Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Not this canard again ...
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, April 03, 2008

The great global warming "malaria will spread" myth is on the march once again after being refuted in 2000. Apparently such nonsense is recyclable:
Climate change could bring malaria and other diseases to Britain and trigger more frequent heatwaves that will have huge health impacts, doctors said on Thursday.

With the exception of Lyme disease, insect-borne diseases are largely unknown in Britain. But global warming could change that in a few decades, according to a report from the British Medical Association (BMA).

"Higher temperatures and heavier rainfall may increase the spread of infections like malaria that have previously been virtually non-existent in the UK," the organisation's Head of Science and Ethics, Dr Vivienne Nathanson, said.
But Paul Reiter, chief entomologist at the US Government's dengue research laboratory in Puerto Rico, says climate change is not to blame.

He pointed out, in an interview with New Scientist magazine, that virtually all of the US was plagued by malaria in the 1880s, and that the disease had been endemic as far north as Finland.
Finland? Hardly a tropical paradise, is it? As the latter article points out, there's a fairly simple explanation as to why we don't have malaria in either Philadelphia or Finland today:
Improvements in public health monitoring as well as increases in population density helped largely eliminate the threat of the disease toward the last decade of the 19th century.
Oh ... that and something called DDT.

Linked by EcoTyrants - Thanks!
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Them mos-queet-oes are gonna have to dig out from under some snow up in Seattle... :)
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
"increases in population density"

That must be a politically correct way of saying they paved paradise and put up a parking lot. Increased population density by itself does nothing but make a target rich environment for the mosquitos, as any epidemiologist would probably say.
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Oh ... that and something called DDT.
What’s DDT? You know that the only approved method of fighting malaria involves lots and lots of mosquito nets!

Oh yeah...

Written By: shark
URL: http://
I would guess Finland had malaria due to the number of swamps. Of course, hardy pioneers drained a lot of those, but now we have to "protect our fragile wetlands."
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
It’s just noise to mask out stories like this BBC story.
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Caught this response on another blog to another question but it seemed to fit here.
For example, Progressive Democrats of the 1930s would have loved to just substitute Socialism for the reigning economic, political and social mores of the day. This is not as ridiculous as it may sound today since a broad swath of the political elite - including a number of classical economists - believed Socialism to be both “scientific” and “inevitable”. What stood in their way? Not really FDR - look at his attempts to pack the Supreme Court to ram through his programs.

No, what stood in the way were the “values, institutions, and fellow citizens” of America. Given the dramatic failure of the Soviet Union and our understanding of the ruthless repression that evolved there, that America is *extremely* fortunate to have escaped the temptation to just follow the then-current leaders, unconstrained by her values, institutions and fellow citizens.
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
It’s just noise to mask out stories like this BBC story.
My favorite quote from the BBC story:
"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," [the World Meteorological Organization’s secretary-general] said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming".
Of course, he has no problem with only citing the surface temperature record and not including the lack of tropospheric and ocean warming. I guess you should only look at global trends if it fits your hypothesis (I mean settled science).
Written By: Is
URL: http://
The earth spinning in the opposite direction would cause the sun to rise in the west and set in the east. Syracuse, NY would no longer be the heart of the snowbelt.

That’s not going to happen either. Didn’t I just read that global temperatures are unchanged for the past decade? Oh, the economy is not exactly robust. Let’s take the money we don’t have and fix what isn’t broken. It’s for the children. Kumbaya. Whatever. Maybe we can put those 8800 people Dell is laying off to work killing mosquitos.
Written By: MarkD
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks