Popular holistic health site veers into climate science denial

Winter Av

The Least Wonderful Time of The Year. Winter brings bloviators who say that climate change is a hoax because it’s cold today where they live. Photo: Ruban’s Pics.

I’ve been sharing stories from NaturalNews.com for easily the last year or more. But I will never do so again after having read editor Mike Adams’s bat-shit crazy screed against climate change.

Normally I would’ve just “unliked” his Facebook page, which boasts 830K+ fans (and I did), and just left it at that. But the depth of Adams’s prevarication on climate calls for much more, especially given the scope of his influence. Charlatans of his order need a take-down.

It’s not that I haven’t appreciated some stuff on Natural News. But it’s also not like “The Health Ranger” Adams’s alterna-info on health, food, medicine, public health issues and more is so unique that I can’t get it elsewhere.

After his climate-denying rant, Adams came up so sorely wanting for me that now, even if he posts something on topics I might care about — the wonders of asparagus, the healthful bacteria in kombucha, or the risks of municipal fluoridation — I’m not listening.

If Glenn Beck was an Internet raw foodie guru

In case you don’t know him, Adams, an online “personality” with an ego a mile wide, buys into just about every paranoid conspiracy-theory out there. He’s a Sandy Hook denier and thinks the 2012 Aurora, Colorado shootings were “obviously” staged and that the bombings at the 2013 Boston Marathon were a false flag attack by “private military contractors.” He predicted that in 2013 President Obama would declare martial law across the U.S., the money economy would collapse and the price of guns and ammo would skyrocket as desperate citizens sought them for barter.

Of course, Adams is a Birther. But he takes Birtherism to a whole new level. Apparently, Adams is even skeptical about the details of his own nativity. According to the biography on his site, “Adams is believed to have been born in 1967 in Lawrence, Kansas.” But, the reader wonders, could he really have been born in Kenya?

This same profile also explains that “Mike Adams is widely recognized to be an extremely high-IQ person with a strong technical aptitude that has allowed his websites to achieve very high degrees of success on the internet. He is also widely known to be a highly influential writer and presenter.”

Now to the climate science denial. It would be tedious to wade through all 1,300 words of “Historic deep freeze across North America conclusively proves global warming is getting worse, right?” So I just want to highlight Adams’s main line of attack, that climate science just doesn’t mesh with common sense:

When the Midwest suffers a terribly hot drought, global warming theorists proclaim the drought is due to global warming. ‘It’s hotter, see?’ That actually makes logical sense at some level. But by the same logic, when a deep freeze sweeps across the same region, they would logically have to concede that cold is the opposite of hot, and therefore if extreme hot weather is evidence of global warming, then extreme cold weather must be evidence against global warming. This is the litmus test of scientific sanity, you see: If a person is a consistent, clear thinker, they must concede that this current freeze is, indeed, evidence that the planet is not warming.

But that’s not what happens: They proclaim that cold weather, too, is yet more proof of global warming! And with that statement, all their credibility vanishes. Because at that point they are admitting that, essentially, all events are somehow evidence of global warming. All ‘weather events’ somehow magically support their theory.

We don’t need no stinkin’ scientists

We can call Adams’ argument a straw man. But we can also just take his insistence on logic to heart. Basically what he’s saying is that if A is A, A cannot also be B, or that logic lines up only in a juxtaposition of clear opposites, or in his terms, if evidence of heat is climate change than evidence of cold cannot also be climate change. Only he likes to use the term “global warming” because it has the word “warming” in it which is all the easier to discredit when some place like Minnesota still gets cold in January. He also conveniently leaves off the “extreme” part.

Later, Adams reasons from the specific to the general, arguing that a cold day in the American Midwest is evidence enough to discredit climate change everywhere, disregarding the global aspect of “global” warming.

Thinking like Adams’s surely must be behind the recent story on the Borowitz Report: “Polar Vortex Causes Hundreds of Injuries as People Making Snide Remarks about Climate Change Are Punched in Face.”

Talk about a poser! And this clown has over 800,000 followers? Time to take a second look, people. Are the Koch Brothers funding this guy?

I wouldn’t be surprised, since Adams makes two moves straight from the climate-denier handbook:

  • Fails to acknowledge that 97% of climate scientists agree that the planet is warming due to human activity, a conclusion that all national and international science agencies uphold. What, he knows better than them? Instead, Adams calls climate science a “false science,” even though it’s a long-recognized sub-specialty of earth science. Will he say earth science is “false,” too?
  • Lacks any scientific credentials, but yet expects the reader to recognize that his own background gives him some special authority to debunk climate science. Adams is neither a climate scientist nor any kind of scientist if his megalomanical bio is to be believed. Full disclosure: I’m not a climate scientist either but I have the good sense to recognize that you either trust science or think that every Joe Schmoe with an opinion is as good as any other. You can’t have it both ways.

He’s even got God’s number

Though so much of Adams’s logic is coo-coo in the coconut, the worst is perhaps his equation of climate science adherents to believers in the Rapture.

I’m a Christian, but I really don’t know if God is planning a rapture. I’m more worried about melting ice caps and I do find human human stewardship of God’s creation over the last few centuries to be sorely lacking.

But in the end, the Lord works in mysterious ways, giving us both creation and science, prayer and observation, faith and analysis, divine behavior and human behavior. These need not be mutually exclusive when properly understood. Meaning that if God did want us rapturously, “destroyed in a massive clean sweep of human civilization,” as Adams says of the rapturists’ beliefs there’s nothing logical to suggest that in His might he might not do so, “…in a massive clean sweep…caused by carbon emissions,” as Adams claims is the climate change adherents’ take.

Health Danger

Science has is limits. Faith, too. But one thing remains certain, anyone purporting to deliver “Natural News” ought to at least base his analyses on more than bombast and shotgun fire.

As to his personal philosophy, on HealthRanger.com he says, “Adams describes his personal life mission as ‘protecting the diversity of life’ in the universe.” If true he might consider the thousands of species going extinct every day, overwhelmingly due to human-caused climate change. Finally, if his concern is for the economy, he might also consider that there is no economy on a destroyed planet.

But all of this might require that the “Health Ranger” do more than just bolster his own galaxy-sized ego and get down to the actual work of advancing a supportable, evidence-based critique.

Health Ranger? I’d call this guy Health Danger! And if he can’t be trusted to be honest on climate science, it throws all of his other claims into doubt. That’s reason enough to dump this guy from your feeds and follows like yesterday’s news.

–Lindsay Curren, Transition Voice

Related articles

Comments

  1. says

    Well said, unfortunately there are many very good alternative info sites that are completely ignorant on climate change. They seem to do their due diligence for other topics then just ignore science for the obvious, can’t figure that out, just strange.

    • says

      Agreed. Those who are promoting a more natural lifestyle should be looking first to how folks can lower their carbon footprint and live in greater harmony with their locality and community instead of proffering more exotic products from long distances away.

      Of course many ARE doing this, and they deserve to be recognized.

  2. Steve says

    I’ve been following Natural News for quite a while too, and I noticed this bat-s**t crazy ranting on climate change denial and some other flat-out wrong science on other issues as well. And while I’m always deeply cynical about the U.S. government’s (EPA, FDA) willingness to protect us from food and environmental hazards and would prefer to err on the side of caution as the EU sometimes does better than the U.S., I prefer to rely on science. Natural News is not reliable, and I no longer share their articles on facebook, though I continue to read them. Their unreliability extends far beyond climate change to a range of other issues, so I’d second your warning.

    • says

      That’s the thing that bugs me, to; that where there may be agreement, such as concern over GMO approvals, the USDA’s upside down food pyramid, the government’s coziness with Big Ag, are all areas where there should be common ground on issues that affect us all. But then these folks go an deny climate change under the sacred cow that caring for what John Michael Greer calls the “primary economy” somehow will imperil life more than if we rape and pillage the primary economy so that it is left fallow and diseased.

      At least if the deniers did so with some shred of credibility, a reasoned critique that raised pertinent questions there would at least be some common ground on which to examine concerns. But each one, from Trump to Team FOX News to The Health Ranger do so in such specious ways, all while pretending to be mounting sincere and worse so-called logical arguments.

      In the end I just find most of these people to be blinded by their own bombast. If they’re drinking their own kool-aid, I even feel worse for them.

  3. says

    Of 9,136 authors of recent, peer-reviewed articles published in reputable journals, just one authored an article rejecting man-made global warming (November 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013). That’s 1 in 9,136 (0.01%).

    The established consensus is thus that 99.99% of authors of recent peer-reviewed articles on climate change do not disagree with AGW.

    99.99%.

    • says

      Interestingly if it were 99.9 % of authors writing on breast cancer or fetal alcohol syndrome or men’s prostrate health there’d be a chorus of hurrahs. It’s just that we have to change our modalities wholesale (including conservation) to deal with climate change and the Richie Riches are too focused on the fear of losing money in that transition (rather than the OPPORTUNITY) in it that they’d rather pay billions and billions to refute it than invest that money in all the new modes that society can use to shift.

      No wonder those guys are deemed sociopaths. They should also rightly be called dim bulbs.

      I for one am tired of letting the most brittle thinkers among us lead the nation and the world.

      • klem says

        I am too, but there’s hope. Just last year the Australians kicked out their brittle thinking Prime Minister who was a climate alarmist nut job, and replaced her with a climate realist.

        Leave it to the Ozzies to lead the world, but hopefully this is just the beginning.

        cheers

  4. RoseD says

    In my mind, it is very easy to explain the changes that we see in the climate. The planet likes to be in a balanced climate state. When something throws it off (i.e. 400 ppm), it reacts like a pendulum – swinging to the extremes until balance is re-achieved. So in Summer it will be way more hot, and in Winter it will be way more cold. Simple!

    • says

      Yes. Climate science and climate change conditions are extremely easy to comprehend. The denial prevarication on it all leaves only two viable conclusions: They’re either extremely dim witted individuals who can’t comprehend some of the most basic science imaginable or they’re scoundrels. There’s no sunny side up for any of them.

      • klem says

        “Yes. Climate science and climate change conditions are extremely easy to comprehend.”

        Wow, you mean they really don’t need those complicated climate models which require days of supercomputing time to run?

        You’re a genius Lindsay, really.

  5. Sukey Jacobsen says

    What about all that I have read about solar cycles and their relationship to climate flux? Could it perhaps be that Global Warming and cooling are not as effected by anthrogenic activity? Is is possible that global warming was created to spur billions of dollars in business activity? I am not yet convinced either way because both sides of the climate change science are marred by cooked statistics. Atmospheric Science in extremely complex. This is not to say that we should continue in activity that harms the environment. We should not. I am at odds with this statement because my very existence in an industrial world, does harm the environment. Typing this response included. While the Internet is full of great and horrible resources, it is also a huge consumer of energy. To call those true scientists on either side the derogatory label deniers, is not a solution. It is important for each one of us to educate ourselves so that we may discern good science from bad science.

    • says

      Sorry, Sukey, I’m afraid you’re just misinformed. Solar cycles is a tired ruse of climate science deniers to distract from settled science that’s determined that humans are the primary cause of today’s climate change. And there’s no equating the two “sides” on this issue: The deception is all on the side of deniers and the big polluting corporations who pay them to lie.

    • klem says

      That’s right Sukey, you are a complete denier nincompoop. Eric Curren is right in every way since he knows all about it and I’m sure has arrived at this conclusion with no particular bias.

      Solar cycles have nothing to do with our climate, that giant ball of flame overhead is irrelevant to life on our planet. It is CO2 and only CO2. If you even suspect that there might be something other then CO2 involved, then you are blasphemous. And I’m sure dear old Eric will set you straight. He’s such a smarty pants.

      Right Eric, deary?

  6. James R. Martin says

    I share your concern, Lindsay, about folks saying things that discourage our taking seriously our need to dramatically reduce fossil fuel emissions in response to the climate emergency. The deniers occupy one end of the spectrum of such voices, while Guy McPherson occupies the other. In the case of McPherson, the claim is that it’s already too late and we’re all going extinct. This does nothing to encourage a carbon-reducing response, so far as I can tell. So I’d like to encourage you to find a scientists or two to challenge McPherson’s rather extreme and statisticaly marginal views in this forum. I worry at times that this is not so much a Transition Voice as I’d like it to be. But I’d not have you refuse to publish diverse voices! Diversity of views is important to magazines such as this. And so, at times, is debate.

  7. Ross Grayson says

    Thank you. I followed him for about 7 days when I first learned of him, cuz natural… And that’s when he started equating TSA screening at the airport with Nazis.

    While he is certainly free to be as psychotic as hewannabe, in his radical libertarian delusional and paranoid anti-science rants, that EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND people that think of THEMSELVES as enlightened and yet consider this to be meaningful information is simply Kafkaesque…

    And no, I can’t repeat that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


7 × four =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>