Nice website, shame about the ideological blindness

Masthead-v6 A blogger friend of mine who subscribes to sent me the a link to an article on it, entitled ‘Global warming computer models collapse; Arctic ice sheets rapidly expand as planet plunges into global cooling’ , challenging me to find the scientific flaws in it. Sadly, this was very easy: There is no valid science in the article, which is written by Mike Adams, who… “is an award-winning journalist and holistic nutritionist with a passion for sharing empowering information to help improve personal and planetary health…” (i.e. he is not a scientist). Indeed, upon reading the article and doing some investigation of its sources (etc), it quickly became apparent that the article is, in fact, just a regurgitation of misinformation posted by scientifically-illiterate journalists in the Mail on Sunday (David Rose) and Sunday Telegraph (Hayley Dixon). ***Update – Apparently ‘Hayley Dixon’ IS David Rose (see first comment posted below)*** Dana Nuccitelli, author of a number of peer-reviewed articles on the scientific basis for concern about human-caused climate change, has done two good demolition jobs on these articles: (1) briefly (on both) on the Guardian website; and (2) in more detail (on David Rose) on the SkepticalScience website: (1) – Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph (2) – Arctic sea-ice ‘growth’, a manufactured IPCC ‘crisis’ and more: David Rose is at it again However, for the record, this is my response to the (un)original article by Mike Adams: The flaw in the article is that it is full of statements of opinion dressed up as fact; and that those opinions can only be justified by dismissing the consensus view of our predicament as a political and/or scientific conspiracy. Indeed, this article is quite remarkable in that it manages to include just about every ‘sceptical’ argument I have ever heard. All of which are answered on sites like SkepticalScience/Arguments. The problem, of course, is that if you are a conspiracy theorist, any source of information that conflicts with your beliefs is automatically rejected as being part of the conspiracy. If so, how do I know that it is not me that is the conspiracy theorist? That is simple: My beliefs are not just my beliefs; they reflect the settled view of the vast majority of relevant experts based on an examination of all of the evidence. Therefore, unlike the erroneous consensus that the Earth is flat that was overturned by the weight of conflicting evidence, the consensus that humans are the primary cause of climate change will never be overturned by people like Mike Adams who cherry-pick the only data capable of justifying an alternative view. To dismiss the vast majority of experts as stupid, mistaken, or deceitful, is not just conspiracy theory; it is also highly improbable. As I have now said many times, it is more likely that the Moon Landings were faked and/or that 9/11 was an inside job. Clearly, people like Mike Adams (who has chosen very unwisely to live in Tuscon, AZ – one of the World’s most unsustainable cities) are perfectly at liberty to choose to believe conspiracy theories rather than accept science. However, in doing so, the vast majority of the evidence suggests that they are being ideologically blinded to the intellectual dishonesty required to make that decision: The decision not to follow the evidence to the fully justifiable conclusion that humans are primarily responsible for what is happening to our planet and need to modify their behaviour accordingly. Resources are not infinite, and perpetual growth in consumption of any resource is therefore ultimately impossible. Fossil fuels will run out one day and we therefore need to plan for a World without them. However, now that we know burning them is endangering the climatic stability that made all life on Earth possible (i.e. the settled view of the vast majority of scientists), we need to phase out fossil fuel use wherever possible; and as fast as possible. If we do not plan for this transition (to a fossil fuel-free future), it will happen anyway (and be a lot more abrupt, costly, and unpleasant). Therefore, as someone once said, “Failing to plan is tantamount to planning to fail!”


About Rick Altman

Possibly just another 'Climate Cassandra' crying 'Wolf' in cyberspace. However, the moral of the old children's story is that the Wolf eventually turned up!
This entry was posted in Arctic, Climate Science, Cognitive Dissonance, Environment, Junk Science, Pseudo science and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Nice website, shame about the ideological blindness

  1. Lionel A says:

    Well the nonsense regurgitated by Adams has been disembowelled by not a few, one of which is Australia based blogger Sou here (always worth a visit) where it becomes apparent that David Rose and Hayley Dixon are likely one and the same. It seems that obfuscation stretches to the identity of the author with these opinion writers. ‘A rose by any other name ….’


  2. Duncan says:

    You have erred in referring to the Daily Mail as a “Newspaper”. It is merely a collage of “human interest” guff and startling cures for every disease known or unknown. It also employs a quaintly named “science editor”. Funny old world, ain’t it? I really cannot understand the reluctance to accept evidence that is available gratis and on all channels of information. Are these the new Luddites of our time?


  3. Excellent post, Rick. One that should be widely promulgated.


  4. If a comment has a URL does that get ‘binned’? Left two further comments that haven’t made it to your post.


  5. Patrice Ayme says:

    Fanatics feed on the improbable, unlikely, outrageous. The more that way, the more certain they are about their greatness, and the depth of the revelation that makes them exceptional.


  6. Pingback: The hypocrisy of willful blindness | Anthropocene Reality

  7. I have a few friends who post NaturalNonsense. I send them this,, including “If you cite NaturalNews on any matter whatsoever, you are almost certainly wrong.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s