The author can be excused from some of the references to climate change - even scientists in the field spout the most incrediable nonsense about this. But it is difficult to let Jai P. Narain's assertion that an increase in temperatures will result in an increase in communicable diseases, notably malaria, go by. This is known not to be the case and, I thought, had been largely dropped from the alarmist literature. There was malaria in Europe and the US during the height of the little ice age (it just had different names). In fact there have been epidemics above the artic circle. Note this recent paper from the US CDC..
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol6no1/reiter.htm
Malaria is known to be strongly associated with income levels, not temperatures - albeit there has been some counter arguement that the malaria causes the low income levels.
Narain is a senior office in WHO and, years after the argumetn has been sent packing, he's still repeating it. This is not a great moment for WHO.

Wizard!

Oh right, warmer temperatures are good for plants but not for insects?

Nice one Mark.

Science fiction may be a great art genre and at times can be most entertaining. Good escapist reading!

Since huge populations of mosquitoes are found in Finland, it's hard to see why a few tenths of a degree of warming -- if it occurs -- should make any difference to their habitats or behaviour. This is clutching at straws.

Anyone else want to have a go at stirring the pot? Here is a complete list of all the things (allegedly) caused by global warming:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

There should be a few articles in there for our diehard credulists.

Bugsy - it was a surprise to me you can get malaria above the artic circle but apparently you can, although I doubt that you will in winter .. the disease was known in america in recent decades but was eliminated with the use of the much-maligned DDT.. In Europe I believe it was marshlands being drained, but the paper cited will say more.. the reason it is associated with hot climes is that it hasn't been eliminated from those places.. temperatue may be a factor but it is far outweighed by others..

Thanks for the history lesson Mark, I did not know you studied vector entomology as well. But that history is irrelevant really. It's not just malaria to be concerned about, there are other diseases such as Dengue Fever, Yellow fever, West Nile Virus, Japanese Encephalitis and the list goes on.

The fact is, disease transmission is usually only carried out by older insects, they first have to bite an infected person or animal before transmission to a new host and that means any increases in the temperatures over a longer period of the year (shorter winters, longer summers) mean greater breeding times and later season activity for older insects.

It can also mean a change in the range in which vector species can live. Many entomologists are reasonably concerned about the spread of these species and possible new habitat ranges.

But I'm so glad you have just told them there is nothing to worry about, just spread around some DDT. Nice one Mark.

Jon J

Thamkyou. All my mates are circulating your list. It really does contain some great laughs. We're all in our 50's and 60's and 70's.

This will do more to debunk the idiot AWG alarmists than any contrary argument presented any where.

Your list is such lighthearted fun.

Make no error we grandparents will influence our grand kids.

Regards Keith

Bugsy - precisely, and I'm glad you do know something about this stuff - although that makes your support for the author less excusable. The author specifically mentions malaria and, as I noted, history shows that his concern is almost entirely groundless. DDT was indeed, a major factor in eliminating it. This is widely acknowledged. Temperature is one factor in the spread of malaria and other diseases, but there are many others which far outweigh it, which include income. Measures taken to prevent projected temperatues increases may do nothing at all about the increases, assuming that they do occur, but may affect the other factors. In other words, our senior official is talking complete rot. Rather than try to deny it, this should be acknowledged.

Any discussion of potential medical problems due to global warming should also mention that many more deaths -- especially among the elderly -- are caused by exposure to cold than to excess heat. Those of us who can't afford to retire to Florida, Queensland or the Costa Brava should be grateful for the possibility of being slightly warmer in our old age.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v151/n3842/abs/151695d0.html

Now I know you don't read the articles Mark, or perhaps filter them heavily through your cool-blue tinted glasses. The author did not talk about carbon or CO2 once. This particular author was talking about exactly what many non-AGW believers talk about: regardless of the source of climate change, mitigation and adaption straegies need to be developed. In this case, disease caused by vectors and by any increase in cyclonic conditions causing widespread natural disaster. Adn he mentioned more than malaria, he not only also mentioned Chikungunya, but diarrhoea and cholera which are majorly related to cyclones and flooding events.

This is hardly controversial, it's exactly what many in you camp have been calling for: more research on adapation and mitigation strategies.

But then again, you are a complete "this isn't happening at all" person aren't you?

It is sad to see Jai P. Narain place such faith in the climate modeling that has been done by the UN-sponsored IPCC. If he had done his homework, he would discover that there is no irrefutable scientific evidence to support anthropogenic climate change. The greenhouse theory is just that – a theory. No scientist, nor anyone else for that matter, has been able to prove that it is the main driver of climate change, whether warming or cooling. The environmental-activist-dominated IPCC has been able to bluff politicians, the media and the misinformed with mere assertion, complemented by unvalidated alarmist computer modelling. What few seem to realise is that the climate computer models used by the IPCC to project the alarmist outcomes believed by the gullible masses, have not been validated with actual historic data, and never will be, because they are based on the false assumption that climate change is man-caused. The IPCC has failed to explain actual climate history. For example, it was unable to explain why there was a cooling trend from 1940 to 1975, and why there has been a cooling trend since 1998 despite increasing greenhouse gas emissions, and it has failed to predict the El Nino and La Nina effects.