

The inconvenient truth about malaria - jrmurad
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5592863/the-inconvenient-truth-about-malaria.thtml

======
TravisLS
It's cases like this that make it so easy to be skeptical about global
warming. There is a fair amount of real, verifiable evidence that global
warming is real, human-caused, and problematic, but none of it is dramatic
enough to make a good story. Endangered polar bears, Hurricane Katrina, and
out-of-control Malaria epidemics are a much easier way to get people's
attention.

Unfortunately, in the quest for a good story, the activists may give their
critics so much scientific firepower as to eventually lose the political
battle. It's happened with other environmental problems, and it looks poised
to happen again.

~~~
ellyagg
Evidence of anthropogenic warming is real, verifiable, and weak. Evidence that
it is problematic, or that scientists are even remotely able to predict its
magnitude and effect is nonexistent.

But the costs of prevention are 100% real and enormous.

One common argument for drastic public policy initiatives is the attempt by
some folks to seize the moral high ground with "humans are terrible at long
term planning". Yes, they _are_ terrible at long term planning, because humans
are _really terrible_ at predicting the future, e.g., predicting the size and
magnitude of AGW.

It's simply not true that preventing a worst case scenario is worth any price.
Coming up with imaginary worst case scenarios 50 or 100 years from now is as
easy as pie. That's not valid risk assessment.

Typically, AGW[1] proponents only argue from the expected value of our
investment in preventing global warming. Since the purported worst case
scenario is the extermination of humanity, the upside is our survival.
Essentially, the expected value is infinite, so the net present value is
infinite, so we should be willing to spend _all our money_ to prevent even a
possibility of AGW killing us off.

Since no one knows the risk, even to within several orders of magnitude, your
guess is as good as mine. Your opinion on AGW policy comes down to something
entire aside from the science, namely, your moral view of, and problem-solving
assumptions about, humankind as a whole.

AGW is not currently acute[2]. I choose to believe that in a hypothetical (and
vanishingly unlikely) case where it becomes acute, humans would weather it.

[1] There is currently no good way to describe the for and against on this
issue. Almost every knowledgeable person believes in the theoretical model of
AGW. Most people believe there has been some AGW. The true division is between
people who believe it's been proven that AGW is alarming and those who don't.
"AGW skeptics" is not really an appropriate term.

[2] Don't say it is. That's preposterous. AGW itself is weakly shown. Regional
climate changes have not been scientifically linked to weak AGW. Regional
climate change is the rule, including changes that melt ice and extinguish
species.

~~~
guelo
"Evidence that it is problematic ... is nonexistent."

Wow. What's amazing to me about this rant is how the debate has moved over the
last 10 years from "it's not happening" to "it's not a big deal".

So, our massively complex ecosystem is changing in ways that our scientists
don't fully understand and it's not a big deal? The ecosystem so complex that
scientists have a hard time using the world's fastest supercomputers to try to
model it. These real, verifiable changes to OUR ONLY ecosystem are not a big
deal even though nobody knows the outcome?

Your position is that playing russian roulette with our grandkids future is
worth it because the price of action is overwhelmingly expensive (or
infinite). But that's wrong, it's not that expensive. The European economies
that have reduced their emissions according to the Kyoto protocol have been
doing fine. Reducing the world's carbon emissions is easy, cheap and prudent.

~~~
artsrc
I suspect that reducing our emissions is actually not just cheap but cost
negative. You invest in energy saving infrastructure, like insulation, solar
hot water, public transport, more efficient appliances, lights, cars etc.

Increase the usage of renewable resources, like solar, hydro and wind.

And do R&D.

Just wait for the next down turn and instead of cutting interest rates have
the plans ready to do the investment. We probably have 4 to 10 years to do
some good planning.

~~~
DaniFong
At present, it depends on the strategy taken, ad of course it will depend on
the technologies developed. There are actually many many technologies which,
at present, will save you money in the long run (and the run doesn't even need
to be that long.)

The main barriers to adoption are laziness, cost of capital, consumer behavior
(not purchasing LED lights because they 'seem' too expensive), and most
importantly, lack of education.

Page 4 of this paper has a great graph where they examine costs and cost
abatement for a variety of 'green' strategies. Hybrid cars are the most
expensive!

www.khoslaventures.com/presentations/Hybrids.pdf

------
ams6110
_And malaria was only eliminated from the Soviet Union and large areas of
Europe in the 1950s, after the advent of DDT._

This is an important fact that is only mentioned in this one sentence. The
banning of DDT lead to millions of deaths in tropical areas (an "unintended
consequence"). Limits on CO2 emissions and the resulting impact on energy
production, manufacturing, and agriculture may well have unforeseen
consequences, which will, like the DDT ban, probably affect developing nations
more than anyone else.

~~~
spamizbad
DDT is still legally used to the quantity of 4000+ tons a years. I fail to
understand how it was "banned", as it's still widely used in countries like
India and several African countries. What actually happened was a bunch of
guidelines were established for its use, which any sovereign nation can ignore
with little consequences. The fact that the west decided to outright ban the
stuff isn't that big of a deal given the fact that there aren't terribly many
Malaria deaths in the United States or Norway.

And those restrictions were put in place for good reason: For DDT to be
effective in wide areas (rather than targeted spraying indoors) you
essentially need something potent enough to disrupt the entire Entomological
portion of the eco-system, which works its way up to small mammals, which can
eventually impact certain key predators.

One infamous example this occurred in Borneo in the 1950s. The WHO responded
to a malaria outbreak on the island by spraying DDT. It abated the malaria
problem but completely disrupted insect life which lead to numerous problems
culminating in roofs collapsing from an overpopulation of thatch-eating
caterpillars, along with killing of mammalian predators that ate lizards
(which ate DDT-laden insects). This caused an overpopulation of rats which
started spreading typhoid and plague. The rat problem was ultimately solved by
airdropping cats.

~~~
patio11
_which any sovereign nation can ignore with little consequences_

This is contrary to fact, because a) African nations are dependent on foreign
aid, and donor organizations both will not fund DDT and will quietly threaten
other funding if you choose to spray it and b) the prospect of African
agricultural exports being barred due to "contamination" by DDT residues acts
as another de-facto ban on DDT, since it threatens crippling economic
sanctions for using it.

(Oddly enough, the crop most often at "risk" is tobacco -- because God forbid
your cigarettes have harmful chemicals in them. There is an absolutely
priceless quote from a chemist saying that he's be more concerned that you got
nicotine in his DDT than getting DDT in your nicotine.)

Sources:

[http://www.africanagricultureblog.com/2008/07/malawis-
tobbac...](http://www.africanagricultureblog.com/2008/07/malawis-tobbacco-
industry-unhappy-with.html)

~~~
spamizbad
Is there any nation that has had aid withheld explicitly because of their
violations of DDT use? India shirks WHO regulations like crazy (including but
not limited to those pertaining to DDT) but received billions in aid during
90s, before they were a nuclear power. And it certainly hasn't slowed down
their position in global trade. Heck, their _human slavery_ problem furrowed
lots of brows but never amounted to any sanctions that I'm aware of.

What I'm trying to say here is if the hammer is going to come down on your
country, it's likely doing things waaaay worse than revamping its ecosystem
with pesticides.

~~~
patio11
_s there any nation that has had aid withheld explicitly because of their
violations of DDT use?_

Yes. Many nations have been told, in so many words, that if they continue
spraying DDT they can go find health funding elsewhere.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/11DDT.html?pagewa...](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/11DDT.html?pagewanted=all)

The above article cites Mexico, South Africa, Belize, and "[m]any African
scientists and health officials" as having been pressured in this manner.

~~~
spamizbad
That quote pertains to acquiring funding exclusively for programs that will
use DDT, and basically says that donors will be reluctant to fund something
that involves spraying DDT. Unless the only people who bother to give any
money to these programs are misinformed bleeding-heart environmentalists, I'm
not sure how much of a barrier that is. Nothing is stopping say, the Cato
Institute from starting a DDT spraying initiative to fight malaria.

------
benl
It's amazing what a little fact checking can do for your perspective.

After watching 'An Inconvenient Truth', I was quite affected by the supposed
plight of the Polar Bears. So I did a bit of research, and I found out two
fascinating facts:

1\. Polar Bear populations have increased massively over recent years.

2\. Polar Bears as a species are older than the last time the Arctic Ocean was
free of ice.

At that point, I began to suspect that I was being sold something.

~~~
billswift
Not only that, but polar bears are seriously migratory. If the ice retreats,
they'll just follow the edge of the ice (like they already do.)

~~~
sethg
And after there’s no ice left to retreat to...?

------
baguasquirrel
The fact that this guy is an epidemiologist doesn't impress me worth a nilly
bit. What I do know is that some of Gore's science is spotty, but that malaria
may indeed be affected by any sort of climate pattern changes. I've done only
a bit of traveling in my life, but I think it can hardly be disputed that
there are more mosquitoes in Florida than there are in NY, and more in NY than
there are in California.

The question then is: will global warming increase the primary factor and
secondary factors that contribute to mosquito breeding? Those factors are
clearly water/humidity first, and warmth second. California has few mosquitoes
because it's cold when it's wet and it's dry when it's warm, and Florida has a
lot because it's got warmth and water aplenty.

So then, the answer is complicated. Some places will see an increase in
malaria prevalence and some places will see a decrease, due to the varying
effects of climate change. California is set to be drier and warmer, so we
shouldn't have any increase.

But that's the twist. Some places are poised to become wetter and warmer, as
opposed to drier and warmer. Thus, places that don't normally experience it
will experience it (or at least be plagued by mosquitoes). The authorities in
those places won't be prepared for it. So either way you play it, global
warming _will_ cause some issues.

~~~
ghshephard
"Some places will see an increase in malaria prevalence and some places will
see a decrease, due to the varying effects of climate change. California is
set to be drier and warmer, so we shouldn't have any increase."

I figured I'd do some fact checking, for no other reason than that's what a
lot of this thread is about:

From: <http://diseasemaps.usgs.gov/>

Cumulative 2009 Data as of 3 am, Dec 08, 2009*

Cumulative Mosquito West Nile Infections by State:

    
    
       New York: 100
       California: 1056
       Florida:  3
    

Population of New York is approximately twice that of California, so, on a per
capita basis, Mosquito Infections of West Nile Virus are five (5) times more
prevalent in California.

Florida has almost _no_ west nile infections (though they have a lot of
mosquitos)

We need to be cautious about conflating disease and insect prevalence, as
tempting as that may be.

------
mahmud
I nearly died of malaria in the middle-east, but never got it in Kenya and
Somalia when I lived there.

You don't need DDT or any poisons to get rid of mosquitoes, we used frogs and
fish. Any puddle of sitting water was filled with sand as quickly as possible.
And any largish natural body of water got fresh-water fish and frogs
introduced to it. No questions.

In Kenya (Mombasa) and south Somalia, even sea-water fish worked for us. I
used to take off my Sarong and catch little fish for our wells.

------
willwagner
FWIW, this is a peer-reviewed article he wrote on the subject in 2001.

[http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2001/suppl-1/141-161reiter/...](http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2001/suppl-1/141-161reiter/reiter-
full.html)

------
Periodic
Like his claim about the people he is attacking, it felt like his arguments
were a little empty. He certainly had some facts about the actual movement of
malaria, but most of the piece was dedicated to attacking specific climate-
change proponents on one small issue. He even went as far as to claim that
everything Dr. Epstein and co. published is a myth with the only evidence
being one article on which the author is now correcting.

 _In truth, the science is never in. We’re not pollsters or policy-makers. We
proceed by question, observation, hypothesis, and testing by experiment. We
are still re-testing Einstein’s theory of relativity! So I’m happy to be a
sceptic. That is how science works._

I think if you were to go out and try to claim that relativity wasn't true and
still needed to be tested you wouldn't get much attention from the rest of the
scientific community. Science is about finding evidence that verifies or
falsifies a claim, but once that has been done multiple times (as it has with
relativity) people find that it is much easier to just accept is as true until
they find evidence to contradict it. I think it is a bad comparison.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_He even went as far as to claim that everything Dr. Epstein and co. published
is a myth with the only evidence being one article on which the author is now
correcting._

No he didn't. He claimed that Epstein publishes primarily opinion pieces in
scientific journals, which are then cited by activists as if they are actual
research.

A quick perusal of Epstein's CV suggests the first part of this claim is true:
<http://chge.med.harvard.edu/about/faculty/epstein.html>

I imagine he focuses on the actual movement of malaria because he is a medical
entomologist and didn't want to make claims he was uncertain of.

~~~
kscaldef
> I imagine he focuses on the actual movement of malaria because he is a
> medical entomologist and didn't want to make claims he was uncertain of

Which didn't stop him from making claims that his nomination to the IPCC would
have been blocked by other countries and insinuating that some conspiracy
caused his nomination to be mysteriously lost. Honestly, I was a lot more
sympathetic to his arguments until I got to that part of the article.

------
10ren
He has a nice line in rhetoric. I especially liked _global warming ‘sceptics’_
and pointing that a true scientist is always a _skeptic_ (his spelling is
legit BTW)

------
wendroid
25%-30% of the worlds human population has been wiped out in under a year a
few times. Sucks to be the 1-in-3 but fuck it, let's go shopping.

------
rbranson
Consider the source.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Reiter>

<http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=421>

<http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/6786/>

~~~
artsrc
Basically the bulk of the article says malaria is better characterized as a
disease of poverty than as a disease of warming. It seems to me that this is
the best analysis based on our knowledge. Are there any reputable scientists
who hold an different position?

