GMontag's Journal: Malaria due to 'climate change'?

Heard on the radio earlier, someone had written an article claiming that increases in malaria were due to 'global warming'/'climate change' or some such nonsense.

How about it is increasing because DDT is no longer allowed to be used to kill the mosquitos that spread malaria? I think the person on the radio was making the same point.

actually...

[btlzu2]

did a study on this in college. it's due to the fact that in many temperate areas of the world the frost layer is not reaching nearly as deep anymore and is not killing off nearly as many mosquito eggs as it used to. global warming is, in fact, increasing the world's population of mosquitoes--they're becoming more an more of a menace. there are plenty of other insecticides and introduction of natural predators of mosquitoes that work fine, but they're not able to keep up with the growth rate.

unfortunatel

Re:

[eglamkowski]

Love the sig :)

The question isn't whether global warming is happening, it's what is causing it. Then we get to "of course" some amount of variation is known to occur naturally, but how much of it, if any, can be attribute to "us" (i.e. humans). That's what most of the skeptics are getting at, the ones I've heard anyways.

Re:

[GMontag]

Ahem, in the 1940s when DDT was used the malaria rate dropped to almost nothing. When it was outlawed the rate went through the roof.

Now, if you want to blame the "throug the roof" part on global warming, stand in line for a tinfoil hat with the fake moon people. If there are current chemicals that will do the job, allow the nations with malaria problems to use them without the threat of the IMF of cutting off or calling loans.

Since DDT worked for real and the hysteria against it was nothing but hysteria,

Re:

[Servo]

Why can't you let natural selection take its course?!

As soon as you give DDT to third world countries their populations are going to expand even more uncontrollably. Do you really want to have to support even more third world welfare recipients?

On a slightly more serious note, I think it should be up to each country to weigh the pro's and con's of using or not using DDT. Let's say it gives 1% of the population cancer. That's not as bad as killing off 20% from mosquito borne illnesses. (these numbers are

Re:

[GMontag]

Give them DDT without other welfare :)

There's a reason it's called Greenland

[TheConfusedOne]

And I believe that it's because it actually used to be much warmer there.

Here's a hint, our sun is called a variable star. That means that the amount of energy it puts out changes. Additionally, we've had much warmer and much colder epochs in the history of the planet.

So, does this mean that we're not experiencing "global warming" right now? Of course not. The question is, are we the ones responsible for the warming? The reason this question needs to be answered is to figure out if the current moderate

Re:

[GMontag]

Quick question: What was the expected effect on global temperature to be achieved if everyone had adopted the Kyoto accords?

Nothing measurable.

Now, how are we going to stop anthropological solar heating?

Back to being serious, I find it quite funny that anybody believes the temperature in the 1800s could be accuratly measured to the tenth or less of a degree and that there were enough observations in enough places to have enough data to calculate an accurate average global temperature.

It is even funnier that

Re:

[btlzu2]

yer a little out a date there bud. first of all, the entire scientific community now agrees that the cause of global warming is the past 50 year increase in CO2. It is considered fact by informed people and not those who listen to those talking out of their asses. ;) i'd tend to trust the whole of the scientific elites' consensus over politically motivated "explanations".

secondly, the greatest increase in temperature was during the last 50 years. do you think we had the right technologies to measure tem

Re:

[dzimmerm]

An interesting article.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/414687 [medscape.com]

I will see if I can find more such articles.

This reminds me of a scene from Ringworld where Louis Wu breaks up an arguement between Nesuss and Speaker.

"Let collect more data, then we can shout at each other with more facts"

Another point for those that trust a certain viewpoint that some in the scientific community are currently expressing about global warming.

If one is to have money to conduct research then one has to find something that is in

Re:

[btlzu2]

i don't know about any of the other theories, but i have enough education to understand what the evidence is telling us *now*. that's the problem for me.

there's always going to be "noise" in the information, but i highly doubt there was a 100% consensus among all the top scientists and scientific groups. they don't need money just for this, there are TONS of other areas of study which can use money. aamof, the studies are done, the money is spent. there is no need for more money to study this as the res

Re:

[GMontag]

Well, I have both enough education and experience to bide my time when scientific grandstanders start tossing about hysterical predictions. Guess you missed the recent reports of increased solar activity or did you just dismiss them?

As the persion you are responding to mentions, just a few years ago the 'scientific community' was anticipating a new Ice Age. I accept as fact that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles and they happened many times before the Industrial Revolution.

I find it hard t

Re:

[dzimmerm]

I was reading the Wiki on ice ages and found an interesting piece that mentions a correlation to Flood Myths and the retreat of the last glaciers.

Humans tend to be pretty self absorbed. Keeping this in mind is it possible that the people who are concerned about global warming live in a coastal area and those that are not concerned about global warming live in a landlocked or more colder climate?

If someone who has always lived on the coast knows that an increase in temperature will cause their homes to be un

Re:

[GMontag]

Most of that is irrational fear anyway. The coastlines are in a constant state of change. Even without 'global warming' coastlines erode away and are built up in different forms all of the time.

Re:

[btlzu2]

i dismissed them because they don't correlate and never have correlated with they types of increases in temperature on earth that we're experiencing now [stanford.edu].

it's simply a fact that elevated levels of carbon dioxide trap more heat. this is PROVABLE and has been proven. i don't really know what else you need. if CO2 levels are many magnitudes higher than they've EVER been, the average temperature is higher than it's ever been, there are major crevices forming in the antarctic and on greenland, and you can prov

Re:

[GMontag]

Tick me off? Didn't at all.

However, this does remind me that I need to fill up both vehicles with hydrogen from Exxon soon.

Re:

[btlzu2]

oh good...i just read into the tone too much! :) yay hydrogen!!!

Re:

[TechnoLust]

Apparently no one told Australia, didn't arb say it snowed there the other day? :-)