By Jim Steele
The WHO Deputy Director-General’s press conference recently claimed climate change is causing “many, many diseases”, including Mpox, Marburg and Ebola, to accelerate in terms of their emergence. “It’s been driven by climate change, driven by droughts and floods.”
A quick look at Ebola reveals what totally dishonest monkey shit that claim is
Ebola Disease is caused by 6 different species of Ebola viruses that are carried by fruit bats and can be transmitted to monkeys and humans. Depending on the species, 25 to 90% of infected people die.
Until 2014, outbreaks of Ebola were reported from remote villages close to tropical rainforests in Central and West Africa. Graphic A shows where non-imported outbreaks were reported. Ebola is transmitted by contact with bodily fluids and organs of infected animals. Infected bats and primates can transmit Ebola to people who eat bats and primates as bush meat. However, care-takers of infected people or sexual contact with survivors can transmit the disease among people, enabling the disease to be imported into urban centers.
During an outbreak between 2014 and 2016, Ebola that was imported into urban areas resulted in over 28,000 cases. Multiple countries including Italy, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, Spain, the UK and the US, reported imported Ebola cases associated with this outbreak
The Reston Ebola virus species sickens non-human primates, but not humans. In 1989 in Reston, Virginia (USA), a colony of monkeys imported from the Philippines, caused outbreaks in non-human primates in Pennsylvania and Texas, and Sienna, Italy. These imported urban outbreaks have nothing to do with climate change.
A quick examination of the climate of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC; formerly Zaire) further shows no significant climate effect and further pulls the curtain down on the WHO’s climate lies.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a tropical country whose climate is controlled by the seasonal movements of the Intertropical Convergence Zone which causes an alternation between a wet and dry season. Data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of University of East Anglia and reported by the World Bank show how little climate change has occurred. The dry season for DRC happens when the ITCZ brings the rains to north. Precipitation during the dry season has changed from 217.85 millimeters during 1901-1930 average for June, July, and August to our current 30-year average of 216.38 mm, a 0.6% change. Similar percent change happens during the rainy season when the ITCZ is closer to the equator.
Similarly, a barely detectable change in average temperature raised the 1901-30 average of 23.21 C during the dry season to a current 23.61; a 0.4C change in 120 years.
The WHO propagandists want to convince all the gullible people that a 0.4 C rise in temperature and a 1.5 mm decrease in dry season precipitation over 120 years is a climate crisis increasing deadly diseases like Ebola. Only really stupid people will ever buy that dishonest crap.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Did I hear that Trump has “defunded” the WHO in one of his EOs?
He did.
If you believe the rumour his next act will be to sanction them so they can’t have contact with US financial system.
If you believe the rumour his next act will be to sanction them so they can’t have contact with US financial system. That will be done alongside sanctioning the ICC.
Good riddance WHO. Maybe I’m unscientific, but I don’t see how climate change could have had any impact on Ebola outbreaks traced to victims hanging out with exhumed relatives or frequenting prostitutes in equatorial African truck stops.
I can see no reason why WHO is involved in climate predictions in any way, shape, or form.
It will be hard to find an aid-giving group anywhere that hasn’t pulled out the CC card a time or two. Much better than saying your performance at what you were paid to do was less than acceptable.
It isn’t only WHO, and it isn’t only Ebola. The disease fear climate trope goes way back. Was featured in IPCC TAR, and by Scientific American in 2008 (SciAm specifically discussed malaria, cholera, and Ebola).
JAMA (!!) even had a serious peer reviewed article in 1996 specifically saying that climate change would cause the spread of malaria and cholera. Much ridiculed with almost two decades of subsequent data on both diseases in essay ‘False Alarms’ in ebook Blowing Smoke.
You know the alarmists have nothing when they repeat the same easily refuted nonsense decades later. Another good reason Trump 47 has newly withdrawn the US from WHO.
Too true! Just today I got an article in my MSN news feed by CNN about scientists claim severe bleaching killing the Great Barrier Reef do to climate change very high water temperatures. It was dated Feb. 2024. The claim was thoroughly debunked by Jo Nova and Jen Marohasy. This is from Google AI today.
“According to recent reports from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), the current average hard coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is around 33% in the central region and 36% in the northern region, representing the highest level recorded in the past 36 years of monitoring; however, the southern GBR shows a slightly lower coral cover at around 33.8% due to ongoing crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks.”
“…ongoing crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks.”
They can do a number on coral. Visited Green Island off Cairns in April, 1970, saw the results. Not good…..
Well the problem with stupid people is that we have so many of them. Consider that society is currently debating how many sexes there are, if men can have babies, and if 5 year olds can decide to have sex change surgery.
Question – does the WHO know what borders are and that crossing them is entirely controlled by human beings and not by climate? Well yes, some countries are stupid enough (see reference to stupid people above) to just throw their borders open, but that tends to be a short term thing as once the damage gets bad enough even the stupid people think its a problem.
To paraphrase the late comedian George Carlin on so many stupid people: “The median IQ is 100. Half are worse.”
As to the sex/gender thing, both words used to mean the same. Then libs decided that gender was about what ever you thought about your sex, not the biological reality. Leads directly to a basic definition of mental illness. Slipping the bonds of reality to where an associate Supreme Court Justice recently said she didn’t know what it meant. Which in a sadly odd way, is unfortunately correct.
It used to be that you had your sex between your legs, and your gender between your ears. Unfortunately, Trump did not consult me in time.
spot on
As far as sex/gender thing, both words used to have different meanings and have been conflated since the 1950s when talking about sex could not use the word sex.
Also, after WWII, a sociologist used gender in his study on sex based roles in society and which gender characteristics (masculine and feminine) were associated.
Gender originally was a language tool. Latin assigned words by gender (masculine, feminine, neuter) to make conjugation and declination of words simpler. You know the root word and the gender and the rest was cookbook easy.
Now gender identity is the point you are actually addressing.
When one studies Protagoras (450 BC) and the philosophy sometimes called Sophism, one begins to realize, using the category definition of gender, there are some 8 billion gender identities as each human has a unique identity and those identities are personal and very real to the individual.
A person can believe about themselves however they wish. What is stuff and nonsense is that if that believe is firm, why do they need affirmation?
Bottom line is, sex is biology. Gender is religion. I leave it to the reader to trace the intermediate steps.
5 years old my eye! It’s down to 2 years old, yes, two.
Last I read, a newborn knew what gender it was.
Ever see the look of awe and amazement of a newborn laying on the chest of the mother immediately after birth? That baby does not know.
Actually some babies are operated on at birth and it has been thus for a century or so.
Very nice Jim, keep the pressure on those dishonest CAGW clowns.
Nice to see someone using accurate terminology without asterisks.
“a 0.4 C rise in temperature”
It’s more than that. Here is a plot from NOAA’s climate at a glance for location lat 0° long 20°, in the middle of the Congo
It is 1.2°C since 1960:
Looks like a much better fit for a sine wave than a straight line.
You’d still get pretty much the same temperature increase.
And all of it from urban warming and El Nino events.
Here’s some raw.. ie unadjusted… data I picked up from central Africa.
And some longer term data from 4 major African cities
Shows that your graph starts pretty much at the coldest point since 1880.
Why is that ??
And another one from Karl showing 1950 far warmer than 1990.
Hey, bnice2000,
[snip. I’m going to enforce decorum more when the need crosses my path ~ctm]
odd, I can’t imagine Martin being rude to me. 🙂
I think you misread.
Oh. Wait. A smiley face. My bad.
Hmmm. Perhaps the concept of a sine wave is beyond your understanding …
Hint: try imagining a 60-year cycle, of which only 45 years are shown in your graph. Imagine what might happen to the cycle in the subsequent 15 years.
You’re welcome.
I’ve shown the full 60 years below. No cycle.
Very much a sine curve shape.
Nick you have shown 2024-1979 = 45 years
Now plot a sine wave from -180deg to +90deg
Not saying I buy it but it is a pretty good match 🙂
Here again is CRU data since 1900. Does Stokes cherry pick very often?
There have been many conflicts in the area of ‘the Congo’ since the 1960’s, but I’m sure these had no impact on the meticulous recording of temperatures. However, I’m more inclined to believe there may have been some meticulous data tampering on the part of NASA. Do you have the raw and adjusted temperatures for any of the stations?
THis is so typical of WUWT Jim Steele says the WHO is wrong, and puts out temperature data for Congo to prove it. I show that the temperature data says something else. Suddenly temperature data is worthless. No one queried it when it seemed to support Jim.
But if the data is worthless, where does that leave Jim’s case? He has nothing.
My bad! I should have searched ‘Congo’ on Tony H’s site first. Note the paucity of data and its location at Kinshasa:
https://realclimatescience.com/2024/01/record-climate-fakery-in-the-congo-2/#gsc.tab=0
PS – Jim cited CRU, you switched to NASA for some reason.
I switched because I could link to a source, which Jim didn’t. Also a difference in 30 year means is a coarse measure of warming.
But you haven’t answered the basic logic issue. If the data is no good when I quote it, why was it OK for Jim to use as proof of WHO failings? And if not OK, where does that leave this article?
Jim clearly describes his source:
Perhaps you don’t regard this source as credible? You may be in good company, of course.
So revealing, Nick!
I said Jim did not give a link.
Do you regard CRU as relayed by the World Bank (if correctly reported here) to be more credible than NOAA? Why? Because the figure is lower?
Just more misdirection, ignoring the issue raised. Putting words in others mouths, creating strawmen to destroy.
Same MO. Same reason people don’t take you seriously.
It leaves the article showing there is very little temperature or precipitation change.
Certainly nothing that could cause virus expansion.
And measured in Kinsasha… that is funny.
“Kinshasa, formerly named Léopoldville until 30 June 1966, is the capital and largest city of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Kinshasa is one of the world’s fastest-growing megacities, with an estimated population, in 2024, of 17,032,322. It is the most densely populated city in the DRC, the most populous city in Africa, the world’s fourth-most-populous capital city”
Yep, just the place for measuring “climate change ” 🙂
Not only did he switch to NOAA urban fakery…
… he shortened the period to only start in 1979, whereas Jim’s starts in 1901.
True he changed sources and showed only 45 years and then falsely claimed it also excluded cycles. It’s like a bait and switch argument.
Reading this it’s like reading two guys arguing over whether oranges or apples taste better.
Nick dear, is it a model data or an observed data? I don’t say the data is worthless, I say NOAA is not trustworthy.
So why don’t you take up data quality with JIm. It’s the basis of his case against WHO.
Jim cites data ‘A’.
You cite ‘B’. This is described as ‘untrustworthy’ by George.
You then tell George to take up data quality of ‘A’ with Jim.
Can you not see how pathetic this looks?
Why do you think data A is OK, and not B?
George said the data you cite is worthless. Instead of addressing that claim, you tell him to take up the quality if the (different) data Jim uses with Jim.
You completely ignored the claims and deflected the argument to something irrelevant. That’s your MO, and why people don’t respect your arguments.
I asked why he asked me to justify NOAA’s data about T in the Congo, but not to query Jim’s data about T in the Congo, which Jim’s article actually depends on. Well, why?
I’m not trying to prove anything here. Jim is.
Using data that starts in 1980 or 1960, compared to Jim’s that goes back to 1900ish.
No, you haven’t proven anything !.
Well I think he proved his grasp of basic data arguments is dorked.
Arguing with you is like trying to nail jelly to the wall, and about as productive.
I have tried to explain why people don’t take you seriously, and taken quite a bit of time to do so. It is extremely obvious to me that you just don’t care, or are well aware of this, and are happy to continue.
None of the WUWT trolls like Stokes ever argue in good faith.
WHO has been defunded by Trump.
They have nothing ! 🙂
The temperature data you show very clearly shows a step change in 1995/6 and again in 2017.
These cannot be caused by human CO2
And being NOAA data, it is probably from dubious surface sites and has been highly adjusted/homogenised.
Show us where it was measured… or you have nothing.
This so typical of Stokes the troll. First he tries to side step the issue of how Ebola is spread and that it has nothing to do with climate. Then to undermine the CRU’s temperature data from 1900, he cherrypicks a start date of 1960 and suggests my data is worthless without honestly examining the cause of the discrepancies. Of course that is because Stoke always has nothing!
According to the UAH the lower troposphere over the Congo has warmed 0.6C – 0.8 C since 1979.
It’s in the range .15 to .25 C/decade, which over 45 years is 0.675 to 1.125C. NOAA had 1.2C.
Please explain how “temperature/climate” can be measured to three decimal places of a degree.
Same method that the MET in UK uses based on “readings” from UK stations which the World Meteorological Organisation rates as grades 4 or 5, accurate to 2°C or 5°C?
This stuff is just dumb and mechanical. There are no measurements here. 0.15 and 0.25 are just gradations on a contour map, in C/decade. I multiplied by 4.5 (45 years) to get the difference. Exact arithmetic, exactly expressed.
Why use 45 years of fake data..?
And attempt to compare with Jim’s data which goes back to 1901.
Really not very “scientific”, is it. !
Doesn’t help your cause. !
Exact arithmetic on inexact data.
Decimal place resolution does not convey precision (although the term applies in a different sense) nor accuracy.
So someone there who’s now 64 years old has experienced the temperature going up by 0.02 degrees C every year?
Every morning through each year of their lives, they woke up to a day that was going to be 0.00005 of a degree C warmer than the day before?
It’s probably just as well that some scientist like you wasn’t there telling them this, Nick, or they would probably have just pulled the doona over their head and fretted how on earth that were going to get out of bed and survive this existential threat.
(BTW – isn’t there something in mathematics that talks about “significant numbers”?)
It means what it says. The environment is 1.2°C warmer in that season than it was. WHO thinks that helps EBOLA spread. Seems reasonable.
Was much warmer in the 1940s, 50s in Africa..
The graph you have is from totally unfit-for-purpose surface sites.
Prove otherwise by showing us where it was measured.
“The environment is 1.2°C warmer “
Measured where? Kinsashi, one of the faster growing cities in the world ?
NOAA data is always highly dubious. !!
‘Seems reasonable.’
Actually, it doesn’t. Why would 1.2C make any difference to a virus that replicates in mammals?
Particularly as the 1.2C is meaningless NOAA urban data !
Is it not possible that increased population density has something to do with this?
Nick FFS stop arguing stupidity.
Ebola outbreaks are almost exclusively in Africa here is the recorded outbreaks
https://www.cdc.gov/ebola/outbreaks/index.html
What temperatures have done elsewhere in the world is NOT IMPORTANT.
So your conclusion that using world temperature is good no it’s not it’s f#cking stupid.
I did not use world temperature.
No, you used absolutely fake junk data..
The hell you aren’t did you read the product info here since your to lazy to look let me get it for you
Global temperature anomaly data come from NOAA’s Global Surface Temperature Analysis (NOAAGlobalTemp), which uses comprehensive data collections of increased global coverage over land (Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly) and ocean (Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature) surfaces. These datasets have data from 1850 to the present. The land and ocean datasets are blended into a single product to produce the combined global land and ocean temperature anomalies. The global and hemispheric temperature anomalies are calculated with respect to the 1901-2000 average, the gridded temperature anomalies with respect to the 1991-2020 base period, while all other regional anomalies are based on the 1910-2000 period. For more information on these anomalies, please visit Global Surface Temperature Anomalies.
It’s based on based on some bastardized world land and water temperature which is why everyone is objecting to it.
Seems reasonable? No.
There’s also something in mathematics, and indeed in climatology, that talks about cycles. For example, a roughly 60-year cycle is very evident in most records.
Nick and his ilk are wont to ignore, and even to conceal, such a cycle, in order to suit their agenda.
Correction – I meant to plot since 1960, but in fact plotted since 1979. As such, the graph and T diff are correct for that year.
Since 1960, the temperature difference is even greater, at 1.6°C
Data doesn’t match your previous graph.. why is that ??
See 2010 for eg. !
Ahhh shit!
Now I have to do all my calcs about how much per day the temp went up for a 64 year old in Congo.
I was probably out by 0.000000002 degrees C per day.
If ever anything was going to absolutely guarantee a worldwide existential outbreak of Ebola, it’s the Congo daily temp going up by 0.00005 +/- 0.000000002 degrees C per day since 1960.
I’m so grateful that you’re on the case on this one, Nick
I’ll sleep soundly tonight.
(a few hazy IPAs might help as well 🙂 )
Very much a sine curve, particularly if you look at earlier data from other places in Africa.
Your graph starts pretty much at the very coldest period in Africa since 1880.
120 years ago is 1905.
Not 1960.
OK Nick, so let’s use your 1.2 degrees since 1960. Accepted at face value.
How does this cause any given disease to “accelerate” in emergence?
First of all, what is “emergence”? That’s very different from “spread”. Emergence implies new variants. New variants are a matter of evolution driven by mutation. Mutation in turn is driven by radiation, cosmic rays, anything that can flip a bit at the gene level. Temperature isn’t one of those.
What about spread? Well how would 1.2 degrees since 1960 cause diseases to spread more? That implies that people infected (thus being carriers) are also “spreading” faster. How does that work? Do countries open their borders when it gets warmer and just let people pour across them? Sure the United States had been dumb enough to do something that stupid but not most countries. Have there been droughts or floods that caused mass migrations across borders? There’ve been wars of course but those are caused by people in temperature ranges from -40 C to + 40 C so you can’t chalk that one up to temperature rise.
I just don’t see a physical mechanism by which diseases either evolve or spread faster because of 1.2 deg over 60 years.
It’s the 60 years or 120 or whatever that allows for mutations, not temperature. Number of replication cycles per year, each vulnerable to some minor degree to a mutation.
Couple it with the increased human population density. I do not recall the number of cases per capita anywhere.
It should also be noted that if you go to 0.0ºN, 20.0ºE…. (as shown on the chart)
… there is absolutely nothing there. It is sort of in the Congo River basin somewhere.
0.0ºN, 30.0ºE (as shown in Nick’s second graph below) is near Lake Edward, in Uganda.
This is totally fake data.
Correct it’s some sort of blended junk world data supposedly localized thru a somewhat opaque method.
Well, it is either fake data as you stated or irrelevant data.
The rise in temperatures are mainly due to The Urban heat effect, which is world wide,
Also we are still coming out of one of the coldest periods since the last ice age.
Higher temperatures in Rural areas, where most crops are grown is a good thing, extra Co2
is also good.
It’s the sun, orbital mechanics, planetary alignments, earth tilt wobble, etc.
The sun is not a constant. The orbit is not a constant. Not to mention other factors.
UHI effect is real, true.
Hmmmm. Why does Nick believe his graph is better than the data from CRU that I presented? Perhaps add NOAA to the list
Ryan Maue with a sense of humour… lol !
(from Tony Heller’s web site)
The climate alarmists have been strangely quiet about the cold weather in the Southern States. Can’t think why…
But, but, but NOAA forecast the hottest January in modern records…. not that many weeks ago.
Wouldn’t it be more conventional to call it the GULF OF CUBA ?
The population of Kinshasa grew slowly at first (from 5,000 people in 1889 to 23,000 in 1923) but increased rapidly after 1940;
after 1950 it doubled about every five years and by the beginning of the 21st century was approaching 5,000,000, a great many of whom lived in the squatting zones.
Estimated population 2024.. 17 million. !
Do you think this sort of population growth in dense, squatter like abodes, could have anything to do with disease spread. !
How could health and social infrastructure possibly keep up ?
Drop the decimal places on all those “measurements” and there will still be considerable uncertainty.
WHO have long held a lefty woke agenda. The people are irrelevant.
I really have not figured out why the WHO is involved with climate.
Of course, it is preposterous that WEF “owns the science” except perhaps by buying it.
why do some still insist on calling the Ivory Coast Cote d’Ivoire? Do they also call Germany Deutschland? or Spain Espana? Just asking
My memory of a major outbreak of ebola several years ago is that occurrence varied greatly with rationality of people.
One country in Africa took prompt action, President advised people to do so.
But another had serious problems, people were opening bags and putting hands on body in a Muslim funeral practice – ignoring advice.
I see considerable value in an operation that collates disease information and disseminates it.
And in prompt warnings but rational behaviour. And dissemination of specifics – that facilitated research for development of vaccines against SARS2.
Two large care residence chains in Canada took assertive action to protect their customers and staff the moment they understood that a new kind of virus was emerging in Communist China. But despite oppressive shotgun measures the government of BC did not shield residents of its care facilities – it failed to focus on actual risk, it failed to cut bureaucracy whereas private owners acted promptly.
It should be kept in mind that many Africans are poor with nutrition limits.
Especially where there is war. For example, Ethiopia has famines when its civil war flares up.
Climate catastrophists act in ways that will keep Africans poor.