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.