With much difficulty, I have collected temperature data, as clinching evidence to prove my point.

 MEAN TEMPERTURE FOR THE YEARS 1951 TO 1980

 The mean temperature has been shown correct to one decimal point in the record whereas figures for 2007 are shown in round figures. So I have rounded off the mean temp. figures too,  for proper comparison.                

 Except in a few cases, there is remarkable similarity in temperature recorded 200 years ago and now ! This exposes the fallacy of global warm-mongers. In big cities like bombay the increase in temp may be due to huge concrete forests constructed and this can in no way be called global.                         

  Statement 2  (Mean temp. in degree Fahreheit)

Statement 3: Latitude and mean temperature

ANALYSIS OF TEMPERATURE DATA

 Figures speak the truth. The temperature data, comparing previous periods with the current period in respect of Indian and foreign cities are available in the statements above. Statement-1 shows temperature of Indian cities (both coastal and inland).

These have been collected from the meteorological department library at Mausam Bhawan, Delhi.

 You will see that in the cities mentioned below, the temperature has remained stable during the last 50 years.

 Bhuj, Bhawnagar, Surat, Punjim, Honavar, Alapuzha, Kakinada, Port Blair, Vishakhapatnam, Kolkata (temperature has actually decreased by 3 degrees), Bhubneswar (decreased by 3 degrees), Ajmer, Pune, Bangalore, Agartala, Alhabad, Kota, Madurai, Koimbature, Kolhapur, Udaipur, Nagpur.

 The increase in temperature by 5 degrees in Mumbai is glaring, especially when we see the temperature in Surat remaining stable. In other words, for Mumbai the reasons my be local and not global. This requires investigation. My guess is that the huge increase in concrete buildings in Mumbai has contributed to the increase in temperature.

 So far, I have been speaking about the maximum temperature. A scrutiny of the minimum temperatures reveals a certain trend of distinct increase.

 Bhuj, Bhavnagar, Mumbai, Ajmer, Pune, Hyderabad, Udaipur and Kanpur show increase in minimum temperature by 3 degree. If you total the minimum temperatures of all the cities,  then and now, there is an increase of 20degrees in respect of 15 inland stations whereas the maximum temperature in respect of the same stations show a decrease of 8 degrees. It should be remembered that the minimum temperature are recorded during winter months (December, January) when the sun is far away in the Southern hemisphere and this cannot be assigned to the heat radiated from the sun.  Mr. Milner has also written about the winter becoming milder over a period of time. In my younger days, I use to find it difficult to take bath in cold water in winter in Delhi. Now, excepting some days of severe cold mostly caused by heavy snowfall in the Himalayas, the water is not so cold.   The obvious inference is that this is actually global defreezing caused by geothermal energy.

 Statement 2 shows temperature variation over a wider period of 200 years. The figures for the previous period have been taken from Milner’s book which was published in 1853. As these figures are in Fahrenheit scale, current figures too are shown in the same scale. The figures in respect of the following stations indicate stability.

 Cairo, Algiers, Cincinnati, New York, Beijing (decrease of 3 degree), Paris Dublin, Copenhagen (decrease of 6 degree), Quebec, Petersburg, Bordeaux, Vienna (decrease of 4 degrees) – 12 out of 20 cities. London, Geneva and Paris show exceptional increase. However, it should be remembered that the increase is over a period of 200 years.

 A word of caution: the current data have been extracted from the website “World Weather Information Service” and so the authenticity has to be verified independently.

 A very reliable and scientific method for evaluation of the temperature of the globe, is latitude wise mean temperatures. Milner’s book shows 29 degree centigrade at equator, gradually and linearly decreasing to zero degree centigrade at the poles. I am unable to get corresponding figures for the current period. However, I could see from the website that figures remain almost constant, even though the figures for the polar region,  now shows as approaching minus 20 degree centigrade. This may be due to better technology being employed by scientific team exploring the polar regions. I have calculated the value of current mean temperatures in respect of a few stations, comparing this value with that shown in Milner’s book. These are given in statement 3.

 MELTING OF POLAR ICE CAP

 The density of water at zero degrees centigrade is 0.9999 grams per cm. The density of ice at zero degree centigrade is 0.9150. In other words, 1 cc of ice weights only 0.91 gm and hence will displace only 0.915cc of water, when the ice is floating in water. When the ice float, almost the whole of body sinks below the surface of water, expect a small portion projecting above the surface. In the North Pole area, there is no land. The crust of the earth forms a huge bowl filled with seawater and a huge mass of ice floating in it just like an ice cube placed in a bowl of water. The volume of ice submerged below the ice may be almost 9 times more than the icecap which we observe above the surface of water. The molecules covering the underwater portion of the icecap absorb heat from the sea water in which it floats and melt into water. This is a continuous process happening round the clock, allover the year, irrespective of summer or winter. As I have explained in my booklet, the necessary energy is supplied by the earth itself. The role of the Sun which shines only for a limited period is too insignificant to have any impact on this process. As the density of water is more than that of ice, the volume of water generated by the melting of ice is less than that of water originally occupied by the ice block in the ratio 9999:9150. Therefore the sea level will actually  come down because of the melting process. In practice, this may not happen because of the continuous deposition of snow in the polar region which will continuously push down the ice cap.

 A lot has been talked about the rising of sea level because of Global warming. This is a misconception. In some places, the sea level goes up and in other places, it recedes. This phenomenon has been extensively discussed in Milner’s geography.

 My contention can be tested by a simple experiment. Place ice cubes in a tumbler and fill it with water until the water overflows. Leave it until all the ice melts. Watch for any overflow of water during this process.

 I quote from Milner-page-513

Excessive summers

In 763 the summer was so hot that the springs dried up.

In 870 the heat was so intense ,that near Worms the reapers dropped dead in the fields.

In 993 and again in 994,it was so hot that the corn and fruits were burnt up.

The year 1000 was so hot and dry ,that, in Germany ,the pools of water disappeared ,and the fish ,being left in the mud ,bred pestilence.

In 1022 the heat was so excessive ,that both men and cattle were struck dead.

In 1130 the earth yawned with drought. Springs and rivers disappeared ,and even the Rhine was dried up in Alsace.

In 1159 not a drop of rain fell in Italy after the month of May.

The year 1171 was extremely hot in Germany.

In 1232 the heat was so great ,especially in Germany, that it is said that eggs were roasted in the sands.

In 1260 ,many of the Hungarian soldiers died of excessive heat at the famous battle fought near Buda.

The consecutive years of 1276 and 1277 were so hot and dry as to occasion a great scarcity of fodder.

The years 1293 and 1294 were extremely hot ;and so were likewise 1303 and 1304,both the Rhine and the Danube having dried up.                    

In 1333 the corn fields and vineyards were burnt up.

The years 1393 and 1394 were excessively hot and dry.

In 1447 the summer was extremely hot.

In the successive years 1473 and 1474 the whole earth seemed on fire. In Hungary , a person might wade across the Danube

The four consecutive years  1538, 1539 ,1540 ,and 1541 were excessively hot ;and the rivers dried up.

In1556 the drought was so great that the springs failed. In England wheat rose from 8 shillings to 53 shillings a quarter.

The years 1615 and 1616 were very dry all over Europe.

In 1646 it was excessively hot.

In1652 the warmth was  very great, the summer being the driest ever known in Scotland. A total eclipse had happened that year, on Monday the 24^th of March,which hence received the appellation of ‘Mirk Monday.’ 

The summer of 1679 was extremely hot.It is related ,that one of the minions tyranny ,who in that calamitous period, harassed the poor Presbyterians in Scotland with captious questions, having asked a shepherd in Fife ,whether the killing of a notorious Sharp, Archbishop of  St.Andrews, which had happened in May,was murder; he replied , that he could not tell, but there had been fine weather ever since.

The year 1700 was excessively warm, and the two following years were of the same description.

In 1718 the weather was extremely hot and dry all over Europe. The air felt so oppressive that all the theatres were shut in Paris. Scarcely any rain fell for the space of nine months and the springs and rivers were dried up. The following year was equally hot. The thermometer at Paris rose to 98 degree Fahrenheit. The grass and corn were quite parched.

In some places the fruit trees blossomed two and three times.

Both the years 1723 and 1724 were dry and hot.

The year 1745 was remarkably warm and dry; but the following year was still hotter insomuch that the grass withered, and the leaves dropped from the trees .Neither rain nor dew fell for several months ; and ,on the continent, prayers were offered up in all the churches to implore the bounty of refreshing showers.

In 1748 the summer was again very warm.

In 1754 it was likewise extremely warm.

The years 1760 and 1761 were both of them remarkably hot, and so was the year 1763.

In 1774 it was excessively hot and dry.

Both the years 1778 and 1779 were warm and very dry.

The year 1788 was also very hot and dry ;and of the same character was 1811 ,famous for its excellent vintage, and distinguished by the appearance of a brilliant comet.

As a philosophy professor, I have waged a never-ending and largely pointless battle against people using “fallacy” when they mean “factual error.” For example, someone might say “people often think that dogs won’t eat anything that is bad for them, but that is a fallacy.” This is, of course, a mistake. A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning that occurs when the premises presented in an argument fail to adequately support the conclusion.

So, to think that a dog won’t eat anything that is bad for them is not a fallacy. Rather it is just a factual error. After all, dogs will consume anti-freeze and that will kill them.

Naturally enough, people might argue that words should mean whatever people say they mean. So, of folks use “fallacy” in place of “factual error”, then that is just they way things are.

While that has some appeal, since language is mostly a matter of convention, this sort of use is problematic. After all, there is an important distinction between an error in logic and a factual error. It certainly seems important to distinguish between those two mistakes. To see why, think about balancing your checkbook. You can make a mistake by doing the math incorrectly (adding $500 + $50.50 and getting $555) and you can make a mistake by entering the wrong amount (for example, $50 instead of $500) for a check. These errors are different and calling them the same would be a mistake and would also cause confusion.

Now, if people insist that “fallacy” should mean the same as “factual error”, then a new word would be needed to name what we used to call “fallacies.” However, since we already have a perfectly good word for fallacies, namely “fallacies”, then it makes sense to simply stick with the current usage.

A minor problem with using “fallacy” for “factual error” is that it makes teaching logic a bit more challenging. To be specific, it is quite challenging to make the distinction between assessing the quality of reasoning and assessing the quality of a claim without adding to the confusion by using two terms for the same thing.

As such, it would be nice if people would stop using “fallacy” in place of “factual error.” One refers to a mistake in reasoning and the other refers to being wrong about a fact and these are not the same things.

Have the appendix from forthcoming book 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction by Rebecca Newberger Goldstein handy. Presented on the Edge Foundation’s web site along with an excerpt of the novel’s first chapter, the appendix identifies the many flaws in 36 arguments that a supernatural being exists.

How often have you heard that natural foods are better for you? Children should be excused for their behavior because it’s only natural for kids to be that way. Childbirth should at least be attempted naturally. You should try to cure your flu using natural home remedies.

All of these claims that permeate our society hold one belief in common; that nature manifests itself in a way that is best left undisturbed. This includes plants, other animals and of course, the human body. This concept is so ingrained into our society that at first glance it is difficult to see how irrational it is.

Logically, whether something is natural has nothing to do with whether it is good. The fallacy of assuming that the “naturalness” of something increases its “goodness” or “value” is what is termed the naturalistic fallacy.

The naturalistic fallacy is largely due to a misunderstanding of evolution and the natural world. Organisms don’t happen to survive because they have constantly evolved to be “better” and now they are the “best” and are therefore surviving.

Organisms in existence are maintaining a very delicate balance that involves not only their physical adaptations, but also behavior that varies immensely with individuals and populations. Furthermore, interactions with other species and environmental conditions are most of what is responsible for whether or not an organism will survive. NO MATTER how impractical or imperfect the species, if there is ample habitat and consumable resources, and if there are no overwhelming predators or competing species, the species will continue to propagate.

Here is an example. The giant panda is one of the most ill equipped animals on the planet. Its digestive system is so ineffective at retrieving nutrients from food that pandas have to eat constantly. In order to preserve energy (given it is so hard to consume), pandas are very sedentary. Pandas have terrible physical adaptations for defense, including the one of the worst camouflaging systems in the animal kingdom. Pandas are also very inefficient when it comes to reproduction. Female pandas are fertile for two to three days a year. That is all. Then, she births two cubs per litter, and then immediately abandons one of them and raises only the other.

Pandas have no immediate predators. Their terrible physical adaptations and inability to reproduce effectively are causing them to slowly but surely drive themselves into extinction. Naturally.

You may be thinking; “but those are pandas – the human body is much better equipped”. Not exactly.

Consider your teeth. You brush your teeth twice a day with a plastic and very “unnatural” toothbrush. You have to shove a piece of string between each of them every day. There is fluoride in our drinking water. You have to see a special doctor every year to get them cleaned because brushing them twice a day and flossing STILL isn’t enough to keep them from rotting out of your mouth. Up until the twentieth century it was common practice to pull all of the teeth out of the mouth as soon as they were formed and use dentures instead because it prevented the eventual agony of losing teeth one by one.

Over sixty percent of the adult American population wears glasses. Those of you that think that natural things are better – how about going to the department of transport and telling them that you think it would be much better if the law was reversed – and that nobody should wear corrective lenses behind the wheel. Drivers would be better off with their natural vision, right?

I have heard the argument that “technically, people don’t need clothes”. I live in Canada, and I beg to differ. Not only has clothing made it possible for me to live where I do and not lose every limb slowly to frostbite and die from subsequent infection, it is also crucial in disease prevention. By covering some of the more infection-prone parts of our bodies, and adding a barrier that protects the integrity of the skin, our clothed body is much more likely to survive than our unclothed body.

For women that promote natural childbirth at all costs, consider this. Until the 19th century childbirth was one of the most dangerous activities a woman could engage in. Even today, in countries without modern healthcare systems, 1 in 16 women die from childbirth. In developed nations, the number is closer to 1 in 2800. Infant death rates are astronomically higher in both places. Given the long gestation time and large fetal size, humans are simply not very well adapted for childbirth. Gazelles can run away from lions just minutes after they are born.

I’m not advocating that we not have any trust in our bodies to keep us alive. Our immune system, for instance, is incredibly capable of protecting us from millions of things in our environment that would otherwise kill us incredibly quickly. However, where our bodies are lacking, it’s not “bad” to use implements that we have invented that don’t exist that way in nature. In fact, those implements are the very things that have allowed us to be so successful as a species.

Accept it, we are not perfect. Our bodies are hideous, hairless, slow, nearly deaf and nearly blind. Luckily, the one thing that human evolution ultimately selected for was a decent brain. They’re not perfect, but they’re pretty damn good. Don’t be afraid to use yours!

Not to disrespect the religious people of “God”, I’m here to voice out something that hadn’t been done before for thousands of years starting from “The Dark Ages” which had been ruled by the almighty “Church” whom will silence for those people who contradict the idea of “God”, notably Galileo Galilie had been accused of been opposing to “God” by publishing his very first book which it’ll elucidate about the earth is orbiting the sun, gravitational pull will always be equal to any weights and much more. It’s your choice whether it’s true or false.

Image by Genzoman

“Does God exist?” this question had intrigued me to search for the truth of “God” and yet the answer seems logical enough to speak of, the hilarious matters about the answer is that it had captivated me to atheism, Why? I started out as a religious kid in my family, in those times for I had read, pray, write, and even worship about/to “God” until one day I started to question myself “Do I really believe in God?”, from that day onwards, I became an atheist due to the lack of evidence and other ridiculous claims of “God”.

Now, lets get on to the main topic of this post. For years and years of research about “God” I had found the definite answer to the question and it’s “No”, why? Here’s a catch: The lack of evidence is the main reason – Most theists admit that their belief is founded on nothing but faith, but there are always those who claim to have evidence of irreducible complexity, healing, out-of-the-body experiences and any other nut-case notion and treat them as evidence for the existence of their particular God.

The top second reason for the non-existent “God” was “Who created God?” – God cannot create himself, or even choose to exist. That is, he cannot use that which defines himself, such as his power and intelligence, in order to create himself. To put differently, if God didn’t exist, then he would had less power and intelligence than an insect; therefore, would have been unable to create himself.

All conscious beings, since self-creation is impossible, ultimately owe their existence to the conscious nature of things. That is, if God has a god, and so on, then the sublime god, with nobody around to create him, and unable to create himself, must owe his existence to something other than conscious creation, which is exactly we were before assuming God had god.

To support this radical claim of self-creation of God, we’ll imply the watchmaker argument, which it can’t be contradicts the natural evolution of man. That is albeit a watch requires a watchmaker, and a human is more complex than a watch, a human doesn’t require a human maker. Unless we make the sacrilegious assumption that God is less complex than a watch, in case of which he would be unable to perform his almighty duties, he too would require a conscious creator, and so forth. Correspondingly, it makes absolutely no sense to account for our complexity by assuming that we were made by an even more complex, and entirely unproven, God.

On top of that, we can say that religion fail at logical reasoning and a bunch of fallacies that had been used to convinced people on specific  matters such as something that can’t be explained without the help of science then jump into conclusion that “God” made it that way, for example, Christian and other kind of religious group convince norm people that the Earth was made in 7 days, in science, we said that it was made by a gas ( nebula ) then slowly big chunks of rock emerge to form a bigger chunk by mere asteroid because it was found that asteroid does contain minerals that might be able to create a planet-like star that will be able to sustain life on that very about-to-be a planet.

The consequences of Obama’s 35 percent tariff on imported Chinese tires are now starting to become apparent. An Associated Press article yesterday (via Pushing Possibilities) identified a few of the explicit and implicit consequences of the tariff.

Explicit costs include:

Under the government’s new tariff, which went into effect in September, a set of Chinese tires that would have cost $280 now cost nearly $100 more.

Implicit costs include:

Jennifer Stockburger, a tire test engineer for Consumer Reports, says six of the top ten all-season tires recently tested by the magazine were made in China by major manufacturers.

To calculate the true cost of the tariff, Pushing Possibilities conducted a cost-benefit analysis:

17% of the tire market is made up of Chinese tires.  Tire sales for 2008 was around $27 billion, which means that about $4.6 billion is Chinese tires. With an average price of $280 for Chinese tires pre-tariff, the total quantity of Chinese tires sold would amount to 16.4 million.  With a $100 price increase, assuming that domestic tire price increases offset the tariff increase, U.S. consumers are expected to lose out on a net savings of over $1.6 billion.  And that of course does not take into account the implicit cost of quality loss.

The tariff was expected to stop the loss of employment in the U.S. tire industry.  By assuming there would be a benefit of saving 5,000 jobs in the tire industry, even at the median U.S.  income, that only amounts to a very large estimate of over $250 million of saved income.

Therefore, Obama’s tire tariff cost the U.S. over $1.35 billion dollars.

Yet another interview with Richard Dawkins on the sesquicentennial of the publication of On the Origin of Species. In the following he addresses the evolutionary future of humanity (to the extent that he can), the idea of thought and reason, what there was before the big bang (evolution vs. cosmology; addressing the fallacy between the two), Ray Comfort, and evolutionary proof for the dis-existence of a God.

My favorite quote:

Daniel Dennett, the American philosopher, described it as the best idea any one ever had. It’s such a powerful idea, it’s an extremely simple idea, but the amount that it explains is simply colossal, it explains the whole of life, the diversity of life, the beauty of life, and above all the illusion of design. Living things look as though they have been designed at a fantastically complicated level, what, and before Darwin came along everybody thought that they were designed. What Darwin showed was that you can get the illusion of design, with virtually nothing, I mean with a very, very simple idea using the ordinary, benign laws of physics.

Beautify put.

And, of course, the blatant dismissal of Ray Comfort:

There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot.

Evidence!

From YouTube:

November 24, 2009 on CNN

Speaking to CNN on the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s seminal work “On the Origin of Species,” Dawkins said the evidence to support the theory that life on earth came about through natural selection, and not design by God, was “now massively buttressed by molecular evidence.”

And referring to U.S.-based evangelist Ray Comfort, who argues that the universe and life is the result of an intelligent creator, Dawkins said: “There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot.

Hey, guys. This installment in my series of top 20 errors of reasoning deals with the False Dichotomy, also referred to as the False Dilemma, the Fallacy of Negation, the Bifurcation Fallacy, and the Either-Or Fallacy. A variation of this, the False Choice, will also be briefly dealt with in this post.

This form of specious reasoning involves an argument in which the number of options in any set of choices is falsely constrained, only two in the usual form, three or a similarly restricted number of choices in the False Choice fallacy, when the actual selection of options possible is realistically much greater.

As the names of this form of reasoning suggest, as a rhetorical tool and as a form of black-and-white thinking, it attempts to present too few options, and show that one must be true by discrediting the other(s). The error lies not only in this, but in the fact that the real world is not so conveniently simple as we would like, and such dichotomous thinking can be simplistic to the point of falsity. A few examples of the fallacy are given below:

• If you are not with me, you’re against me…
  

• Either young-Earth creationism is true or Darwinist evolution is true. Since evolution is false, creationism must be true…

• You either have to be pro-choice or pro-life. There’s no middle ground…
  

• You either worship my peculiar notion of God, or you worship the Devil…
  

• You’re either a believer and a theist, or you’re a skeptic and an atheist…

• Anyone who doesn’t support the Patriot Act supports terrorists…

• Either the girl broke her ex-boyfriend’s jaw with that slugger, or it started flying around and fractured his jaw by itself…

• Either your cat stole my burrito or maybe a psychic just teleported in and grabbed it?..suuure…

Note that realistically, not all imaginable options in a set of alternatives need to be considered, only those options that are somehow falsifiable, in accordance with the rule of thumb known as Occam’s razor.

(Last Update 23:13, 11/25/2009, Grammar Correction)

“Critical thinking is a mystery to me. What is it?” ~ Fred Oliveri, letter to the Morgan Hill Times editor about one of my columns

I write frequently about critical thinking. I do so because fostering this skill is integral to the survival of core American principles. Without it, we’re swayed by outrageous claims, fallacious arguments and seductive half-truths promoted by greedy, power-hungry fear-mongers. This Thanksgiving week, I’m grateful that Oliveri provided me another opportunity to write about an important topic.

Critical thinking is “… the careful, deliberate determination of whether we should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a claim, and the degree of confidence with which we accept or reject it.” (Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker in Critical Thinking)

In his article “An Introduction to Critical Thinking,” Texas Citizens for Science president Steven Schafersman wrote, “A person who thinks critically can ask appropriate questions, gather relevant information, … sort through this information, reason logically … and come to reliable and trustworthy conclusions about the world that enable one to live and act successfully in it.”

I find that examples are helpful in understanding difficult concepts. Let’s consider 10-year-old Will Phillips, a fifth-grader from West Fork, Ark. Phillips, like most elementary students, rotely recited the Pledge of Allegiance in his classrooms for years.

Unlike most elementary students, Phillips thought critically about the Pledge’s assertions and was troubled by its claim that America has “liberty and justice for all.” Phillips knows that homosexual couples cannot marry, so he rejected the “liberty and justice for all” claim as untrue.

Then Phillips did something about it. He’s only 10, so can’t vote for politicians who might pass laws permitting same-sex marriage. Phillips wants to be a lawyer, but even though he skipped the fourth grade, he’s not yet ready for law school and the bar exam, so he can’t argue cases before judges who might strike down same-sex marriage bans as the violations of the Constitution’s equal protection clause that they are.

But he did find one concrete action that he could take: Refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. When his class stands for the Pledge, Phillips stays in his seat, even as his teacher repeatedly tried to persuade him to conform.

It’s a courageous thing for anyone to do, but especially for a 10-year-old fifth-grader in the deep south. Since his decision, Phillips has endured predictable, juvenile homophobic taunts, but he isn’t backing down.

“I think that [gay people] should have the rights that all people should and I’m not going to swear that they do,” Phillips told CNN, adding that he won’t recite the Pledge until there’s “truly liberty and justice for all,” which “entails everyone being able to marry.”

After his decision, Phillips undoubtedly heard many fallacies (errors in reasoning) like the appeal to common practice, appeal to popularity, appeal to ridicule and ad hominem fallacies, but he has identified them as invalid arguments and refused to be swayed by them.

Phillips illustrates the steps of critical thinking in one heartening story. He questioned an assertion, gathered facts, logically analyzed the assertion, identified and rejected fallacies, rendered judgment on the claim, and took action based on that judgment.

Critical thinking can — and should — be applied to any issue: legalization of medical marijuana, continuation of super-majority requirements for budget passage, disclosure of public employee salaries, influence of religion on public policy, choice of gubernatorial candidate, which, if any, religion to follow, and on and on.

However, even if everyone used critical thinking to analyze every issue, it wouldn’t mean that peace and unanimity would suddenly break out. But it would clarify that when issues are logically analyzed based on facts and free from fallacies, any disagreements that remain usually result from differing priorities.

For example, I disagree with a fellow critical thinker about whether public employee salaries ought to be public information. He and I both gathered and analyzed facts and dismissed fallacies, yet we disagree: I believe public employee salaries ought to be public, he believes they shouldn’t. Why? I prioritize transparency in government over privacy; his priorities are the opposite. The California Supreme Court prioritized transparency over privacy when it ruled on this matter. As a taxpayer and citizen, I’m thankful for that.

This Thanksgiving, I’m especially grateful for Will Phillips’  simple, inspiring, courageous example of critical thinking in action.

“As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.” ~ John F. Kennedy

The Big Fallacy Of The Cyber World

Sometimes “Best” remains unseen, unfelt in our life … ironically the
“Betters” are teeming this cyber world with utter intellectual
dissatisfaction. Strangers remain unknown at the very beginning and
over the times graduate to “Betters”. But the “Best” remains in
disguise proudly and honestly. That’s the fallacy of truth and
honesty. Its not always necessary to meet the soul, but importantly
trust and belief plays the key role. We can wait for the “Best” with a
distant hope to see the green light is on and feel the closeness of
two minds and hope the green to become even more green in the future
times… one cant always express one’s own self through text , or even
pictures.. text and pictures both have a lot of latent emotions..
which are not always easily expressible through wires.. the net is no
doubt one of the biggest inventions of mankind , but still…
something is missing.. it is only then you realize this fact when you
compare it with your real life , not the cyber , virtual one.. huhhh I
forgot that all we usually get are just “Betters”. Still I will wait
to meet you some day  … just to prove again that true friendship has
got the power to make things happen …. To make things change …… but
who knows when and how ? maybe never ! Still I’d love to .. lot of
factors play their roles… the internet serves as an alternative way
, it allows 2 souls to be close.. but only to some extent. this is the
BIG fallacy of the modern cyber world , which we are implementing in
every sphere of life.. day be day…

Unfortunately I have seen this logical fallacy used on both sides of the skeptic/believer debate. It occurs when ridicule or mockery is used in place of evidence in an “argument”.

As usual I will substitute the X’s for something cute and fuzzy.

The Appeal to Ridicule has the following format where X equals puppies:

1) Puppies (X), as some form of mockery, is aimed at the claim (C).

2) Therefor Claim (C) is false.

This sort of “argument” is fallacious because ridiculing a claim is not provable evidence that said claim is actually false. An obvious example would look like this “1+1=2?? That’s the most patently ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard!”

This argument is of course based in the idea that we are working with a Base 10 system of counting.

I have heard this fallacy used as an argument so many times even in my own household. A real world example looks like this:

“Evolution is absurd! I’ve never heard of a monkey giving birth to a human!”

The ridicule here occurs in both the use of the word ‘absurd’ and the dismissiveness of the concept of human evolution as a whole.  Usually that argument is made by Creationists who simply have not educated themselves or have chosen not to be educated on the current theory of evolution.

Another form of this argument is “reductio ad absurdum” or “reducing to absurdity”. This site http://bit.ly/2×6CEY has an excellent example of it. I’ll quote it here:

One form of this line of reasoning is known as a “reductio ad absurdum” (“reducing to absurdity”). In this sort of argument, the idea is to show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result follows from a claim. For example: “Bill claims that a member of a minority group cannot be a racist. However, this is absurd. Think about this: white males are a minority in the world. Given Bill’s claim, it would follow that no white males could be racists. Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations.”

Since the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim that a member of a minority cannot be a racist is false.

The militant-vegetarian-posing-as-nutritional-big-brother CSPI were (shockingly) allowed to comment on this story about the amount of calories in a a medium popcorn and soda combo at your local theater. The grand total of this dynamic duo, 1610 calories and 60 grams of saturated fat, is certainly excessive for anyone in one sitting. However, let’s play this game called “math,” shall we?So here’s what we know:

1. Coconut oil has about 14g fat/tbsp with 12g being saturated. Since popcorn is nearly fatless by itself, we know that the total amount of fat in that bag is 70g or 630kcal. So 980kcal is protein and carbs.
2. Popcorn has a ~ 6:1 ratio of carbs to protein per cup. Both are worth 4kcal/g.
3. Thus, the remainder of the bag will be ~40g of protein and 205g of high glycemic carbohydrates
4. Since cola is just sugar water, I’m being generous; the protein would be less and the carbs even higher.

But never mind that the amount of garbage carbs substancially outweigh the fat on a caloric basis. Or that 66% of the fat are in form of Medium Chain Triglycerides, readily useable for energy and less likely to be stored as body fat. Or that entire civilizations thrive on high saturated fat diets with nary a heart attack in sight. Humans were nobel, ate only fruits and veggies, rode sharks, played catch with bears, and all sorts of other amazing, idyllic bullshit.

So what’s the take home, squire of the simple hate?

1. Eating a diet of mostly saturated fat from natural sources isn’t likely to kill you (or you, or you, and perhaps you too)
2. Eating a diet high in carbs from natural sources is likely to keep you (and you too) alive and well.
3. However a diet high in both saturated fat and high glycemic neolithic carbohydrates is death to the lot of you (I’m looking at you, corn-fed, chicken-friend south).
4. Sneak some jerky into the theater if you must eat something.

We as a community are in a state of emergency. No longer can we allow society to determine and define our story. The societal ills plaguing people of color, not just African-Americans but people of color in the diaspora, have to be brought to the table, addressed and rectified by us-the people who are most affected. No longer can we depend on non-African Americans to convey to us, who we are, what the problem is and how it should be fixed. After all, how could they begin to know what is preeminent for us when they are oblivious as to who we are?

Hip-Hop right now seems to be catching hell for the ills manifested within the African-American community. My question then becomes is Hip-Hop also the culprit of the atrocities in Africa and the diaspora, where people of color are living in poverty, famine and disease? Let’s be honest and address the real issues at hand. We are still trying to cope and recuperate from slavery. Slavery has affected us psychologically, economically, socially, sexually and has ultimately broken down the structure of family. Hip-Hop did not strip us from our original culture, identity, and language. Hip-Hop did not oppress us for over 400 years. Hip-hop was not inhumane. Hip-hop did not rape our women to degenerate our men and divide the relationship between black men and black women. Hip-Hop didn’t do those things, slavery and post slavery did however. We are still trying to psychologically detach the chains of slavery.

Am I saying that Hip-Hop artists should not be held accountable for the content and images they are conveying to the world- especially our children? Absolutely not.  Rappers should be held accountable in every aspect. However, Hip-Hop is not the origin or reason people of color are in a detrimental crisis all over this world.  America acts as if Hip-Hop is the defining culture of who we are as a people. People of color are convoluted and can not, we will not be sculpted into the small box of Hip-Hop; which only consists of a small portion of our culture. Hip-Hop is not the provenance of our issues and Hip-Hop will not be the resolution. America, please stop blaming Hip-Hop for sexism, racism, hatred, violence, drugs and misogyny. It’s time to stop pretending the birth of Hip-Hop created those societal issues.

What can we do? Many may disagree, but I strongly believe the conditions and progression of our people will not be executed to its highest potential until black men and black women mend the way in which we perceive each other. Until black men realize that black women can not be reduced to a female dog or other words of degrading profanity; then it will be nearly impossible for people of color to begin a revolutionary movement. Women are Queens, period. We create life, raise children alone, support our men and historically our women have shed blood for men’s right to vote, long before we were afforded such a privilege. Men must not be intimidated by educated, opinionated, strong black women. Instead men should be seeking them as well as lifting them up and encouraging them. Women we can’t get mad when a man calls us a derogatory name but as soon as “Bust It Baby” comes on the radio we’re singing all the lyrics. If you don’t agree with the misogyny and demeaning lyrics don’t support the album. It’s as simple as that.

We have to stop allowing Hip-Hop and televisions raise our children. We as communities have to step up and do as much as possible for each child. It takes a village. Accountability is also pertinent. If we are going to support Hip-Hop then we have to hold the rappers, record labels and the media accountable for the images they are portraying. We have to stop glorifying guns, violence, drugs and sex as if this is cool or as if this is the only thing going on in the ghetto. Our rappers have to stop presenting these fallacies to young children. Cars in the videos: RENTED. Houses in the videos: ALSO RENTED. Money in the videos: BORROWED. Video models: RENTED. This is not reality. Our children have to know this is music, entertainment and what sells records, bottom line. We need more children that want to be politicians, teachers, doctors, lawyers, journalists, news commentators and CEO’s; instead of rappers, athletes, actors and video models. Hip-Hop sheds light, whether in a positive or negative way, to the atrocities occurring in our communities, but it does not represent the reality of everyone.

We are deteriorating because of all of these societal ills and we have the nerve to be concerned with mundane things. We have the audacity to hate on each other when we are facing serious crises.  We can’t afford for this next generation to be disregardful of their history. Hip-Hop is not our culture or history in its entirety by far.  It’s ok for children to know the lyrics to age appropriate songs, but it’s not ok for them not to know who Shirley Chisolm, Betty Shabazz, Coretta Scott King, Marcus Garvey, W.E.B. Dubois and Carter G. Woodson are.  Having wealth or fame to create a catalyst, is a misconception.

Everyone has the ability to change something no matter how big or small. We are a limitless persevering people. Everything America told us we couldn’t do; we’ve done it and done it well.

So the question is not is Hip-Hop dead? Instead the question becomes are we going to forever allow Hip-Hop’s existence be definitive of our culture, our history, our story?

Dinosaurs lived with Adam and Eve in the garden of eden. Really? I’ve grown so tired of this young earth creationist rhetoric; it’s really pretty depressing and frustrating at this point. “Their blinding you with not science” (emphasis my own).

From YouTube:

Further denouncement of the 2012 hoax in response to the forthcoming movie 2012 from Neil deGrasse Tyson. As always, Tyson puts the whole phenomenon into perspective in such a entertaining and succinct manner. Enjoy the movie, but trust the science.

From YouTube:

Aired 11-12-09. ”CNN’s Becky Anderson asks astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson if the end is near.”

It’s disconcerting to acknowledge that NASA has to issue a press release to address the 2012 doomsday hysteria; below is an excerpt from the NASA 2012 FAQ page:

Q: What is the origin of the prediction that the world will end in 2012?
A: The story started with claims that Nibiru, a supposed planet discovered by the Sumerians, is headed toward Earth. This catastrophe was initially predicted for May 2003, but when nothing happened the doomsday date was moved forward to December 2012. Then these two fables were linked to the end of one of the cycles in the ancient Mayan calendar at the winter solstice in 2012 — hence the predicted doomsday date of December 21, 2012.

Q: Does the Mayan calendar end in December 2012?
A: Just as the calendar you have on your kitchen wall does not cease to exist after December 31, the Mayan calendar does not cease to exist on December 21, 2012. This date is the end of the Mayan long-count period but then — just as your calendar begins again on January 1 — another long-count period begins for the Mayan calendar.

The following is a short video that addresses several popular questions regarding Nibiru and the 2012 phenomenon from the Ask an Astrobiologist site.

From Vimeo:

NASA’s David Morrison, expert on Earth impact hazards and currently Interim Director of the NASA Lunar Science Institute, speaks on what are the risk to Earth in 2012. He addresses misconceptions related to the year 2012, Earth crossing objects, planetary alignment, and related myths like Nibiru. More information on Dr. Morrison can be found at lunarscience.arc.nasa.gov/bios/david-morrison.

For more information on this topic, please see astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/intro/nibiru-and-doomsday-2012-questions-and-answers.

“Often, the less there is to justify a traditional custom, the harder it is to get rid of it.” ~ Mark Twain

Twain’s wisdom came to mind as I read a recent article by new Dispatch columnist John Larson (another new club member; welcome!) about medical marijuana dispensaries.

Near as I can tell, Larson supports in theory patient access to medical marijuana, but opposes in practice “putting [a medical marijuana dispensary] in Gilroy.”

That’s a perfect example of a NIMBY (not in my back yard) position. A Time magazine article on ethics called NIMBYism “a perverse form of antisocial activism.”

Certainly Gilroy should ensure that medical marijuana dispensaries — which are legal in California — are appropriately located, just as planners do for pharmacies and hardware stores, for example. Dispensaries should be treated like any other business seeking to locate in Gilroy.

Larson uses pretzel-twisted logic to try to justify his NIMBY position by claiming that legalizing medical marijuana usage is part of a larger battle to legalize recreational marijuana usage, something he apparently opposes.

He claims that dispensaries have “ill effects” on “family values and safety” and that they lead to an increase in crime.

He describes how ridiculously easy it is to get marijuana (since his childhood!) and then tries to scare readers into opposing dispensaries by claiming they’ll make it easy to get marijuana. Huh?

I call foul.

Larson provides zero evidence for these assertions, but that doesn’t prevent his lame attempt to support a conclusion that’s illogical and cruel to suffering patients. He does, however, provide examples of red herring, appeal to fear, and slippery slope logical fallacies.

I assume those fallacies help squelch the cognitive dissonance that must come from acknowledging the suffering of “someone with terminal cancer who finds relief from their pain or nausea by smoking a doobie” while opposing the only way, given our current ridiculous federal laws, for that patient to safely and legally obtain the medicine that brings much-needed relief.

Many people — like me — support legalizing medical marijuana because we understand that the federal government completely misclassifies marijuana, causing people to needlessly suffer.

The federal Controlled Substances Act lists marijuana on Schedule I, the most restricted category that is supposed to include only substances with high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use, and no standards for safe use under medical supervision. This is simply not true about marijuana, as I’ve detailed in previous columns.

It’s fine to debate legalizing recreational marijuana use, but it’s completely separate from the debate about medical marijuana.

Another thing: Larson’s use of a street name for a medical marijuana cigarette, and giving his fictional medical marijuana dispensaries monikers that incorporate other street names (“Weed-Mart,” “Ganja Emporium” and “Pot-pourri”) might be cute, but the names are irrelevant, and using them is illogical and unfair. Worse, they’re examples of the ad hominem and appeal to ridicule logical fallacies.

Does Larson call pharmacies “Lude Lounges” because they sell prescription quaaludes that some people use recreationally? Maybe he prefers “Hillbilly Heroin Huts” because some people abuse prescription OxyContin? Does he call hardware and paint stores “Huff Depots” because they sell products that contain inhalants? Does he oppose the presence of these stores in Gilroy?

The use of logical fallacies is usually a sign that the fallacy-employer knows that his position is weak and is thus reduced to trying to distract his audience and hoping that they don’t notice his argument’s flaws.

Something else about Larson’s column confused me: He believes it’s relevant to emphasize that he has never smoked marijuana. I fail to grasp the relevance, but I’ll share too: I have never smoked, seen, touched or been offered marijuana. I wouldn’t even recognize the odor, I lived such a sheltered youth.

However, I’ll also share a relevant personal fact: My daughter endured two-and-half years of chemotherapy to treat cancer. She suffered from nausea, but, thankfully, it was short-lived and manageable. However, had her doctors recommended medical marijuana, here’s what Larson and his ilk would require me to do: In their pollyanna-ish, “Weed-Mart”-free utopia, I would have had to locate one of the scores of unlicensed, unregulated street marijuana dispensaries (you know, drug dealers) sprinkled throughout South County to purchase marijuana of unknown quality and strength, in the process likely supporting other far worse illegal activities, while risking arrest, prosecution and incarceration when my young daughter desperately needed me.

Why? Because they don’t want legal, regulated medical marijuana dispensaries in this community.

Put that cruel reality in your NIMBY pipe and smoke it.

As a skeptic this movie had me practically rolling on the floor. When Clooney’s character talks about stabbing an enemy in the neck with a pen to create “Psychic disincentive”, I practically fell out of my chair. Of COURSE if you cause someone severe pain they will be less lakely to attack you. They will, instead, be grabbing the pen in their neck and screaming.

The movie “The Men Who Stare At Goats” is based on the book, The Crazy Rulers of the World” by Jon Ronson. The main character, Lyn Cassady, (whose real name is Glenn Wheaton) played by George Clooney, claims to have witnessed a Green Beret kill a goat simply by staring at it.

From the perspective of a skeptic, I have to wonder what else was going on in the room at the time. I have seen news stories about a breed of goat that suffers from a condition mytonia congenita. When startled these goats faint. They become rigid and drop over for a period of 10 seconds or more. (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jimknapp/goats.html). While it is not an actual ‘faint’, it could be interpreted as the goat having died. So if someone startled the goat while the Green Beret was trying to kill it with his mind, the sudden tipping over of the goat could have been interpreted as success.

If anyone else has more information on the book, the movie or the people involved, I would love to hear it.

An important part of being able to think critically is being able to spot logical fallacies, which are errors in reasoning. You need to ensure that you don’t use them in your thinking and debating, and you need to be able to spot them in other people’s arguments.

The Nizkor Project, a web site dedicated to refuting Holocaust deniers, offers a useful listing of 42 logical fallacies, providing definitions and examples of each. Don’t let anyone get away with using the slippery slope or appeal to ridicule fallacies, for example, on your watch!

I’m a fan of a hormonally adequate environment for health and fitness. By this, I mean that all hormones should be in a normal physiological range. Point of fact, if one was to believe the claims of supplement hucksters, all the cortisol in our body should be destroyed, when in reality only excessively high levels over a long period of time (chronically high vs. acutely high) should be of concern.

Growth hormone. GH. Maximize GH output and you should grow muscle and reduce bodyfat, right? Given a certain metabolic environment GH is certainly going to do its job promoting lipolysis and protein synthesis. But there is a limit to theses effects, especially with regard to direct manipulation without injection. More on that later, but first I have a question: if injecting GH to supra-physiological levels doesn’t do anything, why worry about elevating it post workout?

This list is long and I thank Lyle McDonald for compiling it:

1: Phys Ther. 1999 Jan;79(1):76-82.

Does growth hormone therapy in conjunction with resistance exercise increase
muscle force production and muscle mass in men and women aged 60 years or older?

Zachwieja JJ, Yarasheski KE.

Exercise and Nutrition Program, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton
Rouge, La., USA.

Improved muscle protein mass and increments in maximum voluntary muscle force
have rarely been observed in men and women aged 60 years and older who were
treated with rhGH. Although rhGH administration has been reported to increase
lean body mass in older men and women, it is doubtful that this increase is
localized to skeletal muscle contractile proteins. When rhGH administration was
combined with 16 weeks of resistance exercises, increases in muscle mass, muscle
protein synthesis, and muscle force were not greater in the rhGH-treated group
than in a weight training group that received placebo injections. Side effects of
rhGH treatment in elderly people are prevalent, not trivial, and further limit
its usefulness as an effective anabolic agent for promoting muscle protein
accretion in men and women. In particular, the induction of insulin resistance
and carpal tunnel compression reduces the efficacy of rhGH replacement therapy in
elderly individuals. The evidence for a GH-induced increase in human skeletal
muscle protein and maximum voluntary muscle force is weak. The optimum dose and
GH-replacement paradigm (GHRH, GH-secretagogues) have not been identified.
Whether rhGH therapy improves muscle protein mass and force in individuals with
severe cachexia associated with major trauma, burns, surgery, or muscular
dystrophy is controversial and under investigation.

Publication Types:
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t
Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S.
Review

PMID: 9920193 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

2: Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 1994;22:285-312.

Growth hormone effects on metabolism, body composition, muscle mass, and
strength.

Yarasheski KE.

Metabolism Division, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis,
Missouri.

It is clear that the anthropometric ramifications, especially with respect to
muscle mass, of the metabolic actions of GH and IGF-I treatment in intact and
GH-deficient adults require further study. At present, it appears that daily GH
or IGF-I treatment modestly increases nitrogen retention in most normal adults,
probably by separate but permissive mechanisms, but only for a short period of
time (approximately 1 month). During prolonged GH administration, resistance to
the anabolic actions of GH seems to occur, and optimizing the anabolic effects of
GH or IGF-I treatment will require a better understanding of the interactions
among GH, GHBP, IGF-I production, IGFBPs, the GH dose regimen, and other
unidentified regulatory factors. On the basis of the similar increases in muscle
protein synthesis, muscle cross-sectional area, and muscle strength observed in
placebo and GH-treated exercising young adults, it is doubtful that the nitrogen
retention associated with daily GH treatment results in an increase in
contractile protein, improved muscle function, strength and athletic performance.
Even in catabolic or GH-deficient populations, GH treatment provides only modest
increments in nitrogen retention, muscle size, strength, and exercise capacity.
Further, the side effects of GH treatment (water retention, carpal tunnel
compression, insulin resistance) would be a detriment, rather than an aid, to
athletic performance. In addition, whether prolonged (> 6 months) GH treatment
alone or in combination with other agents used by athletes (e.g., anabolic
steroids, beta-agonists) is associated with other adverse side effects (e.g.,
cancer, diabetes) has not been evaluated. Therefore, health professionals should
continue to discourage the use of GH by exercise enthusiasts.

Publication Types:
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t
Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S.
Review

PMID: 7925547 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

3: J Appl Physiol. 1993 Jun;74(6):3073-6.

Short-term growth hormone treatment does not increase muscle protein synthesis in
experienced weight lifters.

Yarasheski KE, Zachweija JJ, Angelopoulos TJ, Bier DM.

Metabolism Division, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis,
Missouri 63110.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether recombinant human growth
hormone (GH) administration enhances muscle protein anabolism in experienced
weight lifters. The fractional rate of skeletal muscle protein synthesis and the
whole body rate of protein breakdown were determined during a constant
intravenous infusion of [13C]leucine in 7 young (23 +/- 2 yr; 86.2 +/- 4.6 kg)
healthy experienced male weight lifters before and at the end of 14 days of
subcutaneous GH administration (40 microgram.kg-1 x day-1). GH administration
increased fasting serum insulin-like growth factor-I (from 224 +/- 20 to 589 +/-
80 ng/ml, P = 0.002) but did not increase the fractional rate of muscle protein
synthesis (from 0.034 +/- 0.004 to 0.034 +/- 0.002%/h) or reduce the rate of
whole body protein breakdown (from 103 +/- 4 to 108 +/- 5 mumol.kg-1 x h-1).
These findings suggest that short-term GH treatment does not increase the rate of
muscle protein synthesis or reduce the rate of whole body protein breakdown,
metabolic alterations that would promote muscle protein anabolism in experienced
weight lifters attempting to further increase muscle mass.

Publication Types:
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t
Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S.

PMID: 8366011 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

4: Am J Physiol. 1992 Mar;262(3 Pt 1):E261-7.

Effect of growth hormone and resistance exercise on muscle growth in young men.

Yarasheski KE, Campbell JA, Smith K, Rennie MJ, Holloszy JO, Bier DM.

Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis,
Missouri 63110.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether growth hormone (GH)
administration enhances the muscle anabolism associated with heavy-resistance
exercise. Sixteen men (21-34 yr) were assigned randomly to a resistance training
plus GH group (n = 7) or to a resistance training plus placebo group (n = 9). For
12 wk, both groups trained all major muscle groups in an identical fashion while
receiving 40 micrograms recombinant human GH.kg-1.day-1 or placebo. Fat-free mass
(FFM) and total body water increased (P less than 0.05) in both groups but more
(P less than 0.01) in the GH recipients. Whole body protein synthesis rate
increased more (P less than 0.03), and whole body protein balance was greater (P
= 0.01) in the GH-treated group, but quadriceps muscle protein synthesis rate,
torso and limb circumferences, and muscle strength did not increase more in the
GH-treated group. In the young men studied, resistance exercise with or without
GH resulted in similar increments in muscle size, strength, and muscle protein
synthesis, indicating that 1) the larger increase in FFM with GH treatment was
probably due to an increase in lean tissue other than skeletal muscle and 2)
resistance training supplemented with GH did not further enhance muscle anabolism
and function.

Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t
Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S.

PMID: 1550219 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

J Endocrinol Invest. 1999;22(5 Suppl):106-9.Links
Growth hormone and body composition in athletes.
Frisch H.

Department of Pediatrics, University of Vienna, Austria. herwig.frisch@akh-wien.ac.at

The anabolic properties of growth hormone (GH) have been investigated extensively. The effects of GH on normal, hypertrophied and atrophied muscles have been studied previously in animal experiments that demonstrated an increase in muscle weight and size, but no comparable increase in performance or tension. In adults with GH deficiency, the changes in body composition can be corrected by GH treatment; lean body mass and strength increase within a few months. In children with GH deficiency, Turner’s syndrome or intrauterine growth retardation, an increase in muscle tissue is seen after treatment with GH. In acromegalics with long-standing GH hypersecretion, the muscle volume is increased, but muscle strength and performance are not improved. These observations gave rise to the interest shown by healthy subjects and athletes in using GH to increase their muscle mass and strength. The improvements in muscle strength obtained by resistance exercise training in healthy older men or young men were not enhanced by additional administration of GH. The larger increases in fat-free mass observed in the GH-treated groups were obviously not due to accretion of contractile protein, but rather to fluid retention or accumulation of connective tissue. In experienced weightlifters, the incorporation of amino acids into skeletal muscle protein was not increased and the rate of whole body protein breakdown was not decreased by short-term administration of GH. The results of a study in power athletes confirm the results of these investigations. The study used GH treatment in power athletes compared with a placebo-control group, and the results indicated no increase in maximal strength during concentric contraction of the biceps and quadriceps muscles, although levels of insulin-like growth factor-I were doubled. In highly trained power athletes with low fat mass and high lean body mass, no additional effect of GH treatment on strength is to be expected.

——–

“But,” you say, “I have no intent of injecting GH. I’m concerned with blunting the GH spike post workout.” Basically you want to maximize your basic hormonal environments so as not to short circuit any muscle growth/fat loss going on. I can respect that. However, the notion that raising insulin reduces GH spike is inaccurate at best. Two studies from the top:

1. Shows Protein + carbs pre and post workout led to a nearly 50% increase in post-workout GH versus a placebo.

2. Shows Protein + carbs post workout increases GH for 6 hours post workout versus placebo.

So am I suggesting a big huge spike in insulin, meaning a metric ass-load of carbs post workout? Nay, but since you no longer have to worry about blunting GH, why not ensure protein synthesis occurs:

1. A very small increase in insulin is needed to start protein synthesis.

2. A whey shake would get the job done very adequately.

EDIT:

What about GH’s role in fat loss? Doesn’t GH need to be elevated to move fatty acids for energy use?

1. Well, take a look at this study of individuals with hyperinsulimia in which they lost 20lbs in 60 days.

The drastically elevated insulin *should* have blunted the GH, which should have trapped the FFA’s for all eternity…but it didn’t seem to matter because they were eating less.

So what’s the take home, Captain Buzzkill?

1. If injecting GH does zero, I’m not going to worry too much about maximizing it post workout. If anything, since slow wave sleep is when the largest spike in GH is going to occur, supplementing with L-Glutamine can effectively increase the magnitude of that spike.

2. GH spike isn’t blunted by insulin post workout and in fact is seemingly heightened by a protein and carb drink. At the very least, get some protein in you, or if you’re lactose tolerant, whole milk will effectively do the job.

3. Don’t think that I’m saying you need to “spike” insulin, as all the good stuff happens with a minimal rise in insulin, which whey will get done for you.

4. Better yet, let me simplify it further: just eat a nice meal sometime soon after you train.

The Atlantic blogger Ta-Nahisi Coates reacts to cries of “bigotry” after the election results in Maine:

Conservatives pride themselves on their skepticism, and generally dismiss liberals as soft-headed Utopians. But in so many ways, political conservatism is Utopianism for the powerful. It isn’t broadly skeptical of human nature, so much as it’s broadly skeptical of people its agents don’t particularly like. Hence the sense that Americans are intrinsically “good people,” that this country “is the best nation that ever existed in history,” that the South is home to “the greatest people that have ever trod the earth,” and that the murder of four little girls in Birmingham was the work of a “Communist” or “crazed Negro,” which had “set back the cause of white people.”

Hence the notion that those voting against gay marriage, are not actually, in the main, motivated by bigotry, but a belief in tradition and family. But very few people would actually ever describe themselves as bigots. We think we know so much about ourselves. This is a country–like many countries–which is deeply riven by ethnic bias, and gender discrimination. And yet we don’t seem to know any of the agents of that discrimination.

I think the description of political conservatism as “utopianism for the powerful” is apt for some conservatives, but it doesn’t explain why so many non-powerful people are conservatives; for that I think you have to look at their power brokers — very often very wealthy (hence, very powerful) religious leaders. In ways subtle and overt, these politically conservative religious leaders manage to convince their unquestioning, blind-faith followers to vote not only against their own economic self-interest by voting for conservative candidates, but also to vote for politicians who support policies that violate their own religious tenets, things like loving your neighbor as yourself and the assertion that you will be judged by how you treat the least among you.

It’s a pretty nifty trick, and but one that cannot work when religion (and assertions about it made by self-appointed religious leaders) is not exempt from rational criticism. It’s why that two-word dictum — Question Authority — is so important. But it’s not enough; you also have to scrutinize the answers you get, looking for fallacies. If more religious folks asked their pastors and priests questions like these and accepted only those answers that held up to critical thinking, we’d have a vastly reduced religious right wingnut contingency:

• Pastor, why don’t you rail against people who eat lobster or who wear clothing of mixed fiber, or who cheat on their wives like you rail against same-sex couples?
• Father, why do you oppose health care reform even though it will help our poor brothers and sisters get access to health care?
• Father, why was the doctor who performed an abortion on a 9-year-old rape victim excommunicated? What about the rapist who got her pregnant? What about the thousands of molesting priests whose crimes were hidden instead of reported and prosecuted?

And that’s only a few public policy-related examples — the list doesn’t touch the tons of non-public policy contradictions contained in just one “holy,”allegedly infallible text.

Ask questions. Scrutinize the answers. Do not exempt religion from rational criticism.

If you are familiar with the English-language expression, than by now you may know — I refer to ignorance.

I openly challenge the idea, ridiculously proposed, that it is bliss. It may prevent you from feeling the immediate suffering of the reception of the knowledge you are ignorant to…but it cannot even protect you from all suffering surrounding the idea. If you’re ignorant of a lover being unfaithful, will you fail to contract the STD they might? If your boss is making poor investments, are you better off being ignorant to the loss of your pension fund? If someone hears only one side of the story, are the better off without the whole truth?

Not only can ignorance harm you directly, but also indirectly. Prejudice is a form of ignorance — and it has shown many a time to be both damaging, and potentially lethal. Less seriously, feelings can be deeply — sometimes irreparably — hurt, when others allow ignorance they could have prevented. Jumping to conclusions is the easiest, most common, and easiest to avoid of all types of ignorance.

I challenge you then, the reader, to try to defeat my claim. Share your approval, if you like. I do enjoy — as all people — to be agreed with. However, my motivation has never been praise…. Go ahead, those you question my standpoint, attempt to refute me.

Ironically, you will have refuted yourself, in trying. For questioning me — or anything — is showing the value of inquisitiveness, over ignorance.