
In a May 23 article “Climate change could bring insect-borne tropical diseases to UK, scientists warn,” The Guardian asserts that rising global temperatures are making Britain more hospitable to tropical mosquito-borne diseases like dengue, West Nile virus, and chikungunya. This claim is a lie. England’s climate has been suitable for the mosquitos bearing “tropical” diseases for centuries, with malaria, then commonly referred to as “augue” or “march fever,” being endemic across England even during the little ice age from the 15th through the 19th centuries. It was largely eradicated in the 20th century with the draining of wetlands and improved housing. Also, a thorough examination of existing scientific evidence shows that while climate can play a role in the spread of mosquito-borne diseases, the actual drivers of disease spread are primarily human movement, infrastructure, sanitation, and public health responses, not a mild warming trend.
“Climate change could make the UK vulnerable to insect-transmitted tropical diseases that were previously only found in hot countries, scientists have warned, urging ministers to redouble efforts to contain their spread abroad,” writes The Guardian, apparently unaware that malaria and other mosquito-carried illnesses were common in England throughout history until fairly recent times.
The Guardian article leans heavily on speculative projections about future climate conditions, quoting experts who cite worst-case emissions scenarios (temperature increases of 4–5°C) and suggest that “climate change is making the UK more hospitable” to mosquito vectors. Yet even those quoted, such as Dr. Robert Jones of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, admit, “[w]e are unlikely to see a dramatic surge in tropical diseases.” That observation undermines The Guardian’s entire climate alarmist framing of the story.
The article also acknowledges there is currently no human transmission of West Nile virus in the UK, and that the necessary mosquito vectors (e.g., Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus) are not established in sufficient numbers to pose a significant risk. This key fact contradicts the article’s headline and premise.
This isn’t the first time the mainstream media has made wild, unsubstantiated claims about climate change and mosquito-borne disease. Climate Realism has repeatedly debunked this narrative:
- Mainstream Media Wrong: Climate Change Isn’t Spreading Malaria to New Places – Shows how malaria’s presence and reappearance in places like Florida are due to human factors and poor vector control, not warming.
- Stop Misinforming About Malaria’s Spread – Washington Post – Highlights the fact that malaria’s decline in Europe and the U.S. occurred before significant warming, due to better infrastructure and mosquito control.
- CNN Hypes False Dengue Fever Claims – Exposes CNN’s unsupported claim that dengue is surging because of climate, despite lack of vector expansion.
- Environment Journal Wrong About Climate Change Increasing the Spread of Malaria – Refutes the erroneous assumption that climate change is now driving diseases that were already once common in temperate zones.
The science actually shows that the existence and spread of vector-borne diseases in modern times are more a function of public health breakdowns than any change in climate. As Paul Reiter noted in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, vector diseases such as dengue and malaria thrived in temperate Europe centuries ago and were eradicated due to modern sanitation and mosquito control—not temperature decline. Concerning Dengue fever, its spread today is strongly linked to global trade and travel, particularly via used tires and shipping containers, which harbor mosquito eggs, as noted in Nature Microbiology, June 2019. In that study the authors wrote, “[t]he primary drivers of the global spread of dengue and Aedes mosquitoes have been increased urbanization, international trade (e.g., used tires and plants), and human movement, not simply climate change.”
Importantly, Temperature thresholds alone do not establish mosquito populations, they are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for mosquitos to flourish. According to a second 2019 paper in Nature Microbiology, factors such as rainfall patterns, water storage behavior, and urban development are equally or more decisive. That study warns that focusing solely on temperature creates an overly simplistic and often misleading picture of disease risk projections. It emphasizes that mosquitoes require both suitable climate conditions and specific environmental features, especially stagnant water sources, which are often human-created.
Climate at a Glance: Malaria concisely rebuts the claim that climate change is driving mosquito-borne disease outbreaks. Data, in fact, shows that during the recent period of slight global warming over the past century, Malaria has sharply declined, and it is projected to possibly be entirely wiped out sometime after the year 2040. See the map below from an article in The Economist titled “The shrinking malaria map.”
This story is just one more instance in which The Guardian is irresponsibly promoting a doomsday scenario based on unjustified extrapolations of trends based on extreme model projections, while ignoring real-world epidemiological evidence and historical context. The suggestion that “long-term net zero policies” are somehow our best protection against mosquito-borne disease is false. Direct interventions like removing stagnant pools of water, the judicious use of pesticides and prophylactic medicines, and the possible release of genetically modified sterile mosquitos, are far more effective interventions to prevent present and future mosquito-borne diseases than indirect efforts like cutting fossil fuel use in the hopes of impacting future temperatures. Tropical diseases are not lurking outside British windows waiting for a warmer day—they are controlled through policy, infrastructure, and targeted disease vector management.
For a publication that purports to value science, The Guardian continues to betray that trust with activist journalism masked as evidence-based reporting. If they want to inform rather than incite, they’d do well to start with the facts and drop the fear-mongering.

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
Originally poste in ClimateREALISM
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

There aren’t many print worthy negative consequences for warmer weather – let them have “bugs like it too”.
Judging from YouTube lifestyle posts, Brits are not really into using window screens. As the UK is fairly cold most of the time, I can understand not having AC, but screens on open windows is so obvious a way of dealing with mosquitos.
What mosquitoes? Hence no nets.
If you don’t need them why install them?
But the Grauniad was going panic porn over mozzies!
Wishful thinking on their part – boring weather and tame wildlife
No standing water, no mosquitoes.
Some species do not need all that
much water.
Rewilding will sort that. Beavers, recreating ancient bogs, returning rivers to their old meandering courses amongst many other plans. The amount of water available for mosquito breeding is rapidly increasing.
The times I’ve been to England, it’s been so cold, dark, and wet that there is no way anyone would want an open window, screens or not.
They say social media is major source of misinformation MSM has them beaten hands down
Send the journalists to Siberia.
Then they would discover it is a mosquito infested swamp in summer.
Mosquitoes aren’t just a tropical menace.
Some of the worst swarms of mosquitoes are above the Arctic Circle where there are virtually no predators to the mosquito.
For instance, in Sweden, there are more mosquitoes as you go north.
If mossies are the problem, why isn’t malaria endemic in Alaska?
Most likely, not enough people carrying malaria go there. In order for mosquitoes to spread a disease, they first have to draw the blood of an infected animal
How many times does this completely fabricated story have to be debunked before it’s put to rest?
Until the last gullible person dies.
Guardian readers will ensure that never happens
Possibly of of a mosquito born disease
In The Grauniad’s defense, the collective intelligence of the journalists and editors on staff is equivalent to a mosquito’s.
You’re overestimating the Guardians collective intelligence of the journalists and editors
“Ague”, not “augue”
The mosquito story is a fever dream that seems to periodically get brushed off, but keeps circling around like a drunken barfly til it gets a scent of CO2 whereupon it resettles and probes for a little hair of the dog.
Story tip – Miliband take note
Nigel Farage has pitched an £80 billion tax-slashing, family-boosting spree funded by axing Net Zero and public sector waste.
“If we win the next election, we will scrap Net Zero, something that is costing the Exchequer an extraordinary £40 billion plus every year.
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/05/27/farage-to-scrap-net-zero-to-fund-giveaway-for-families/
Another phony panic. Recent advances in understanding how mosquitoes and other blood-feeding insects zero in on their hosts enables very targeted abatement control, rather than wide-area spraying.
There are widely available lures emitting CO2 and methane intended to work with bug zappers or other active bug killing devices to control indoor environments. But lures can also be paired with insecticide-permeated fabric cones attract and kill the female mosquitoes outdoors with negligible impact on the surrounding area or beneficial insect species. Replace the lure and refresh the insecticide periodically and you can have mosquito control over a wide area for the entire season.
Most malaria cases are in Africa. Why’s that? Good Guardian campaign. Eh?
They gave up on Don’t Die Treatment.
Note how The Guardian uses the term “could bring” more insect-borne tropical diseases to Britain. It’s not guaranteeing anything; it’s just claiming there’s a possibility of this happening. Except by that logic, the UK and much of Europe could be affected by a new Ice Age, rising sea levels, prolonged drought conditions, another regional or global war, an alien invasion—you name it. In other words it and all the other alarmist media outlets plus possibly the majority of climate scientists don’t know what’s going to happen weather- and climate-wise, but why pass up the chance of spreading alarmism if it makes for a good story.
Politicians and bureaucrats in Victoria, a State of Australia, subjected citizens to one of the more extreme reactions to the 2020 Covid-19 event. The Chief Health officer, Dr Brett Sutton, made near-daily TV appearances at one stage, offering cures or mitigation. The savage lock downs in which he played a part have since been heavily criticised.
On 4th May 2020, the Medical Journal of Australia published online “Acting on climate change and health in Victoria” by Brett Sutton, Vanora Mulvenna, Daniel Voronoff and Tiernan Humphrys from the Victoria Department of Health and Human Services.
In this pre-epidemic paper, the same Dr Sutton et al wrote about several matters, including tropical diseases like malaria involving spreaders like mosquitos.
I quickly objected to this paper and sought a retraction. It fell on deaf ears. My objections to Dr Sutton’s paper are linked below. They extend the controversy about such diseases and their spread in Section 3 of the objections.
Geoff S
https://www.geoffstuff.com/sutton.docx
Well, that’s all very well but has the guardian been humiliated by being forced to print a retraction in any edition?
The Guardian’s self-identified ‘journalist’ does not draw the obvious conclusion: bring back DDT. I wonder why.