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.
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