The scientific consensus on hurricanes, which isn’t covered by breathless climate reporting, is that humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century. We must demand honesty and contextual complexity on climate reporting.
As Hurricane Beryl barreled its way across the Gulf of Mexico and into the U.S. mainland, the attention-getting headlines had beaten it there by a long shot – claims that it was a remarkable outlier were appearing in climate-frantic narratives more than a week earlier.
CBS News claimed it was “historic,” alongside headlines on “How to talk to your kids about climate anxiety.” The BBC reported that it was “the first hurricane to reach the category four level in June since NHC [National Hurricane Center] records began and the earliest to hit category five – the highest category – in July.” While technically true, and warranting some mention, the claims tend to misrepresent, by implication and association, the current scientific understanding of hurricanes and human impacts on climate change.
The scientific consensus on hurricanes, a consensus not covered by breathless reporting on climate, is that humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century. The National Climate Assessment published by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, for instance, in Appendix 3 reads:
There has been no significant trend in the global number of tropical cyclones nor has any trend been identified in the number of US land-falling hurricanes.
So what’s actually going on? Is Beryl’s historic early arrival an indication of something fundamentally different about hurricane activity? Does it or does it not represent the bitter fruit of humanity’s ecological sins? The answer is almost certainly not. Rather, the hype around Beryl’s early arrival represents a major misunderstanding, a mass-bias phenomenon which sees evidence where evidence doesn’t really exist.
Historically speaking, of course, hurricanes are commonplace in the Gulf. “Hurricane” derives from the prehistoric Taíno name for the god of evil winds, Jurucán. The Spanish quickly adopted the name to describe the violent storms which wreaked such havoc on their exploratory efforts in the New World. Both the 1527 Narváez and 1539 De Soto expeditions, for example, were pummeled by hurricanes that may well have reached category five, had the NHC been around to classify them as such. So while it is conceivable that Beryl is a major anomaly and portent of evil tidings, it is very unlikely to be.
Instead, its media portrayal as Exhibit A in the case for anthropogenic climate change is fundamentally inaccurate. Today’s dire headlines are a perfect example of what Steve Koonin, in his book Unsettled, calls “the long game of telephone that starts with the research literature and runs through the [scientific] assessment reports to the summaries of the assessment reports and on to the media coverage.”
The media, he says, often end up distributing a narrative that is directly counter to the actual evidence. They do this partly from misunderstanding the scientific and statistical significance of observations, but mostly because extreme headlines fit a generally understood narrative. Such reports are far more likely to be recognized and absorbed by the news-reading public. This selective attention pushes a bias toward extremism in climate reporting that significantly inflames the political climate, to our collective detriment.
Not widely reported, for instance, are counter-narrative facts such as that since 2011, major hurricane counts have dropped below their 170-year average. Or the fact that the Great Barrier Reef, once a poster-child of climate doom, has now hit record levels of coral cover. It doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to picture what the headlines would read if these positive facts were reversed: “Major Hurricanes: Highest Number in Centuries!” or “Barrier Reef Records Lowest Coverage in Recorded History.” These are headlines we can easily envision, but have not seen, because they are entirely backward.
Instead, what happens is that reports which are technically true (like Beryl’s record early arrival) make it into the common current only if they fit the general alarmist narrative. The BBC perfectly exemplifies this in its coverage, noting that “Hurricane Beryl’s record-breaking nature has put the role of climate change in the spotlight.” It then goes on to say, toward the end of an article most people will never fully read:
The causes of individual storms are complex, making it difficult to fully attribute specific cases to climate change. But exceptionally high sea surface temperatures are seen as a key reason why Hurricane Beryl has been so powerful.
This is how the slight-of-hand works: BBC reporters, no doubt in interviews with hurricane experts, were obliged to quibble somewhat about the implications of Beryl’s record-setting classification. They properly note that it is “difficult” (impossible, in fact) to attribute Beryl’s record to climate change as such. And they are correct that high sea surface temperatures are a major factor in Beryl’s extraordinary rise. But it is the way these technical truths are presented that leads to errors in association. Very few casual readers would be likely to read the article, headlined with “How record-breaking Hurricane Beryl is a sign of a warming world” and not make an inductive leap to the causal inference of human-induced warming. This is a problem, because such an inference is in fact not substantiated by any scientifically accepted observations.
Now, to be sure, this works both ways. This is not a claim that human emissions have no impacts, after all, only that we must be very careful about what the evidence actually says before channeling it into policy recommendations. Nor is my point that we can safely disregard all negative reports about the environment, since there are clearly issues that warrant our genuine collective attention. For instance, I’ve played a bit of sleight-of-hand myself: I correctly noted that major hurricanes are below the historical average, but I did not highlight the fact that overall hurricane count is up. Likewise with the Great Barrier Reef: while coral coverage is remarkably up, the kind of monoculture coral crop accounting for the rise still leaves room for ecological concern.
The real point is that we must demand honesty, including contextual complexity, on climate reporting. Especially since the stakes are so high (either in matters of our environment or individual liberty), we cannot afford to play games with half-truths and obfuscations. Intelligent free people deserve fuller, more comprehensive, less-activist reporting on climate change. Beryl has made a record of sorts, yes. What that record really means in the context of human-induced climate change is fundamentally, scientifically unknown. Maybe that would be a better headline.
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
The revival of health consciousness that has taken place in this decade has changed the way the general public views healthcare—forever. The COVID Operation put health back into the conversation. This elevation in the collective health consciousness has led to a Wellness Revolution, worldwide.
Patients now understand the reality of the state of healthcare systems. The fact is that we are a highly medicated and highly vaccinated society, and the truth is that as the use of these products has increased, so has disease prevalence.
If we take more vaccines and more medications than ever before as a society, shouldn’t we be healthier than ever? Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. The global population is sick and only getting sicker; the toxic injectable products, gene therapy, so-called “COVID Vaccines” made sure that people become permanent clients of the sick-care industrial complex.
A stellar example of this phenomenon is the United States. The United States makes up around 4% of the world’s population, yet it represents around 64 to 78 percent of global pharmaceutical profits. This should mean that Americans are the healthiest in the world by far, right? Unfortunately, no. The United States leads the world in chronic disease prevalence and has a significantly lower life expectancy than most other developed nations.
The current system is fraudulent. People are taking notice of this fraud. In protest, they are looking for alternatives to traditional medicines for disease care. One of the emerging therapeutics in this realm is nutraceuticals.
Nutraceuticals are foods or elements of food obtained from plant or animal origin with significant medical or health benefits utilized to prevent or cure diseases. The medicinal use of food or food elements derives from the beginning of modern medical understanding. Hippocrates is famous for his remarks on this issue. He states, “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.”
As an allopath (Pediatric Allergist/Immunologist), I increasingly shift towards this alternative line of thinking. I am not saying that all medications are bad, but I think we have to be far more selective in the way we use them.
Recently the term “nutraceuticals” has regained relevance. Once brushed off by the medical community as fringe “pseudoscience” with no demonstrated clinical benefits, is now being lauded at the highest levels of healthcare policy. In a controversial tweet, just before the U.S. Presidential Election, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. shared some details of his plans for public health in the United States.
With RFK Jr. via Zoom in July 2022
I have repeatedly mentioned the significance of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s appointment to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. His appointment assures that the official narratives on alternative approaches will change from a tone of “aggressive suppression” as RFK describes it, to one of medical freedom. This will surely accelerate the effects of the wellness revolution.
The Wellness Revolution
This movement represents a change in the public’s attitudes toward their health. This has materialized in several different ways. First, it is in the products that patients choose to consume. Pharma, for example, has taken advantage of this wellness attitude shift by introducing products such as GLP-1s, statins, and other drugs to remediate the effects of the chronic disease epidemic that they caused. Additionally, it’s very common to see these drugs cause side effects, forcing patients to take yet another pill to “alleviate” the adverse effects, resulting in a never-ending vicious cycle.
It all boils down to a social movement that emphasizes disease prevention and longevity. The medical device industry has seen an explosion of growth for these reasons. Particularly wearable medical devices such as health trackers. These functional health trends are transforming patient care.
Probably the most significant way that this wellness revolution is materializing is in terms of diet and nutrition. The dietary supplement and nutrition industry has seen an explosion in growth over the last couple of decades, and with growing demand due to distrust and disillusion with traditional pharma and medical systems, this growth is set to continue. But even in nutrition, we have to regulate how they treat the source with pesticides and fertilizers, etc.
The term “nutraceuticals” is relatively new but has gained rapid relevance in alternative medical spaces. Although the term encompasses a broad umbrella of elements, essentially it refers to natural food products or components found in food that can be utilized for medicinal purposes. This can include components such as prebiotics, probiotics, vitamins, fibers, etc.
This functional approach to health is what will take the medical profession into the future. At the end of the day, these methods are in the best interest of the patient.
The microbiome is another example. A new world of information that explains how bifidobacteria interact and regulate many bodily functions. Dr. Sabine Hazan, an expert in the field, has talked extensively about this issue in her book “Let’s Talk SH!T”, a must-read.
Functional foods and nutraceuticals will be the base of treatment in the foreseeable future. These compounds provide health benefits beyond basic nutrition and contain bioactive compounds that can affect the body in various ways. for example, reduce cholesterol levels and inflammation, including examples such as fermented foods like miso, kimchi, flax seeds, salmon, omega-3 fatty acids, and walnuts. While compounds such as probiotics promote gut microbiota balance, which is crucial for immunity and digestion.
The immense majority of diseases have one common denominator: Inflammation. Considering how functional foods and nutraceuticals have inflammation-reducing benefits, these products can have an extensive range of applications.
I would like to provide a couple of examples of bioactive compounds that have medicinal benefits. Turmeric and Curcumin, for example, have anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant benefits and may also contribute to remediating the effects of heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and depression. Some even cite turmeric’s potential to inhibit cancer progression.
What the shift to these products also represents is an emphasis on prevention. Increased clinical use of these types of natural products will promote a culture of disease prevention rather than disease management.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was asked in an interview recently with CNBC’s Jim Cramer about his thoughts on GLP-1s. RFK Jr. responded by saying “The first line of response should be lifestyle. It should be eating well—making sure you don’t get obese…”
This represents a fundamental shift in the line of thinking in those leading public health policy. I have never heard anyone in government speak that way.
The ideological change that is set to take place as the new administration takes power will surely flow downstream to medical standards of care, further exacerbating the growth in the market of natural remedies, including nutraceuticals.
I fully support this change. For too long, patients and even doctors have been attacked on all fronts, forcing them to cave to the status quo or face excommunication from the medical religion. If we are sincere, medicine is a religion. Dr. Robert Mendelsohn touches on this topic in his book “Confessions of a Medical Heretic”.
Physicians from all medical orthodoxies, whether they be allopathic, homeopathic, osteopathic, or naturopathic, should unite in consensus about the healing effects of these compounds and their applications in treating and managing disease.
A shift away from over-medication is necessary to reverse the effects of the chronic disease epidemic and the long-term promotion of optimal health.
Nutraceuticals: Bridging the Gap between Nutrition and Medicine. This emerging field has become a cornerstone in the shift towards preventive healthcare, where the focus is not only on treating illness but also on sustaining optimal health. A new awareness in the field of medicine is on the rise, as physicians, we have to be loyal to our Hippocratic oath “Primum non nocere”. In modern medicine, praxis physicians rarely ask the patient about the quality of their sleep, the basis of their diet, and the patient’s social environment.
I’m excited to see what the future holds for this momentous awakening.
FIN
Biopolitiks by Dr. Alejandro Diaz
Share and subscribe for critical insights on how health and politics shape our world. Join a growing community working to redefine the future of healthcare and governance.
President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to drastically cut government and clean out inefficiencies, but he faces an entrenched power in Washington, D.C. that may throw a wrench in his plans: federal government public employee unions.
“For president-elect Trump to succeed at making the federal bureaucracy more efficient and accountable to the American people, he’ll have to once again do battle with federal unions,” Max Nelsen, a labor policy expert at the Freedom Foundation, told The Center Square.
Trump has tapped top businessmen Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to lead the new Department of Government Efficiency effort. Musk has claimed he can cut $2 trillion in federal spending.
In a November joint editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy pledged “mass head-count reductions” in the federal government.
Firing federal workers is notoriously rare and difficult, but Ramaswamy has publicly said that mass, indiscriminate firings may allow for circumventing the usual bureaucratic holdups for firing a federal employee.
Trump himself recently pledged to cut “hundreds of billions” in federal spending.
“Government unions are hands down the single most significant defenders of the administrative state,” Nelsen said. “Their interests are always served by bigger, more expensive, less accountable government, and their partisan allegiance to the radical Left leads them to both overtly and covertly undermine conservative policy changes across the federal government…”
The first battle with unions in the DOGE war may be federal work from home policies, where unions have already threatened legal action to protect their pre-arranged deals with the Biden administration.
Trump threatened to fire federal employees who are not willing to report to the office, a clear shot at federal work-from-home policies, something Musk has also blasted in recent weeks.
“If people don’t come back to work, come back into the office, they’re going to be dismissed,” Trump told reporters during a news conference at Mar-a-Lago.
The largest federal employee union quickly shot back after Trump made the comments and threatened legal action.
Trump’s comments are likely at least in part reacting to a Biden administration official negotiating a deal with a union that extends until 2029, after Trump is scheduled to leave office.
As The Center Square previously reported, Social Security Administrator Martin O’Malley negotiated a deal with union leaders to codify work-from-home policies, keeping telework in place for his 42,000 employees until 2029.
Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal employee union, pointed out that these contracts are legally binding.
“Collective bargaining agreements entered into by the federal government are binding and enforceable under the law,” Kelley said. “We trust the incoming administration will abide by their obligations to honor lawful union contracts. If they fail to do so, we will be prepared to enforce our rights.”
Trump’s backers may have an ace in the hole, though, in the form of new Supreme Court precedent.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this year in a landmark case to overturn Chevron deference, the longstanding legal practice of giving federal agencies broad power to interpret and practically change and expand federal laws as they deemed fit, citing their expertise.
Now, Musk and Ramaswamy will likely have more leeway in cutting rules from the books and workers from the payroll.
Nelsen said Trump should limit the amount of federal dollars that go toward unions, and that he should increase union transparency.
“Additionally, President Trump will need a cadre of energetic appointees at the Office of Personnel Management, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, and in labor relations departments government wide to aggressively implement his directives,” Nelsen said. “Finally, to truly have a long-term impact, President Trump will need a successor in four years committed to continuing the fight.”
