Back in 2001, the University of Florida wrote one of those “science by press release” thingy’s in Eurekalert where they speculated that global warming would increase ranges, and thus the range of mosquito borne disease.
The next year, NPR jumped into the fray with Is Global Warming Nurturing Parasites?
In 2006 it was Warming Trend May Contribute To Malaria’s Rise in Science Daily
In 2009 Gore gets bitten again by another factual blunder getting all worked up about mosquitoes in Nairobi.
Joltin Joe Romm and NYT’s Andrew Revkin agreed last year that:
The climate blogger Joe Romm and I agree (breaking news): Scientific research and assessments examining the link between human-driven climate change and malaria exposure have, for the most part, accurately gauged and conveyed the nature of the risk that warming could swell the ranks of people afflicted with this awful mosquito-borne disease.
Also in 2010, Indur Goklany did a WUWT guest post Smacking Down Malaria Misconceptions as well as this guest post from Dr. Pat Michaels where clearly the malaria data just doesn’t add up in Peer reviewed whack a mozzie.
I’m happy to report both Romm and Revkin are wronger than wrong, and the whole AGW to malaria link has just been shot down, in Nature no less, by a Penn State study. It may also be time to revist this WUWT post: Mann’s 1.8 million Malaria grant – “where do we ask for a refund’? since he didn’t contribute to this new study.
Here’s excerpts from the story in Nature:
Global warming wilts malaria
Transmission of infectious parasites slows with rising temperatures, researchers find.
A common assumption is that rising global temperatures will increase the spread of malaria — the deadly mosquito-borne disease that affects millions of people worldwide. But a study out today in Biology Letters finds that warmer temperatures seem to slow transmission of malaria-causing parasites, by reducing their infectiousness.
The study was done with rodent malaria, but the researchers, at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, expect the pattern to apply to human malaria and possibly to other mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue fever and West Nile virus.
Studies predicting that warmer climates will increase malaria infections commonly assume that the disease-causing parasites will develop faster and that the ability of the mosquito to acquire, maintain and transmit the pathogen will remain constant. They conclude that as temperature rises, mosquitoes become infectious quicker and therefore malaria transmission increases.
But the latest study shows that temperature has a more complex effect. As temperature rises, parasites do develop faster, but fewer of them become infectious.
“It is a trade-off between parasite development and parasite survival,” says Krijn Paaijmans, an entomologist and study author. “And if you don’t factor this in I think you come to the wrong conclusions.”
To tease out the factors involved, Paaijmans and his colleagues incubated mosquitoes infected with Plasmodium yoelii, which causes rodent malaria, at 20, 22, 24 and 26 degrees Celsius for 5–14 days. The researchers then examined the salivary glands of the mosquitoes — where the parasite travels when it is mature — and found that the parasite developed more quickly in warmer temperatures. But they also found fewer sporozoites — the infectious form of the parasite — indicating that the mosquitoes were less infectious at higher temperatures.
==============================================================
Full story here
Will Romm finally shut up about mosquitoes and malaria now? Will Revkin write a story correcting his previous ones? Will Mike Mann give back the 1.8 million dollars?
UPDATE: In comments, Andrew Revkin disputes that he was “wrong” on malaria per the quote I cited from the Climate Progress article. He now points to his 2010 article: ‘The science linking warming and malaria risk was always iffy‘ He says he was taken out of context and that his quote was poor word construct. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think that a “debunked” category tab at the top of WUWT webpage would be in order. In there all the debunked alarmist chicken little claims could be listed for easy access! A veritable hall of shame.
Runar says:
December 21, 2011 at 2:43 pm
I think that a “debunked” category tab at the top of WUWT webpage would be in order. In there all the debunked alarmist chicken little claims could be listed for easy access! A veritable hall of shame.
—————————————————-
It is already there. Top header, “Climate Fail Files” Problem is I only saw one example, when there should be many more. WUWT?
@David and Runar,
I actually think it is a good idea to make a listing of the scares that have been debunked. Unfortunately it is how the debunking is completed that will matter. For example, it is easy for someone who is a mosquito magnet to be very sceptical of claims that there will be an increase in malaria because of global warming, or of dengue fever for that matter.
I think that making claims about the diseases such as dengue fever, malaria, Ross River fever, Lyme Disease and similar is the kind of scares that got me to the point of not accepting any of the nonsense from these reports. The claims about an increase in Lyme disease are another example where a little bit of searching on Google brings some interesting results. Lyme disease is brough on my a tick bite. The ticks are found on deer. The next question for me, (I live in a country where we do not have the wild deer population) would have to be: has there been an increase in population of the deer, and then what conditions are required to see an increase in the population. Here in Australia we have a bit of a kangaroo population increase (I live in an area where the kangaroos are increasing in number despite being in an urban area) so my question is why has there been an increase? Perhaps it is because groups such as PETA keep opposing the necessary culling of the animals every year.
On top of Lyme disease, Malaria and Dengue fever, I thought that the alarmists had also mentioned increases in heart attacks, diabetes, and strokes. I am surprised that I have not heard them mention an increase in the various forms of arthritis to go along with the other diseases. It seems that they will tack on anything in these papers, so long as they mention globull warming of climate change.
In 2009 when I was in Canada doing the tours, I found myself increasingly irritated when mention was made of Climate Change. In particular it was irritating when it was mentioned in relation to the pine beetle. If the person had said something along the lines of “the past few winters have not reached a low enough temperature” and left it like that I might not have been so irritated. Last year in New Zealand I found it refreshing to have tour guides that were not going along with the b.s. and were making the more direct and obvious statements about how fjords are formed.
Most of the alarmism can be refuted by looking at the most simple and logical explanations that even a non-scientist can understand, such as photosynthesis. These simple explanations are being constantly overlooked.
Finally, the truth emerges out of Penn State. Bravo! Keep trying to bring out the truth, Penn State. It will ultimately be good for your soul.
I’m afraid I’m skeptical of both the earlier AGW increasing malaria and this one stating that infectiousness declines with AGW. First, let’s look at the last one – infectuousness is high in Africa where it’s plenty warm. Second, do these researchers on both sides knows that builders of the Rideau Canal to Ottawa Canada after the War of 1812 died of malaria and yellow fever, which we have since eradicated – note this was during the Little Ice Age – some like it hot, some like it cold!
Reblogged this on pindanpost and commented:
Mosquito season will soon be upon us…when it next rains, this has been a dry start to a ‘wet’ season for Broome…or, the calm before the storm. I undertook an interview with a UK researcher earlier this year who, soon after visiting Broome became ill. Months later she discovered she had Ross River virus, a mosquito borne disease that infects a number of people in our tropics, leaving them aching and lethargic. No cure, and can take years to get over it…
‘a physicist’ says:
“The belief that DDT cannot be freely purchased and applied to control malaria in Africa is startlingly widespread here on WUWT…”
“Startlingly widespread”?? I challenge you to cut ‘n’ paste a half dozen of those ‘widespread’ comments about DDT being banned in Africa. One or two comments does not equate to “startlingly widespread”.
Challenge accepted, Smokey. Just restrict Google’s search to the WUWT site: “DDT Malaria Africa site:http://wattsupwiththat.com” Result: 202 hits. And yes, mostly they’re on-target hits.
Thanks for the challenge, and a sincere “Merry Christmas” is outbound to you, Smokey!
‘a physicist’:
My challenge to you was:
I challenge you to cut ‘n’ paste a half dozen of those “startlingly widespread” comments about DDT being banned in Africa.
Cut and paste the actual comments specifically referring to Africa. Simples. Should be real easy to find all those ‘startlingly widespread’ comments… if they exist, as you claim.
Okey-dokey Smokey … I’ll give myself three minutes, cutting and pasting from WUWT as you request, changing not one word, and beginning now:
There. That took less than two minutes. Thank you Google! And I could have done not 12, but 100 or more similar quotes here on WUWT alone. Gee, it’s almost like there’s a playbook with these lines in it, eh?
‘a physicist’:
As I originally wrote: “Why should I have to convince anyone of anything if DDT is not banned?”
But Nick Stokes didn’t agree.
So Pat Moffitt added:
“Some more on defacto DDT bans… from an article in the British Medical Journal
‘It is possible that DDT will be used again in Mozambique. Its use there was stopped several decades ago, because 80% of the country’s health budget came from donor funds, and donors refused to allow the use of DDT.’… ‘Countries are banning… DDT because of continuous international and national pressures against DDT… working to stop the production, sale, and use… of DDT’ ” [and so on]. It is clear that DDT has been banned in Africa.
Nick Stokes claimed that there was no ban on DDT. He has been refuted by at least three others here. I suppose I wasn’t clear enough, but being one of those refuting Stokes, my original point was that DDT was in fact banned in Africa. You jumped in and opined that: “The belief that DDT cannot be freely purchased and applied to control malaria in Africa is startlingly widespread here on WUWT,” indicating that there is no ban on DDT. That opinion has been repeatedly debunked, which is what I was clearly [but maybe not clearly enough for you] referring to regarding DDT and Africa. But slippery eel that you are, you now try to turn your own argument on its head, and apply it to any mention of DDT/Africa, deliberately missing the point. But I don’t mind, since Nick Stokes has been refuted, and as your comments now show, DDT has been banned in Africa. The result is millions of unnecessary deaths. Not that either of you cares. They’re only Africans, right?
I asked Nick Stokes: “So, tell me where I can buy some DDT. At my local Home Depot? Where, if it’s not banned?” But of course DDT is banned both here and in Africa; banned just like machine guns are banned here. The government can use them, but not the citizenry. Why not? Because both DDT and machine guns are banned. Neither can be “freely purchased” as you claim.
So show us those “startlingly widespread” comments supporting the debunked claim that DDT hasn’t been banned in Africa.
Take your time. Maybe Nick can help you out.
Smokey folks who make and sell DDT count African nations among their best customers:
My comment above eliminated any wiggle room regarding ‘a physicist’s’ fictional “startlingly widespread” comments claiming that there is no ban on DDT in Africa. Of course there is a ban on DDT, which still cannot be “freely purchased” [to use ‘a physicist’s’ own phrase] to treat living spaces and sleeping areas. So as usual, ‘a physicist’ trots off in a different direction, still trying to rescue his lost argument. Wake me when I [or the average African] can go to our local Home Depot and buy some DDT in case we get bedbugs. That will mean the ban has been lifted. Last I looked, I couldn’t find DDT at the hardware store.
Rachel Carson caused milions of deaths from malaria by publishing Silent Spring. Her claim that DDT caused thinning of birds’ eggshells has been refuted, yet she never recanted. After all, what is increased African mortality compared with Rachel Carson’s reputation?
Smokey, maybe what the Africans don’t like are the male genital deformities associated to present-day DDT use in Africa?
Aphysicist:
You have forgotten equally hysterical studies claiming male genital malformation from eating chicken (http://nutritionfacts.org/blog/2011/09/15/eating-chicken-may-lead-to-a-smaller-penis/) or of course the alwalys eeevil phthalates causing smaller weenies (http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/newscience/oncompounds/phthalates/2005/2005-0527swanetal.htm).
Please do not reference these sorts of “fright of the week” studies to make a case on this site.
‘a physicist’,
Please don’t complain about your personal problems here.