier and less clear for the general public as the arguments become emotive and personal. That was what my opening comments were about.

Thanks for the reply to my post, I hope you agree with the idea of running/riding/walking to your local cross fit box. Its good for fitness as part of a solid and varied cross fit regime.


replied to comment from Tony Budding

We also got a very profound response in every extreme to the recent Games announcement that we were moving them to the Home Depot Center in Los Angeles. Does that mean we hit it outside the sweetspot on that one too?


You are dead wrong in your conclusion. A strong emotional response from a tiny segment of our subscribers does not mean we made a mistake. If we thought like you, Nate, we'd have crumbled and been out of business a long time ago.

I think you are being a bit disingenuous here. First of all, that is not a good comparison. Second, you are coming to your own superficial conclusion that there is only a tiny segment of subscribers that found fault with posting this article in the CFJ. I would argue that there is more than just a couple of dissenters. In fact, I counted 54 separate individuals (not postings) who found fault with this posting, the majority of which did not feel that this article had any place in a fitness journal. 54! That does not count the people that were too timid to let their voices be heard on the matter. Of the 160 postings, about 80 (half) were negative posts, 20-30 were posts from Glassman Sr. and Tony, and the rest were positive or neutral posts. Even if you are conservative and you classify the negative posters as a minority, they are not a small sum of subscribers by any means.


Jeffrey Glassman wrote …

To those readers who think a non-climate paper is wrong in the CrossFit Journal:

Please provide your authority for what is right and what is wrong here.

What is your opinion of free enterprise, and the rights of an entrepreneur/owner to decide as he sees fit what he offers?

Are you aware of how commonplace your complaint has been over the many years of CrossFit rest day articles? Are you aware that the Journal has thrived on an unprecedented scale, online and in print, in spite of those off-fitness articles? Or, have you considered that perhaps the Journal has had amazing success precisely because of its editorial policy?

Have you paused to consider why your whining complaints even see the light of day in the commentary? Do you think that the e-equivalent of a street demonstration rife with slogans and placards actually carries any weight? FYI, the Journal is not run by the government!

Coach is serving you primo physical and mental fitness, advertisement free, at a bargain price. And you gripe that you don't even want to be told that you don't have to eat the whole meal. You are free to be physically fit – only. I suppose that if your mental fitness is low enough, you fight it.

And where are the others who actually take the time to read or share the rest day articles? This reminds me of the Tea Party antagonists, who fill the airwaves with the complaint that there aren't enough Blacks in the crowd! Do they actually expect much attendance at an anti-Marxist rally from a group that supported Obama by about 95%? These events are filters on their participants. It's going to take some time for the readers in the audience to react, and many of them are likely to find that the best forum for substantive matters is indeed elsewhere, in this case at


wrote …

I just reread Mark Rippatoe's CFJ article "Silly Bullshit" since it was referenced as a related article. Rippatoe's last paragraph is worth repeating here in terms of the on going controversies.

"The problem is complex, and the solution is simple. It is incumbent on you, yes You, to educate yourself to a sufficient extent that you are in a position to evaluate information issued from a position of authority. You are supposed to be able to recognize silly bullshit when you hear it. And I'm sorry if it's hard to have to think all the time, but the consequences of placing your responsibility to do so in the hands of others can result in a closet full of Thigh Masters, which will make it necessary to find somewhere else to hang your shirts-like on your Bowflex."

If don't understand the article, take it as a sign 'to educate yourself to a sufficient evaluate information issued'. If you don't understand someone's comments or point of view, take it as a sign to ask and inquire in rational discourse, not rip them a new one wearing your emotions on your shirtsleeve.

I say Right On! Rippatoe, Dr. Glassman, and Crossfit. You don't have to agree with them but they bring intelligence, passion, new perspectives to things that matter. They make me think and question like never before. They are a breath of fresh air. Many thanks.


The lesson is be wary.

It sure seems incongruous to take the elevator up to the StairMaster.


replied to comment from Tony Budding

I'll bite. How am I supposed to interpret this?
"I look forward to his niece's essays on the sacredness of prom, or his mother's recipe for pot roast (which actually would be more relevant to CFJ's mission than this article), or his plumber's trenchant examination of class inequality in America."
I'd say this is strident and insulting, which I characterized as you being on a "high horse." I stand by that.

Tony, if you would read the beginning of that comment, you'd see that this was a sarcastic riff on the claims that this article's presence shouldn't be criticized because the Journal belongs to Coach Glassman.

It has nothing to do with any judgment on Dr. Glassman's article. Nowhere do I once make any judgments whatsoever on Dr. Glassman's article because the article's quality is beside the point of my argument.

But publishing your climate change article here makes you seem like some kind of crackpot looking to shoehorn and leverage his way into any venue, regardless of appropriateness or relevance, to "get the word out". The fact that you "own" this venue makes it even worse. I'm sure your research deserves better, and CFJ and CFJ readers certainly deserve better.

Do you not see that I'm saying choosing a sports journal to publish article, and sports journal that he pretty much owns, according to you, makes him SEEM (capitals for emphasis) like a crackpot? Can you not read what you have yourself quoted, where I follow that up with "I'm sure your research deserves better"?

Basically, your reasoning is that you don't care about anyone's complaints and the Journal can do whatever the damn well it wants. That's not a reason. That's simply you dictating how things are going to be. Saying that this article is relevant to CFJ because you say so is not a reasoned argument. Saying that the article is relevant because it's science, and CFJ is all about science simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

And you know what? "It's here because we say so" may very well be the only justification that makes sense for publishing content like this. But it's justification that will go only so far, and only with people who can't get good fitness information anywhere else or people who already agree with you, or people who don't have any critical faculties to speak of. I've always supported CF since I discovered that it existed. I constantly refer people to the website, encourage them to join CF gyms if they can afford them, etc. But you're not the only functional fitness game out there anymore. Functional fitness is a full-on movement, and you're going to have more and more competition in the future.

Charge what you want for games and certs. Hire people with controversial stances on fitness/sport/performance. Even though I personally eschew PEDs, I think it's important to get points of view of people, like Louie, who use them and have a cogent reason for doing so. Because these kinds of battles are firmly within the bounds of your war, not part of some brouhaha completely unrelated to fitness

I've already encountered people who won't join the CF gym here in my city because they associate CF with being cultlike, right-wing, or just arrogant assholes. I know you have a reputation for dis-affiliating CF gyms whose owners disagree too openly with your political positions. Is this the kind of reputation you want to have, as a bullying organization that tolerated no dissent? If people are going to hate you, wouldn't you rather have them hate you for a controversial stance on sport science, where you can leverage that to prove the validity of the CF program, instead of for random stuff which has nothing to do with the business of CrossFit and will only hurt your credibility?

Maybe your answer is no. Maybe you'd rather say "take it or leave it and STFU". In which case, I and many others who could make good allies for CF's (fitness-related) mission will eventually leave it.

What I really don't understand is that inner-circle CFers uniformly mock people who take the time to argue their dissent. So what if I want to take the time to make the case for excluding articles like this? (And it's not just this one. I notice a whole bunch of other OT posts on things like politics, etc. which do not belong in CF--but they are either from before my time or were published at a time when I was too busy to notice.) What if I have some extra time and want to make a case for what I want from CFJ? What if I want CFJ to start acting like a real journal instead of a random blog run by some guys and their disciples? So what if, instead of throwing my hands up and finding good sport science info elsewhere (which is entirely possible these days), I want to continue to engage with CF and argue for it being a better, more professional outfit? You're going to mock me for that? Classy. What, so now I'm supposed to be embarrassed and STFU? If my caring about what I see in CFJ is the object of your ridicule, what's your excuse for letting my whining get your knickers all in a twist? If you want to accuse me of being strident, you might want to check your own tone.

As for a high horse, you are the one telling me that CFJ has decided that I need to be exposed to stuff like this so that I can learn how to think and that CFJ is the appropriate party to bring such knowledge and enrichment to me. Sorry, but that's an awfully high horse you yourself have there.

You may very well say, "Look, this isn't going to change. We at CFJ are going to publish whatever the damn well we please, regardless of reader complaints. CF is going to use its outlets to continue to promote ideas that inner-circle disciples find interesting, regardless of their relevance to CF's fitness mission." In that case, you might want to put that someplace in the description of the Journal and of the organization, so that people who think they're signing up for fitness understand they'll be putting up with a rigid top-down culture and a bunch of random stuff that has nothing to do with fitness.

And if you want people who dare to voice any disagreements to STFU and get out, just say so, and we'll go. Don't just pretend you hear and accept criticism.


wrote …

CrossFit is not for everyone. You were exposed to this article like you're exposed to a billboard on the road. You can spend as much or as little time looking at it as you want. As far as helping you think, that's an opportunity, not an obligation. Are you interested in our Denver affiliates? Skip this like you probably skipped that. It doesn't bother me that you don't want this article in this Journal. That is a very different statement than I don't care about anyone's complaints. I even told you I'm happy to read your thoughts. I just don't like the arrogance with which you present them. There are many subscribers who have posted they are glad we have this article. To whom should we listen? Simma says don't publish. Don says yes. Wait, what's the survey trend? How are we doing in the South? Wow, that sounds miserable. No one has ever been deaffiliated for disagreeing with HQ, no matter what propaganda you may believe. Creative disagreements are at the core of our development. Fifty four dissenters is far less than one half of one percent of our subscriber base. By professional, do you mean politically correct? If we listen to you here, should we listen to the others about Louie Simmons (whom you seem to like but others hate)? Yes, editors and publishers decide which articles get published in their journals, magazines, and newspapers.


wrote …

The greatest thing about this article is that I have learned there is a "". It makes me think of pulp comics. Makes Dr. Glassman sound like an overachieving superhero. :) He produces "rocketscientistsjournal" for by day, and by night flies away in his rocket machine to fight space aliens and martians that would eat us- but sometimes flies low over the bustling metropolis to pickup a purse snatcher with his flying machine and drop him at the police headquarters. Very cool Dr. Glassman, probably not your intent, but very cool anyway.


wrote …


That is 54 dissenters that actually commented. This tally makes up about 50% of the individual commenters (rough estimate). Obviously this is a biased sample (not simple or random at all), so it is difficult to come to any solid conclusions. I certainly agree with you that having to run polls and collect statistics on each and every article is going a bit overboard. However, I hope that you can agree with me that dissent is most likely not coming from a "tiny" number of subscribers. If you want to count all of the people that didn't comment as "not dissenting", then that is fine with me, although, it is definitely not an adequate representation of what the subscribers think as a population. I don't mean to berate you, but the fact of the matter is that you got a pretty substantial response from your subscribers that they didn't feel like the article was appropriate. You can't just take 54 dissenters, divide it by the entire base of subscribers (which I gather is 10,000 from your 0.5% comment) and assume that only a small amount of people disagree with you. What kind of logical/critical thinking are you using to arrive at those conclusions?


wrote …

Wow this is more drama than reality t.v. I'm trying to think of how to add more fuel to the fire just for my own entertainment.

I'm relatively new to crossfit and you would think from some of the comments that CF is an oppressive regime. Personally, I love that CF takes the criticism and replies with their reasoning. They take the time to read all of feedback and explain themselves to those who disagree. Separating myself from the substance of the debate going on, I also love that they stick to their guns when they get harsh criticism. I actually don't think the article is related to the journal's "mission statement". I, however, don't have any false outrage about it that seems to suspiciously stem from somewhere else. Maybe I haven't been around long enough to feel as connected to the community as many of you thus I don't understand the hurt and outrage you feel. To say that you are criticizing to help save CF's reputation then threaten to leave because they aren't doing what YOU want them to is incredible. I'd go as far to say that using threats to make someone change something to conform to what you think it is or want it to be is a form of terrorism. Once again, I will point out that many of you probably have an immense amount of passion for CF that I lack and I can respect that.

The problem with society in modern times is that individuals believe, in a narcissistic fashion, that they are so important as to think that what they find wrong or offensive should be changed at the expense of everyone else. The attitude of "this is what CF is," and "this is what CF should do," is ridiculous. I think that is what is laughable to Tony and the gang because if they attempted to model what they do based off of everyone's individual ideas they would fail. At some point they have to go in a direction of their choosing. If that is not the direction some want it to go then that is a consequence that I'm sure they will live with. You can never pander to the mob. We all have different perspectives, beliefs, and ideas. Additionally, it is perfectly fine to disagree or dissent, but to make demands is silly. Even when the majority is against something I would rather leave it out there for the people that get a benefit from it than to take it away because of people's feelings as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

Stop for a second, take a deep breath, maybe give someone a hug, or keep up the drama because either way I'm having fun.


wrote …

Basically political correctness is bullshit. I'm way more into anatomical correctness.


Alex Kourkoumelis wrote …

Can this be locked? You guys are just feeding the trolls.
This is no longer an argument of what content should be posted, it's now just a public contest trying to prove who's e-peen is bigger. Quite interesting to read, however.


replied to comment from Michael Balint

Since we're having a discussion about quality of thinking and argumentation, re-read my comment. The sentence in question is "Fifty four dissenters is far less than one half of one percent of our subscriber base."

I actually made no conclusion about it whatsoever. It is simply a statement of fact. You misquoted me by saying half of one percent, when I said far less (which is imprecise by design). I didn't verify that 54 is accurate, it's what someone else determined. There are 180 comments now. Jeff, Simma and I each have multiple posts, but 54 is now just under a third of the total comments.

There is no evidence for us to conclude that this ratio is representative of those who didn't comment. It might be. It might also be like the Sectionals situation where the majority of people commenting were negative but then more than 30x the number of negative comments tried to register. Maybe the tens of thousands of subscribers who didn't comment skipped it like they do a random billboard. Maybe all of them are silently cheering Simma and hoping we'll remove the post and never show anything like this again.

This is the crazy, powerful, and dangerous thing about statistics. We know such a small percentage of what's possibly knowable. The careful analysis of the facts combined with a diligent application of epistemology is a rigorous practice indeed. This misapplication of statistics is at least as common as the rigorous one (probably much more frequent in actuality), something that ironically is at the core of Dr Glassman's paper.


wrote …

If Sports Illustrated shows up in my mailbox with a 20 page article on Global Warming, I would be puzzled and slightly pissed. If I then found out that the owner of SI had a vested interest in the position taken in the article or it supported his/her political views I would become suspicious and question the motives.

It feels like this Journal is being used as a platform for political views that have nothing to do with fitness or what I love about crossfit.

If you don't like this comment, then don't read it...


Things are politically correct if and only if they are otherwise incorrect.

This is a deconstruction theorem.


"As the Planet Changes, So Do the Games We Play", Sports Illustrated, 3/12/07 cover story.

Maybe it wasn't 20 pages, eh, Brad?


wrote …

This is great.

Posting this article is perfect for the "off topic" section of the Journal.

CrossFit is all about science, especially highlighting how science is absent from so many topics where it should be vital.

Everyone is overreacting like as if they posted some shill for Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney.

I'd be bummed if CF became some political party kool aid drinker.

But I'll drink the science based freedom loving CF HQ kool aid any day.


wrote …

Tony, you could have simply said, "We're going to do what we want. We define CF, nobody else, because we own CF. And that's final."

All the other specious arguments really just boil down to that.

I fail to see how I was being politically correct or arrogant asking you to justify the relevance of what you publish to CFJ's mission. If your answer is "We don't want to, because we own it", then just say so.

Just saying you value my comments when all you've really done is accuse me of being arrogant and "on a high horse" and any other number of insults is just as disingenuous.

There are 2 separate issues here. I've already expressed my opinion about the first. And really--I don't expect you to change things just because I say so. What is it about your culture of victimization here that makes you want to turn me into some avatar of the forces of evil liberalism, feminism, and political correctness coming to oppress you and force you to my ways? Why the hysteria over something that you could just as easily answer with some polite version of, "We reject your point of view and have no intention of addressing it further"?

Which is the other issue: how you respond to commenters who disagree with you. You guys need to work on that. Seriously. If you're going to say "It's so because I say it's so", then just freaking say it, and suck up the consequences for telling the truth. There's no need to belittle or mock or make up stories about how many people supposedly support you or try to stuff this square peg of an article into a round mission statement hole. There's no reason to try to excuse yourselves with appeals to how special Dr. Glassman is to CrossFit or try to make arguments for including the entire scientific domain in CrossFit's mission. Just say that you get to take out the power tools and make that hole square because you own the box. At least we'd then get an honest idea of how things work around here. And then let commenters say whatever they want. If it's not going to affect your decision-making, then why do you care? After all, you have no concerns about your popularity.

So, no. I don't use the word "professional" as a code for "politically correct". I use it to mean "professional". Professional means not using CF code for "You're not welcome in my clubhouse" as a rebuttal (what, is that supposed to make me cry and run to mommy?). Professional means representing yourself honestly and transparently, including your decision-making policies for the Journal (and how about a list of editorial staff? That's basic for any publication that wants to consider itself professional). Professional should also mean understanding that arbitrary actions that don't adhere to stated principles undermine the credibility of an organization. But there we clearly disagree. So be it. *shrug* When the BS overwhelms what value I get from CF, I'll stop supporting CF. I'm sure we'll all be fine with that.


replied to comment from Jeffrey Glassman

That is very well put Doctor. I will have to remember that one. I am giving you an oh so subtle golf clap to show my partiality.

To everyone who is submitting arguments on both sides of the issue, speaking as an attorney, you guys should look into careers as lawyers. This is no way an insult just a credit to you're formulation of arguments. Once again, subtle golf clap...


wrote …

I say, "Publish and be damned!"

If I don't like something in the journal or I'm not interested in the specific subject, I'll skip over it. How hard is that?

I'd like to see more science based articles in the journal for rest days - as long as they were in addition to, and not as replacements for, training related articles.


replied to comment from Laurence Mettam

I could not agree more. This is a FREE article and there is no one making you read it. If the Journal publishes an average of 35 fitness articles a month and from now on they publish 35 fitness articles a month + 5 science, then as I see it it’s a win/win. If you don’t like it then don’t read it, that seems incredibly simple to me.


replied to comment from Jeffrey Glassman

Science Coach Glassman, thank you.

As for bias, isn't there more than one meaning for the term bias? I think of my own, uninformed, unknown bias, which I discover as i survive experience.

I think one reason to publish this is because, should you not be proved wrong, it is one of those moments when the world changed and were I Coach and/or Tony, I'd love to have put a stake in the ground. Or, another one as several have been placed already.

Best, Paul


replied to comment from Devin Wilson


You will no longer direct family and friends to the mainsite? Why do you feel that they are not capable of discerning content? Your comments actually make it seem like you have low respect for their intelligence. If you were talking about tmuscle I would understand, but . . . seriously?


wrote …

I don't know why Crossfit makes me read all these comments from Simma. Why can't Simma's comments be posted somewhere else so I don't have to scroll past his/her name?


wrote …

Awesome. This is why I come here every day. OF COURSE this article should be on this website, whose purpose is to challenge 'received' wisdom. Mainly in fitness, yes, but elsewhere too. So far in nearly 200 comments there is not one detailed rebuttal to Dr Glassman's article, just attempts to shut down debate.


wrote …

Wow, very entertaining! How on this warming earth are people so offended by this?! It's a rest day article added extra to the normal content, it didn't replace anything. I think this shows a larger problem in our society, people let emotion override thought and reason, and then even further let emotion dictate their actions.

Are we all past learning anything? Are we all so elevated that we are above being questioned on our current intellectual stance? Have we reached a point where our views are set and don't you dare try to present evidence that may contradict what I have already made up in my mind?

If this was just about people wanting a more "fitness" based article you would not see the emotionally charged posts you see above. It obviously strikes a cord on belief systems, and no belief system is worth anything if it cannot stand up to questioning.

And if it were just critisism about wanting one more "fitness" article/video, it would be like saying "thank you for the amazing new york strip steak, the fresh lobster flown in everyday, the amazing wine, all for about $2 this month , but I am extremely pissed that the extra free desert you put on my table is not the kind of the desert I like!! This is bullsh--t!" Does that not sound rediculous to anyone else?


wrote …

If you're getting upset that this article is here or for what Jeff Glassman says, go do a nice hard wod, then ponder your reason for your anger.

The resentment that has manifested for something as individually inconsequential as this article is quite remarkable to me and a valuable lesson in social behavior. Seriously, why are people so upset about an article that they likely didn't read in its entirety? One can only assume that the title of the article is contrary to the comfortable conventional wisdom to which they adhere.

Can anyone imagine what would happen if any of the angry individuals here actually had authority? What if this were a communist country and they had ruling power? The site would be shut down and Dr. Glassman would be thrown in jail. A couple hundred years earlier, and the religious fervor would result in his torture and public death.

The crowds would cast rotten vegetables his way shouting, "Pagan Scientist!" as he was carted through the town square to the gallows. Then they'd hang him, since burning him would only add more carbon to the atmosphere increasing global temperatures.


wrote …

Hey Simma,

Are you actually a CrossFitter, because I would hate to see your reaction to doing a WOD like "Murph" if this is how you react to a Journal article.

My reaction to your posts has gone from anger to disbelief to amusement. Chill out and go and do some Thrusters.


wrote …

Come on, Tony, spare us. I think we all love you like a distant, somewhat goofy cousin, but...please. This is, fundamentally, a fitness journal. Granted, there's been plenty of political commentary on the main site in the past (a lot of which I've either agreed with or at least respected) but this is just a huge, ridiculous stretch. You really are trying "to stuff this square peg of an article into a round mission statement hole." What next, articles on Strict Constructionist interpretations of the Constitution?


wrote …


Thank you for the response (comment #145). The bolded words in the paragraph did help. It's what I thought you meant, but I didn't want to 'fill in the blanks' on assumption. And I do agree.

I also like the way you discussed mental fitness. It is important. While I'm still not convinced that this is the place for your article, I have enjoyed reading the comments even though it's getting out of hand. I also read the comments (and some links) on the RSJ blog. The discussion there is much better since the focus remained on topic.

If my vote counts for anything, I would have only posted this article as a Rest Day discussion on the main site. That feels like a better fit. But feelings aren't science!


wrote …


I'm glad it's just a case that you misinterpreted my comment. We have opposing views of the same argument. But that's ok! And it's not our place to decide...

...well maybe yours, I don't know how involved with the CFJ you actually are.


wrote …

Also, the 'other' argument that's going on in these comments has dragged on way to far. I know, I have played devil's advocate and instigated a few heated discussions on the CFJ before, but I tried to keep them civil. This is getting silly. No one needs this.

Me and some others found the article oddly placed. Others don't mind. And others think it most definitely fits. The argument is not going anywhere.

It's getting to the point where I feel like the CFJ will drop 30 "random" (" " since the word is disagreed upon) articles in the next month just out of spite. (I doubt it, but this silly battle gives that impression.)


wrote …

I am one of those who is "silently cheering Simma and hoping you'll remove the post and never show anything like this again".

I don't get the "it's free and you don't have to read it" argument. I subscribe here for the content on fitness and health, and don't mind sorting through that to find what is useful to me and discard the rest. But if you are going to add completely unrelated articles because they are of personal interest to the father of the company's owner, I would clearly consider this spam.

Even if it's interesting to some people because of the topics, and others because they are in the "cult", that's just unprofessional.


wrote …

To call this article pedantic would be polite. I subscribe to the CFJ to get information regarding exercise, not to be inundated with thinly veiled political posturing. Every word of this article may be true, but I would assume that somewhere around ninety-nine percent of CFJ readers, myself included, are not able to understand it or to have any valid input on its truth value. Please stick to posting articles concerning exercise. If we want to understand politics, climate change, or any other unrelated topic we will find the appropriate resources.


Those like Tig Prendergast, who suggests continuing his mental fitness training on the Constitution, might enjoy reading these Rest Day Articles:

"The Road to Serfdom" by F. A. Hayek, CrossFit Archives, Rest Day, 1/24/06

"Is Limited Government Possible", Cato Unbound, CrossFit Archives, Rest Day, 2/23/08

"Up from Slavery" by David Boaz, CrossFit Archives, Rest Day, 4/25/10

And for those more interested in science training on climate and global warming, try

"Stars in Her Eyes" by Virginia Postrel, an interview with Sallie Baliunas, CrossFit Archives, Rest Day, 3/21/06.

"A Conversation with Bjorn Lomborg" by Jason Miks, CrossFit Archives, Rest Day, 12/12/06.

"Global-Warming Payola" by John Tierney, CrossFit Archives, Rest Day, 3/10/08


wrote …

Constantly varied, functional movements executed at a (relatively) high intensity.
Apply as your capacities allow. (hint-one may choose to explore its application in non-physical realms)

Sincerest and deepest gratitude to the entire Crossfit family for being who they are:-)


wrote …

Matt Solomon Wrote:

"It's getting to the point where I feel like the CFJ will drop 30 "random" (" " since the word is disagreed upon) articles in the next month just out of spite. (I doubt it, but this silly battle gives that impression.)"

Come now- He seems like a very intelligent dude, but I really doubt Dr. Glassman can write at that pace for such an extended period of time; It'd be inhuman, and I'm sure he has better things to do.

Although, he may have an archive.


wrote …

Thanks for the article and your many comments Dr. Glassman.

I was a paid subscriber years ago and resubscribed today to show my support.


Bias does have several meanings, as in tailoring, statistics, electronics, and acoustic recordings. Mike Cipriano used bias with respect to me, and I in turn with respect to the climate crowd in the sense of thought processes. To me, it refers to an action or an expressed opinion based on assumptions or concepts lacking in objective, reasoned and impartial support. It's analogous to the legal objection to facts not in evidence. It rises to fraud when the actor knows the underlying support is false, as is the case with IPCC et al.

Human mental processes involve models of the real world. Those models color our perceptions, indeed making perception even possible. But at the same time they are the nucleus of thinking essential for growth and development, and they lead to scientific models. Mental models at some stage will certainly be immature and inaccurate, and so will be lacking in objectivity, reasoning, or impartiality. But that is more ignorance than bias. Bias generally requires underpinning from a fallacious or inappropriate model.

IPCC intentionally introduced bias into its work when it redefined its charter as to create a justification for man made global warming. SGW, ¶E, p. 8. Then when it altered data to support its preconceived notions, it committed fraud. SGW, §III, pp. 20 ff.


wrote …

Crossfit is about action not inaction. Crossfit is not about sticking your head in the sand when action is needed.

Unfortunately it does not matter what the reason is for climate change. The fact is that it is happening. No matter what you want to belive the reason; there are massive changes happening to our environment.

The idea in the article is interesting. However this does not stop the change the fact that climate change is happening or the effect that it will have on our way of life. My opinion is that we need to learn as much about what is happening as possible in order to take action and manage these issues.

I also think Dr. Glassman would better serve the community by figuring out what can be done about rising sea levels or the acidification of the oceans.

Anyone can be contrary but it takes real work to try and figure out a solution to a very difficult issues facing our species.


Danielle Vallee wrote …

I'm going to chime in one more time here...

There are basically two argument threads going on if I'm correct - the first being the appropriateness of such an article within the CFJ and second the merits of the article itself.

Personally I found the article interesting but not being a scientist by trade (although I read a great deal about it) I can only measure it against what I already know about the topic. Based on that I can form what I might consider a reasonable opinion which I'm certain would be open to debate. So far so good. The thing is like most Cross Fitters reading this I am not an expert in climatology and I think I speak for most in saying that neither are they. And so an article such as this will be informative at best (and obfuscating at worst) to be filed away with all the other information we glean in our days but hardly constituting and I think Dr. Glassman will agree, 'peer review'.

What I do believe we are relative 'experts' in is the science of fitness, being direct participants in this wonderful experiment called Crossfit. We are living testament to what these exercise modalities can achieve, very often producing results that fly in the face of conventional exercise science and its conclusions. In my opinion this is demonstrable evidence, obtained in real time with results that make themselves apparent within our lifetimes. Unfortunately for us, the climate data being so vast and the earth being on her own schedule not ours, it becomes difficult to verify any of this evidence reliably. So the debate will rage on and I fear it will rage on long after we're gone and someone else is discovering the joy and challenge of a good old fashioned muscle up.

But whether or not the climate is heating up due to anthropogenic activities or not I still think pollution in all its forms sucks. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (no pun intended) to know when to pick up after ourselves or know that choking on smog probably ranks right up there with second hand smoke. As Cross Fitters we constantly fret over the quality of the food we eat and the water we drink, I'm pretty sure we're all concerned about what goes in our lungs too. So, a heating planet notwithstanding let's all cut back on those emissions!

I mentioned food and the quality of that food. The reason we look for high quality food, not only in nutrition but not compromised by needless chemicals, pesticides and hormones points directly to how we humans are also polluting the planet through other means but that's a topic for another discussion...

As for so called mental fitness, I'm all for it but tackling this endeavor is in my opinion too broad a challenge to undertake within the confines of the CFJ. I suppose we could all start posting lists of great books and forums in which to discuss them etc... but as interesting as this would be it would in effect dilute the original mission statement.

All right I'm done. Gonna go workout!


wrote …

Yep the main driver of the change is the sun, glad to see the info is getting out there more.


Sebastian Gutierrez claimed "that climate change is happening", worried about "the effect that it will have on our way of life", and thought that I "would better serve the community by figuring out what can be done about rising sea levels or the acidification of the oceans". I can go him one better and resolve both the last two concerns.

(1) Climate change is always underway, at least while Earth is in its warm state. As measured by thermometers between about 1850 and 2005 is shown in Figure 1 of SGW. It includes two distinct cooling periods and a third one developing since about 1998. On a longer scale measured by ice core proxy data, the present day temperature is between 1ºC and 3ºC of the previous four maxima, so we estimate that we have about that much more warming to go, all from natural causes, which are the only causes.

On an intermediate scale we must rely on historical records. The attempt to use tree ring proxies was a failure leading to a fraud by IPCC et al. See SGW, ¶F, pp. 31 ff. We have had two extreme periods within the last 1030 years, the Medieval Warm Period (980-1100) and the Little Ice Age (1350-1850). SGW, Figure 38, p. 33. The MWP was much warmer than the present, and the LIA was much colder than the present, and the rate of change has been so slow that it is difficult to measure except over about three decades.

(2) Ecologists in the IPCC community forecast catastrophes, though only from manmade warming. These alarms are extreme, and unwarranted. Centuries before we get to any catastrophe, Earth will have to pass through a state as warm as the MWP or as cold as the LIA. We know quite well what life was like in those states. The MWP was a period of prosperity and plenty, while the LIA was a period of great hardship, though without anything like the near extinction of man caused by the supervolcano 85 thousand years ago.

(3) Rising sea levels were not evident even in the MWP. Even in the scare tactics of the IPCC, rising sea level is forecast from warming. However, man does not have the technology to have any effect on climate, for the warmer or the colder. Any warming in our future will come from the Sun, and we can do nothing about that even in the wildest science fiction.

(4) IPCC et al. sound the alarm over acidification by solving the equilibrium chemical equations for the surface layer of the ocean under increasing, all manmade, CO2. The solution is contained in the Bjerrum Plot. See Figures 8 and 9, "On Why CO2 Is Known Not To Have Accumulated in the Atmosphere & What Is Happening with CO2 in the Modern Era", This forecast would be true except for two overwhelming errors. First, the build up in atmospheric CO2 is dominantly (87%) natural, and it is due to global warming. See Tables, SGW, p. 24. Second and more important is that the notion that the surface layer of the ocean might be in equilibrium to make the equilibrium chemical equations and the Bjerrum solution even applicable is ludicrous. See 3. IPCC errs to model the surface layer of the ocean in equilibrium, IPCC's Fatal Errors, id. The ocean is a buffer or accumulator for molecular CO2, necessary to satisfy Henry's Law for solubility.

Manmade warming, manmade sea level rise, and manmade acidification are not occurring, and are not even possible within today's technology. We don't need to prepare for a repeat of the MWP, and we can do nothing about another LIA except to create wealth for social relief. The community has been optimally served by extinguishing the false alarm over CO2.

We could better spend our wealth to withstand the probable catastrophe of the coming Yellowstone eruption.


wrote …

I took a course in 2004 from Dr. Tim Patterson, and started paying attention to Climate change from a new perspective. He now heads the group that can be found at the following link.

Thanks for great article Dr. Glassman.


replied to comment from Jeffrey Glassman

A hit, a palpable hit. I stand corrected. It is what it is.


replied to comment from Jeffrey Glassman

Hello Mr. Jeffrey Glassman!

Yes there are a lot of hits about global warming and football. However, I haven't found an article that was completely about global warming in the sports section. They usually talk about how global warming can affect how athletes perform. Your article has nothing about exercise in it.


wrote …

The more I read Tony Budding's calm, measured, and reasonable responses to the rediculous criticisms he and the Journal are undergoing, the more I like the guy.


wrote …

I just took two cleasing breaths. I think we are all gonna make it.


wrote …



wrote …

While the CFJ has every right to publish this article, I think you all are showing extraordinary poor judgement in doing so. It clearly has nothing to do with the stated mission of the CFJ, and this "mental fitness" excuse is paper thin. You are, of course, entitled to run your business as you see fit.

Tony, you said "Do you read the newspaper? Do you read every article in it every day? Of course not. Skip what you don't want to read."

Of course I don't, but if the publisher pollutes the newspaper with off-topic crap, I call it a crappy newspaper and don't renew my subscription. That's my plan with the CFJ too.


replied to comment from Adam Horak

Adam, Seriously? I am going to be blunt - if this single article is reason enough for you not renewing your CF Journal subscription then, your departure will be of little consequence to the community.

I cannot imagine the wrath a waiter must feel if your food is late.

Good day sir.



CrossFit is a fitness program based on science. The meaning and significance of that statement and of CrossFit is lost on much of the public when our education system is turning out generation after generation of scientific illiterates, a nation of grunts and slaves. Coach has a right to publish whatever he wants and can afford. As you point out, the issue is not a matter of right. It is a matter of the product, and you may think "mental fitness" has a paper thin connection to it. Not everyone can be reached. Besides, the world needs a certain percentage of grunts.


Jim Pascucci wrote …

Tony, I wanted to say thank you for your stewardship of CFJ. I've spent the last few months reading through old issues of CFJ and the growth and professionalism of the journal is amazing.
That said, I think that publishing this article is an interesting twist--I don't buy the mental exercise reason for publishing it that you've given. I decided after reading the heading of the article that it would be a painful read for me. I tried since Dr. Glassman's previous articles have broadened my perspective, if not my understanding. I made it to the first page--I have a degree in engineering moaned at the math--saw it was 48 pages of mental masturbation long and decided to pass it up. No big deal, reread a Dr. Kilgore article instead.
What has come out of the publishing of this article, for me, is a great appreciation for this community. Simma you Rock!


wrote …

Science Coach G, I hear folks say all the time "That source is biased" and what they mean is, as I perceive it, "we're all working for our own self interest and that will 'taint' what we see, hear, think and thus argue for." This is no great insight, but it seems to be the refuge of those who would rather impugn motives than engage an argument or position. I use the same assumption - my assumption is that those in favor of the AGW, at the government level, are largely motivated by a desire to justify increased government control, and therefore increased significance for those who are in or feed off of larger government. Your papers are a testament to your understanding that to be effective in opposing those who want more govt, one must go farther than just impugning motives.

Another example - I assume many of those who are emotionally invested in AGW will refuse to examine the arguments in opposition because doing so will be necessarily painful to them, should they see just how complicated it would be to prove causality in climate change. I further assume this is why those who 'lead' the AGW movement have advocated pointless and even counter productive activity such as recycling, auto efficiency, and even eating less meat as means to 'reduce AGW.' It's not that any level of these activities could have a meaningful impact on carbon emissions, but getting folks to do something, anything, gets them invested in the desired outcome, making them more vulnerable to being convinced to do what is really necessary for impact on carbon emissions - which is going to be very painful. IOW - the approach to getting people invested in 'combatting AGW by doing something painless (and insignificant) is a "boil the frog in the pot" approach.

At any rate, when anyone makes the "he's biased" argument, my answer is always "well of course he is, that's a given." It's a different sense of the word, perhaps part of the evolution of imprecision in the language, than would be addressed by your 40+ pages of reasoned, fact based argument. What I mean by saying "of course he's biased" is "either do the analysis of his work or don't, but don't pretend the accusation of bias has meaning." Perhaps I'll be able to say that more clearly if the need again arises. Paul


replied to comment from Jeffrey Glassman

"Mental fitness is the ability to reason to the standards required for a particular activity. The standards are those self-imposed plus those externally imposed. Standards include the desire for self-improvement, to be productive, to be a good citizen, and not to look a fool. So mental fitness is situational."

This sounds to me like something from Castro. When debate and community service are criteria for the games, I'll know you guys are serious. The great thing about reasoning is if you do it long enough you can find one.

Of course you have the right to publish this article. If started publishing articles on intelligent design, I'd probably leave a comment questioning, or at least asking for an explanation of, the decision. If they kept publishing that stuff, I'd probably start going to If they replied with "we don't give a crap what you think" I most definitely would.


wrote …

Wow...not something I was looking for or expected in the journal but its here. I'll leave the pro's and cons to the experienced debaters!


I agree. Your remarks prompted this little essay.

Exactly when the greenhouse effect became global warming, climate change, and Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is not clear. However it happened piecemeal before 1988 when the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed. At that point AGW became no longer science but a political movement, owned and operated by IPCC. The Panel biased its charter from its given objective standards, restating it as instructions to develop support affirming AGW. It recruited academics with the promise of fame, government laboratories with the promise of ever more massive computers and ocean cruises. It provided a forum for willing ecologists to create an ever increasing catastrophe – starvation, floods, droughts, cyclones, epidemics, extinction, acidification, deforestation, minorities hit hardest – to keep the issue politically stoked. It utterly compromised science, and in the name of science. AGW belongs in a museum of monsters with Piltdown Man, Cold Fusion, Eugenics, and Phrenology.

Glassy–eyed liberal arts and pre-law students, Marxist protégés and prodigies, willingly picked up placards and red paint to march and deface in protest. The movement was on; sign up at the card table to pick up your supplies. Help stamp out Tea Party violence.

I heard a Congresswoman this morning praising what the health care bill is going to do for America, and especially Medicare. Its going to save hundreds of billions for the government and reduce the cost of the program. That's possible. But what this law certainly will do is accelerate the on-going flight of physicians out of Medicare primary care. Patients will have to turn to hospitals first, where regulations will soon require, if the law doesn't already, what the law decrees for emergency care: no one may be turned away. What hospitals can charge, can and can't do, will be decided by schedules from the government panels, the death panels that already exist in Medicare. Initially, it won't be enough to cover costs and profit, but soon not even enough for costs. Hospitals will be forced out of business or submit to nationalization. This is the natural progression of socialism.

Socialism does what the people won't. When the government intervenes in a liberty, the people immediately work around it. This is known as economics. The government must write law after law to plug the never-ending leaks. Much is codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Health Care Law just brought us a whole new chapter. Banking (The Big Bank Theory) is next, then Cap & Trade, and then Citizenship (immigration) Reform. This used to be called creeping socialism, but that was in the sense that despotic governments naturally take over more and more for the sake of power, control, and the personal wealth of those in power.

When the Federal Government required lenders to make unsound home loans, the industry invented securitization. They bundled bad loans separately into bonds to sell, then derivatives to sell, first at Fannie and Freddy, then to everyone – from GMAC to AIG to Goldman Sachs. Then came derivatives of derivatives through over 20 layers, institutions at each step buying phony AA or AAA ratings from the three Rating Agencies. Profit in the millions was funneled to leading Senators to look the other way. Hearings got nowhere as the Agencies refused to testify or threatened to destroy the financial system Then circa 2007 the reality of defaults at 10% instead of the promised 0.1% set in, and the Agencies precipitously withdrew their fraudulent ratings. The entire rating system collapsed, and all bonds became Toxic Assets. So instead of fixing the laws and prosecuting the Rating Agencies, the Senators created TARP. If you had unratable assets on your books, you got, not a "New Car, Monte!", but a Bail Out, Henry. So what were the banks to do with cash? They couldn't lend the money again – that still required a big percentage of bad loans, and besides the market was defunct – so they bought Equities! And lo, the stock market soared, not as fast as gold, mind you, but almost, and it was directly fed by TARP. In the end, the Federal Government bought the stock markets, and we have an artificial recovery. Volcker saw through it right away. So now we have the Big Bank theory and the Volcker Plan to plug the leaks from the socialist programs of the Community Reinvestment Act and the formation of Fannie & Freddie, the bad loan backstops. No more entering derivative contracts, and Banks will have to bail out of equities under threat of more bail outs. If you like to dabble in the market, go short in the index funds.

We have a mess on our hands, and its going to lead to dollar devaluation long before our children and their children even know they were born with an original debt to go with their original sin.

The problem is that freedom is incompatible with socialism. Socialist programs sold under the guise of theoretical or academic efficiencies soon become coercive. The people must not: eat cattle, drive SUVs, go naked on health insurance or deny care or insurance to those who did, build homes (or do much of anything else) on the basis of present value, own gold (once upon a time), drive alone to work, dump material that might be recyclable, deny home loans for insufficient income, enter contracts, discriminate against illegals, earn too much, profit, fail to join the union, use too much electricity, use gasoline or insecticides or experimental medicine, do things un-green, smoke (tobacco, that is; pot's OK, can't you tell?), criticize or question or complain.

Socialism creates no wealth, but consumes the wealth that capitalism created. Capitalism is the economic byproduct of liberty (freedom from arbitrary or despotic government; not freedom, meaning free of restraints; i.e., republican not libertarian), and socialism is the economic system of slavery.


If you're right, then the clients of trainers who know jack about CrossFit should do just as well at the games as clients of trainers who know how the program is supposed to work. Interesting conjecture.

Two distinct differences lie between standards and what Castro imposes. Castro's are not situational; one size fits all but the apparatchiks under Marxism/socialism. Second, Castro's "standards" are imposed under penalty of death.

Standards are what you impose upon yourself internally, or externally by accepting some responsibility to another – a boss, a client, a friend, family or society.


replied to comment from Jeffrey Glassman

Can you explain your first point? I'm not sure how I made that conjecture.


replied to comment from Jeffrey Glassman

If you're saying that mental fitness is already being tested at the games, then yes. I believe the performance of an athlete is not related to whether or not he consumes or ignores the rest day/theory materials.


Todd Ovall wrote …

This is a great, badly needed discussion but the larger point to which this whole discussion is but a correlate is energy resources - clean or polluting. And all too often the folks arguing against athropogenic warming get caught up in the comparative minutia of whether warming is man-made or not. Who cares? Is anyone disputing that fossil fuels are polluting our water, air, and soil? If so, let those fools come forth and recieve the swift dispatching their misguided notions so richly deserve.
The U.S. needs to lead the world into the era of wind, solar, tidal, and even geothermic technology, instead of being held back by politically inspired wastes of time and quite frankly cast off the shackles of this sort of regretful, conservative love affair with oil. Let's move this battle to the correct battlefield and really have it out.
The technology is being developed around the world while we feebly try to debate small points like this; to what end? ... the way i see it, the U.S. can either lead or follow. Look, no one more than I enjoys a good lesson in the failures of "mob rule" and the virtues of dissent against a large majority but there are bigger fish to fry my friends. Rock on!!


wrote …

I get my mental fitness at school thanks, I don't find the article interesting. It's hillarious how the Dr. and Tony tried to relate this article to crossfit.


Jeffrey Glassman wrote …

You ask, "Who cares?" whether the CO2 is manmade. The answer is the IPCC cares and all three branches of your government, and both branches of the legislature. And on that falsity and in the midst of a deep recession promising to go further south all on its own, they are about to hammer your freedom, your safety, and your standard of living. That's who. There is the result of ignorance and mob rule.

"Is anyone disputing that fossil fuels are polluting our water, air, and soil?" What is pollution? Don't you want to tell us what you mean by this word of ecological hysteria? Do you mean something permanent, not biodegradable nor otherwise harmless? If you mean to equate CO2 emissions to pollution, you have a lot of support for what is pure nonsense.

The U.S. has led the world is almost everything, and it would again in alternative energies and a decent energy policy by a turning away from Obamics and a revitalizing of free enterprise, meaning capitalism. A fortune awaits the first engineers who turn one of your alternative energy sources into something practicable. Meanwhile you have a list of non-solutions to any real problem.

We have ample energy, and clean energy to boot, for the foreseeable future, for a millennium. We need to expand coal, natural gas, and fission for stationary electricity generation, reserving and expanding oil for a portable fuel. Meanwhile, we need to develop fusion.


wrote …

I didn't read the article and don't plan to. In general, I prefer to spend my "science reading" time studying diet and nutrition. So I exercise my right not to read the article. I knew I wouldn't read it when I saw the Tweet come through on Twitter.

Yet I did read some of this comment thread. Interesting.

I did so, because a friend of mine (a scientist) and fellow CFJ subscriber recommended Simma Parks' comments on this thread.

So I stopped by to read them. Kudos to you Simma for articulating many clear points about what's wrong with an article like this appearing in CFJ.

For the record I stopped reading Glassman's responses after reading his first response to Parks. I found it unclear and unresponsive to the issues Parks raises.

Furthermore, I read a couple of Buddings comments too.

I find his defense of the editorial process that led to the publication of this article understandable. And by that I mean, it's very hard, once you've stridently defended a position, to admit that you are wrong and to talk about ways you plan to change in the future.

I don't expect CFJ ever to acknowledge that they made a mistake with this article. Why would they? But I imagine they will listen nevertheless.

Who coaches the coaches?


wrote …


"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies."

Is there another reasonable way to interpret what they are generally saying here other than, "Before we actually study anything, we happen to know that human-induced climate change exists, and is a risk. Since we are taking it on faith that this is fact, we're going to provide an assessment, based on other people's interpretation of data, of the extent of those risks and how they can be mitigated."


Jeffrey Glassman wrote …

Your interpretation is exactly right. You can tell its right by reading the subject paper: SGW, ¶E. IPCC INTERPRETS ITS CHARTER TO DEFEND MANMADE CLIMATE CHANGES, p. 8.

You would also know, if you had read the paper, that the quotation you correctly interpreted is IPCC's charter as re-written by IPCC. The actual charter given to the IPCC, as described by its parent, the United Nations Environment Programme, is again given in the paper:

>>The IPCC was established by UNEP and WMO [World Meteorological Organization] in 1988 to assess the state of existing knowledge about climate change: its science, the environmental, economic and social impacts and possible response strategies. >>

The assignment was to be objective. It did not include what IPCC inserted: that someone happened "to know that human-induced climate change exists".


wrote …

I have another thought to add:

This is kinda funny: the idea that my mental fitness needs to be helped by an article on climate change by J. Glassman. The claim from CF HQ condescending; it suggests that you think that I wouldn't be using my brain otherwise.

I exercise my mind all the time. I can always work on my Latin, Greek, French, or German; or I can read the Bible, or Shakespeare, or a journal in my field, or medical and scientific literature on diet and nutrition, or I can choose my own avenue of controversy and argument to follow.

When I read CFJ I want cutting edge information on fitness, nutrition, training methods, the latest news about CrossFit competitions, and the athletes, and articles of human interest related to CF.

The merits of the issue or J. Glassman's views are quite beside the point.

Printing such an article makes CFJ look like it's nothing more than a non-peer-reviewed soapbox for the Glassmans. And that's a shame.


This topic started with a sunrise, and now after 235 posts, in the sunset of the dialog, comes Matthew Baldwin, renaissance man. He can read in four foreign languages, and he reads medical and scientific literature on diet and nutrition. He also reads in his field, though he's not proud enough of it to take us off the guess as to what his field might be.

He did not read the lead paper in this topic, but wouldn't because it is a shame that it wasn't peer reviewed. Are a significant number of peer-reviewed papers ever posted for review in the CrossFit Journal? If Baldwin waits for exercise articles to be peer reviewed, he is not reading much about CrossFit! And what books are peer-reviewed? I'd guess he hasn't read much on diet and nutrition by Taubes, Sears, Atkins or the Eades, as examples.

How much peer-reviewed information on nutrition does Baldwin find in, say, Greek? How much peer-review literature can Baldwin find in the field of "Do you want fries with that?", in any tongue? Baldwin doesn't even claim to read in English.

Just itching for a wire-brushing, Baldwin elbows into the dialog at the end to repeat what more than a few others have already posted: paid subscribers with limited perspectives can dictate that the Journal may post articles only on their personal, narrow reading lists. Those comments were raised and answered, but Baldwin contributes to none of it, suggesting he hasn't read the dialog at all and that he doesn't know how to participate in a simple, intelligent discussion. Perhaps that is because he doesn't read in English.

If he had read the material, he would have learned that peer-review is a thoroughly discredited and compromised basis for publication, and has been for decades. See Post #37, re Drs. Horton and Mann. It is a blind from which to buttress dogma and fraud. He would know that now, in the era of electronic publication, and because of those failings of peer review, it is an on-going, post-publication process, of some value in the sharing and testing of science, but unessential in the scientific method. It was a major motive for creation of the Internet. Peer review abuse by IPCC et al. was a major part of the discrediting of AGW and the exposure of AGW as a fraud.

The CrossFit program is a sterling example of what is essential in science: predictions validated by experiment. Peer review is irrelevant. CrossFit teaches mental fitness, not climatology. Posting a scientific article on climate proved to contain a few important lessons. One is how to argue, to contribute to a dialog. Another is the state of affairs in peer-review. A third, with the parent paper's claims to profound revelations, promises to reveal much about the scientific process once the dialog becomes substantive. These issues transfer well to CrossFit, but are quite lost on the Matthew Baldwins.


replied to comment from Jeffrey Glassman

235+ post. Your total does not include the comments deleted by crossfit.


replied to comment from Tony Budding

Tony, Do you guys also ignore the "more content like this" comments? I'm a little baffled by this attitude, especially for a group that often promotes the community, including the virtual community, as one of its greatest strengths and selling points.


Ronald Fielder wrote …

I also agree that the sun is the main driver of climate changes. Not man, CO2 is a life accelerator and it is what you exhale.
It doesn't matter if humans have an impact or not but even if we do have some influence of the climate how is a tax gonna fix it? Selling the right to pollute isn't going to fix anything.
What about the volcano in Iceland? It will affect the climate, let's tax it or pay Al Gore some money so he can wave a magic wand over it and command it to stop.
I am glad to see this type of stuff on the journal, I just re-newed my subscription because of it.
Real issues are what we should be talking about and until we do our future looks dim.
Keep it up guys!


wrote …

Just want to say thank you to Dr Glassman and everyone else at CrossFit that are taking on the daunting task of providing an environment where people have an opportunity to improve their critical thinking skills if they so choose.

There are so very few places in society where an opportunity like this exists. I have been very lucky to have a mentor at work the past couple years that provided an environment that challenged me, and allowed me to come to my own realization that my thought process wasn't just poor, it was pretty much non-existent. Now that I have become a 'thinking' person (well, at least a novice at it), it has become very frightening to me how little of this (thinking) actually happens, from the average-joe off of the street, to the highest-ranks of political leadership (regardless of political affiliation). In order for society to solve problems (or even determine what actually IS a problem), it has to have the ability to think critically, to be able to follow the scientific process with an understanding that we, as people, have cognitive biases and fall victim to fallacy more often that we would like to consider.

CrossFit itself is born out of critical thought, out of following the scientific process, out of exactly what Dr. Glassman and CrossFit are encouraging others to do by posting an article like this in the CF Journal and asking people to engage in discussion. I'll take a WAG and say that 99% of the people that responded on this thread think that CrossFit is the greatest thing since sliced bread (me being one of them). The 'black-box' of CrossFit generates kick-ass athletes like Mikko Salo and Tanya Wagner. The 'black-box' of critical/scientific thought produces kick-ass concepts like CrossFit. If you want to be able to come up with ideas like CrossFit, learn how to think critically. If you want to be able to think critically, take advantage of whatever resources are available to you to do so.

My vote: please keep this stuff coming because I not only want to improve myself physically, I want to improve myself mentally as well, to be able to come up with kick-ass concepts like CrossFit, to help provide an environment where others can make these changes in themselves if they choose, to help change the world for the better.


Todd Ovall wrote …

i find it a bit ironic that Mr. Glassman seems to have a problem with a clear definition of pollution as BP's greed pollutes our beautiful southern shore.


Todd Ovall at post #230 asked, "Is anyone disputing that fossil fuels are polluting our water, air, and soil?" In post #232, I asked for his definition of pollution, his word and one of ecological hysteria. I even gave him some suggestions for what he might be mean. I asked because CO2 is wrongly characterized as a pollutant. It is a benign, beneficial gas, and an optimum effluent.

Ovall's response was not to answer, but to suggest that I was lacking a clear definition of pollution. In fact, no one has a clear definition, but that doesn't stop Todd Ovall from not only using the term, but from writing that BP is polluting the gulf, not with the obvious crude, but with greed.

The federal Clean Air Act provides the following definition:

>>The term ‘‘air pollutant’’ means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Such term includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ is used. >> USC Title 42, Ch. 85, §302(g).

So a pollutant is a pollution agent! This is self-referencing, and not a definition at all. Law and science are meaningless without unambiguous definitions, yet some lawyers and so-called scientists turn out this kind of garbage with regularity. This arises out of a public school system that features Marxism and environmentalism, political belief systems, in place of substantive education and minimal literacy.

Secondly, under the CAA lame definition, pure water vapor is a pollutant when it enters the air. The definition is useless, and when the EPA under its far left leadership decided to call CO2 a pollutant, the matter required the Supreme Court to settle. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497. The Court said that of course it was a pollutant – under THAT definition.

This kind of definition pollutes the public dialog every day. To Todd Ovall, who appears to equate corporations with evil, and profit with greed, such definitions are wholly adequate. These notions and techniques are right out of the Marxist handbook. Propaganda breeds in Humpty Dumpty language: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less." It's irrational, and an art form on the left.


Todd Ovall wrote …

Sorry Jeff, demonizing me as a marxist will not avail your point. Just as me calling you an apologist for corporatism/fascism really isn't accomplishing much.
It is a well known fact to all who are actually paying attention that there is an emergency measure that is essentially a plug mechanism for oil rigs to prevent such disasters. The oil companies fought tooth and nail the regulation by the gov't to be forced to install these emergency "plugs" if you will. Why? Well the estimated cost per rig would be around .5 mil and of course would negatively impact their bottom line in the short term.
I am curious, do you think it marxist to call that short-sighted and greedy or a cost of doing business? BTW, in case you havent seen the numbers, i think the major oil companies COULD easily afford this. They are doing quite well and really do not need your "heroism".
Jeff, I can appreciate the other definitions and info you provide but I am asking YOU here and now, point blank... Would YOU not characterize that spill as pollution caused by greed?


Todd Ovall #244 claims "it is a well [pun?] known fact … that there is an emergency measure … for oil rigs", a "plug", that "oil companies fought tooth and nail against the regulation", and concluded that this "would … characterize that spill as pollution caused by greed". None of the premises is true and accurate.

Federal regulations required I believe quadruply redundant blowout protection (POD) devices for a well at the depth of Deepwater Horizon. Check 30 CFR §250.515 at

and for the details on the well, see BP, "Initial Exploration Plan, Mississippi Canyon Block 252, OCS-G 32306, 2/23/09, at

Rather than fight the regulations "tooth and nail", BP offered and accepted responsibility, promising that "the best and safest technologies (BAST) as referenced in Title 30 CFR 250 will be incorporated as standard operational procedures". Id., p. 2-1.

On the other hand, I could be easily convinced that left wingers wanted to do to oil exploration what they did to nuclear power in the U.S.: regulate it within a hair's breadth of extinction. One technique is to require endless, bureaucratic environmental impact assessments, endlessly sending each one back for further study. If I wanted to pursue this, I'd check who in the administration was simultaneously long in regulation and long in petroleum. And I'm sure the oil companies would do whatever they could to protect their business and the best interests of the U.S. by resisting regulatory extremism.

As it stands, you still haven't come up with your definition of pollution, much less of greed.

No evidence exists to support your conclusion, and indeed evidence exists to the contrary. The well blew out as they do from time to time, and Deepwater Horizon blew for causes as yet unknown. No evidence exists that the well failed for inadequate design, or that superior safety valves existed or would have done anything.


wrote …

Over my head but I read the conclusion. I'm burning a copy for my liberal freind as you read this.

Wait his mind is already made up why am I wasting my time.

A closed mind is a tragedy.

P.S. I love this Journal.


wrote …

Simma Park is right on. I personally am a "climate change adaptist". Climate has been changing since the beginning of life on Earth and of course life changes climate. So I don't have anything against the paper itself.


wrote …

Thanks for posting this, CrossFit. It's yet another tacit acknowledgement of your holistic approach to fitness; that is, whether it's our health, the literature we write, the music we make, or the natural world phenomena we investigate, no field of human endeavor should be ever be lacking in sound reasoning nor immune to the scrutiny of critical inquiry.

Indeed, it is CrossFit's no-frills, striking-at-the-root-of-the-matter philosophy that so enamored me in the first place: work capacity; measurable, observable, repeatable. Fran is Fran is Fran. And no matter how much gas you waste (Simma) talking about the ins and outs of thrusters and pull ups and the use of a four-letter single-syllable feminine name to title a work out, Fran is still there, demanding that same work capacity. She is one of the many anvils on which CFers pound and forge themselves.

Similarly, the data in Dr. Glassman's article are anvils for our understanding of the complex atmospheric phenomena that we collectively call climate.

Thanks for your work, Doc.


wrote …

Subject: The Real Reason Behind Climate Change and Global Warming/The problem with our Physics:

Einstein once wrote that one of the most important unsolved problems in physics centered around Earth's magnetic field. I sincerely believe I have came up with a theory that not only solves all contradictions in physics but also Earth's magnetic field. But, mainstream science cannot accept my theory because it will cause large magnitude earthquakes in so many physics theories.
My name is Jamal S. Shrair, I am a physicist and researcher currently living in Budapest, Hungary. I have been working for the last decade on physics theory, which gives an explanation for what I believe to be the real reason behind global climate-change as well as global weather and geological phenomena. I have compiled my research and hypotheses in a book, which I published on the 19 of April 2013 on Amazon.
The book provides a good theory for why earth reverses its magnetic field, what is the source of heat at the earth’s core and a rational explanation for the observable climate-change and geological phenomena which we are experiencing. In the first part of the book I explain the physics background and the reason why our current understanding of climate-change focuses on the “human influence”. I then explain to the reader how the sun is actually travelling through our galaxy on a helical path, which periodically crosses the galactic plane (above and below). Over thousands of years the strength of the sun’ s magnetic field increases as it moves above the galactic plane because the plasma region is denser. This in turn means an increased number of high energy cosmic particles in the magnetosphere and of course intense solar radiation. One such helical cycle takes the sun thousands of years to complete. As the sun approaches the highest plasma density above the galactic plane - which is also the highest possible point in the galaxy - the solar maximums and minimums begin to take on strange behaviour. Today there is much research to show how the magnetic fields of the Earth and Sun are linked, therefore when solar radiation increases or behaves erratically, so does the radiation on both the surface of the earth and inside. This variable behaviour of the sun influences the weaker magnetic field of the earth, which is experiencing a rapid shift in polarity at the present time. Compared to recent history, this polarity change has sped up considerably in the 20th century. Currently the magnetic poles are moving faster than at any other time in human history, changing position at almost 40 miles per year! This suggests that we are approaching the end of a polar chron! The rapid movement of the inner core which only recently has been recognized is the reason behind the “stirring” of molten magma in the earth. This influences the earth’s crust, causing earthquakes, volcanic activity to increase and the release of methane and carbon dioxide greenhouse gases. It is a scientific fact that oceans contain a huge amount of CO2, and when heat escapes from inside the earth and combines with solar radiation from above, they induce heat on the surface and at the inner layers of our planet. That causes the release of vast amounts of methane and carbon dioxide greenhouse gases. Therefore, the main reason for climate change is not “man-made” CO2. No doubt the picture becomes increasingly clear when you follow this logic. There is an abundance of reputable research in the book to support each point and almost daily news of unusually global weather phenomena, beside an amazing increase in earthquakes and volcanic eruptions – often in geographic locations which are not known for these occurrences. At the same time this is a very sensitive topic, especially since there are so many environmental groups who believe that pollution, global warming and climate-change are all the result of “man-made” CO2.Please also see on the website my publications in low temperature nuclear fusion Thank you for your time, Sincerely yours Jamal S. Shrair

Leave a comment

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)