British researchers in Kenya have concluded that climate change is responsible for a sevenfold increase in malaria infections:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hT5cEtGozeDOq3KdWKk2wmWnxAmg

With epidemiology becoming yet another discipline of science to note the effects of dangerous and rapid climate change, we are left with only one rational conclusion: they have joined the conspiracy.

There is no other feasible explanation for these observable, testable medical data. Climate change isn't happening, so there can't be a spike in malaria. Why is this so hard to understand? The logic is so simple even an AGW hysteric could get it.

How do we know those deaths are real, or that malaria is the cause? Has an economist or public relations agent counted the bodies, or are we reliant on greedy field scientists? How do we know they're not fudging data so they can continue to live high in the hog among illiterate, malaria-infected villagers?

And where is the analysis from the mining corporations? A malaria epidemic could drastically affect Kenyan output, so their opinions on the science have priority over any "facts" or "rigorously-tested statistics" peddled by communist ratbags. Will Rio Tinto get to analyse the data, or are the researchers afraid of unbiased scrutiny?

Once again we see that the integrity of science is only valued by the honest, neutral, reliable employees of oil and mining companies and their ex-BAT lobbyist allies.

Very droll Sancho.

The impartial and humanitiarian organisation Rio Tinto must have the final word on this scientific study? :)

The study itself does not appear to make any comments about AGW. Do these scientists make a conclusion about man's impact or do they believe it to be all natural cycles?

Don’t worry Sancho, you’re suffering from myopia not malaria.

You are eager to believe that self-interest is a major force in parties opposing AGW.You cite certain multinationals who have been the subject of various exposés over the years.

But you fail to acknowledge that self interest also operates on the other side.
---Do you allow that “researchers” could be a teensy-weensy bit influenced to be-- on the right side--of hot issues that may enhance their career prospects or funding ?
---Do you not allow that countries such as those who make up the G77, who stand to benefit big time from AGW handouts, are not at all influenced by such ?

I have no doubt that corporate corruption is on going –but it’s a very busy two way street.

And I think it has more than a little irony that, much of those corporates bad reputations have been established by journalists turned authors with little-to-no experience in multi-national business or business qualifications writing best sellers , deficiencies which had such writers been exposing orthodox climate change institutions or theory, would have seen them branded as unqualified to comment.

I appreciate that, Horus, but I have no tolerance for appeasing the AGW hysterics. Climate change is a hoax, as Nick Minchin correctly stated just a few months ago.

By taking a backward step every 18 months, we just give credence to the enormous stack of evidence the religious greenies are peddling.
None of this, "Um, ah, yes, the planet IS warming, but it's the sun, or orbits, or something - anything! - else that doesn't involve industrial emissions".

No. We should stick to the original position of total denial. Otherwise it just looks as if we keep realising how wrong we are every couple of years, then cast around desperately for a thin substitute argument because it's less embarrassing than admitting the environmentalists are right this time.

That would be humiliating.

People are already asking questions, like why are we all sceptical now, when climate change has been on the cards for over fifty years? And why did it only get off the ground after it became politically correct for conservatives to be anti-science?

Where was our massive campaign against the weaknesses of pharmaceutical research? Fraud and self-interest has been rife there for decades, so why do we only speak up when industry profits are threatened?

Do you have an answer to that? I don't, and the corporations clearly don't, either, or why would they be employing all the professional misinformers left over from the tobacco/cancer war, or establishing fake research centres by the dozen?

No, it has to be a socialist conspiracy, and now the medicos are getting on board, too. I'll believe it when I see the bodies.

You're absolutely correct, Sancho. I've worked with many scientists, and I know that they're all very highly paid fraudsters who are so clever that they invariably hide the vast wealth they've amassed by living in relatively modest houses and never buying flashy expensive cars and all the usual trappings of conspicuous consumption.

Hell, I used to be one myself, so that's how I know their tricks. I'd go so far as to say that any decisions concerning climate change and the environment should be made by accountants, engineers, cotton farmers and property developers, because they alone are immune to the vast international AGW conspiracy.

Sancho “There is no other feasible explanation for these observable, testable medical data…. The logic is so simple even an AGW hysteric could get it.”

So therefore, it must be AGW.

And

Not natural Global Warming?

Not lack of mosquito control funding, as Kenya slips further into the type of poverty which blights the tribalistic national politics of Africa?

Not mosquito’s having developed resistance to DDT and other pesticides?

Not something new which has yet to be qualified or quantified

It has to be AGW

My “arse” it “has to be”…

Especially when “AGW” is a myth espoused by Lenin’s Useful Idiots and the promoters of

Socialism by Stealth

Keep em coming Sancho… your “credibility” and reasoning skills are as sound as the AGW myth

I was never one for conspiracy theories but after the near signing of the protocol in Copenhagen that would have replaced Kyoto and would have bound us to the UN run overlords, virtually making our constitution dull and void, then I am starting to wonder. Rudd was going to sign it and he hadn't even read it!

Of course you can't criticise the scientists feeding the right information to the politicians Rudd, Wong and company. If you do you are referred to as a denialist, a sceptic or of unsound mind. Gee they certainly get down and dirty when people disagree. No you dare not criticise science now. Even respected scientists are not allowed to criticise or question the science behind the global warming theory.

Before any further signatures are put to any new protocols by any Prime Minister in the name of the Australian people at these so called "conferences" in the future we, the people, have to have full explanation of the ramifications and a referendum prior to signing. Nothing less is acceptable. Otherwise, I might just think they are trying to keep us all in the dark.

It is a tough ask RaeBee.

Regardless of what side of the debate one sits, what would it take to convert either side to the other ie. for any scientist to provide irrefutable evidence that AGW is real or not real. I know I am still undecided on the extent of man's impact on GW although man has certainly been responsible for many other environmental disasters. Although, that fact in itself is not evidence.

There are scientists on both sides of this debate that is the difficulty for the layperson to get their head around when there are so many facts, figures and modelling that all seem to contradict. Modelling is not perfect science, is full of estimates and the data is not conclusive.

The other aspect is the vested interests on both sides. It is a complex issue and one that probably should be scrutinsed before we make any irreversible decisions that will have no impact unless all the major polluters agree to cut emissions.

In the meantime it would not hurt to reduce emissions for good reasons such as pollution and more importantly, given that deforestation is ongoing at rampant rates, we need less not more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

So true, CJ. I'm sick of these mega-rich researchers using their wealth and power to discredit and attack struggling industries.

We need a taskforce of sensible, down-to-earth professionals to combat these "scientists" and their "data". The accountants can do a cost-benefit analysis to tell us how many BMWs the Exxon board must go without just to preserve some island nations full of brown people who probably aren't even Christian, the cotton farmers can do a double-blind-drunk trial of the effect of farming chemicals on waterways, and the property developers can compile an endangered species list with only one entry: Australians living more than 50 metres from a Westfield shopping mall.

We discussed above, Col, why we can't use natural warming as an argument. The evidence is already sketchy, and we'll just have to do another embarrassing backflip in a couple of years when we can't sustain it any more. Otherwise, good work. Now we just need a believable explanation for why mosquito control deficits would encourage mozzies to move up mountainsides into areas which couldn't previously sustain their life-cycle due to low temperatures.

The socialist conspiracy is a good start. Do we say the mozzies are communist, or is it the villagers who are getting infected for the greater good of socialism?

I've put together a brief plan for how we can combat this alarmism. It's borrowed and edited from the fossil fuel industry's leaked strategy (http://www.aip.org/history/powerpoints/GlobalWarming_Oreskes.ppt), but I think if we try to reinforce these points it will help in this case, too:

- Argue over significance of facts (we can adapt to malaria)
- “No proof” strategy: science is uncertain
- Argue against credibility of epidemiologists
- Maintain that any concern over malaria is hysterical
- Press the case that medical researchers are communists and anti-Christian
- Argue whether facts are facts
- Supply alternative "facts"

Think it will work?

Sorry Sancho but mozzies live in very cool climates and Europeans even Russians can die of mosquito spread disease. Mozzies like any brackish, still water. Different type of mozzie, same sort of disease. But I still agree with your posts. Of course we should all try harder to pollute the world less and I think we do very in this country compared to others.

However, I would like more detailed evidence about everything so called scientists come up with if they want (a) people to pay them and (b) us to pay taxation because of their findings. That is not a hard ask is it?

I am an average person with an average intelligence but I don't believe half of what I am told is true and correct scientific findings.

I will continue to study what these people espouse and if, that is a very big IF, they ever give clear and concise reasoning for their findings, not just human modelling fed computer statistics, then I may, just may, agree that we are causing global warming.

Bit like religion really I will not believe until someone can tell me it is fact. I can't see that happening and I will not be a sheep.

CJ says: “You're absolutely correct, Sancho. I've worked with many scientists…hell, I used to be one myself, so that's how I know their tricks”

Yes indeed CJ, I’ve heard on good authority you were a scientist in the Margaret Mead mould.

RaeBee - malaria is carried by the Anopheles mosquito, which has very specific habitats. These habitats are increasing due to global warming, allowing the Anopheles mosquito to increase its range to higher altitudes and therefore causing a concomitant increase in malaria. A similar thing is happening in the PNG highlands, just to Australia's north.

These findings are uncontroversial among entomologists and epidemiologists.

Horus - you don't know much about science, do you?

I note that the obviously fraudulent scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology have just announced that the last decade was Australia's hottest on record. This should be disregarded because they have clearly jumped aboard the AGW gravy train.

Ah CJ Moron ans Sancho… now that is an alliance of equals –

two intellectual mosquitoes



Socialism by Stealth

Stands up as a “viable theory” and motivational force, hiding behind

All the bogus notions of "AGW"

Speaking of morons - "Socialism by Stealth".

You don't know much about science either, do you Col? I guess we shouldn't expect too much from an art student turned bean counter, with a perpetual hard-on for the execrable Iron Maiden.

At least we haven't heard about your new bride's flash car in this thread... yet.

CJ,Now, You are most unkind, his wife is very effacing "she tells people that her $10000 diamond necklace is rubic (sic) zirconias".....besides,he says we don't know anything about him personality, so no more lefty unsubstantiated character reflections.

BTW Thatcher medically speaking wasn't a maiden iron or other wise, given she had a husband and son, assuming that is, nature applies to her.

Interesting to note that better paid (important criteria) world famous economists, one even an Economics Nobel laureate (note: the payoff for their conspiratorial utterances on the gravy train) have said, that the seeds to the GFC were with the avowed witch hunt 'dobber' Roy Rogers, sorry Ronny Reagan, (easy mistake both were ('RR') 2nd rate cowboy movie actors in B grade plotted movies.). Followed by the equally talented but unkindly called 'Bitch from Britain'. Did I mention the part played by that paragon of intellect,virtue and sound judgement GWB? (Obviously a pernicious socialist plot hiding behind facts).

Proves *anybody* can become PM or President in a democracy ... no financial skills or concern for others required. Just a keenly developed skill for Machiavellian thinking, a divine right to rule obsession and a self interested party.
Col's right! Only a Delusional "collectivist" Would say that real democracy has been perverted and that the truth should out?

PS. Science is wrong different people are different a species because when they breed with 'others' they're sterile as all hybrids. So only Anglo-Saxons can be right

Oh Dear you are all getting down and dirty, very humorous by the way, and I enjoy a spirited debate.

About the mozzies, I don't care what species they are really I only said they can be found in cool climes as well and they do spread the same type of diseases. I don't believe what these "so called" scientists are saying about the African variety or even the Papua New Guinea variety. It is just another scare tactic.

We have had them before more locally, more cases of Ross River Virus or Bahmah Forest coming further and further down the coast with whatever breed of mozzie. That is true but not new and not very nice.

I am surprised though with all the rain and humidity recently, the government hasn't yet spun a scare tactic around the recent rainy period and blamed it on AGW. Just a matter of time.

As for that goose Peter Garrett, he reports that we have had the hottest decade this century. That really does make me giggle especially since this decade hasn't finished yet. I wonder how accurate the records were back in 1910 and where they were taken, all over or just the capital cities? The man's a joke but he really expects us to believe that. I get a headache just thinking about Peter Garrett but he always gave me a headache even on stage, actually, particularly on stage. What was the labour faction thinking of?

Lastly I don't believe that honest information about global agreements effecting this nation, prior to signing, is much to ask from Government, in fact I think it is essential but we are not getting that presently. No, it is not a big ask, just tell us the real deal and if necessary go to referendum. A few referendums wouldn't go astray rather than billions given away overseas. What price honesty? Didn't Rudd say something about clarity of government decisions and accountability? Or was that just all spin my friends?

Peraps I will rethink my perceived ideas on socialism and communism.

CJ Morgan,

Re “Horus - you don't know much about science, do you?... the Bureau of Meteorology have just announced that the last decade was Australia's hottest on record”

And how many decades have records been kept, CJ ?

CJ, despite your -- we once were warriors –pretensions,you seem more moved by authority/reputation than scientific method.

You would fit in well in this sort of setting: http://www.youtube.com/?v=BcvSNg0HZwk
Expert: “Push the lever CJ”
CJ: “But sir… hhhe says he’s in pain”
Expert: “CJ I am a scient-tist for god sake, I know what’s best , push the lever”
CJ: “YYYYes sir!

Thanks for proving my point, Horus.

Like thousands of uni students, I learnt about Milgram's experiments in Psych 101 back in the 1980s. Mind you, I've got no idea what relevance you think that they have to AGW.

On the other hand, it's wholly unsurprising that you're in denial about the consistency of the BoM summary with AGW.

You really don't know much about science, do you?

RaeBee - you're like a kid with his hands over his ears going "la la I can't hear you". Google anopheles and malaria and you might get some idea about the specificity of the vector of the malaria parasite, and thus what the study that Sancho cited was about.

But of course, you'd be reading stuff by more of those shyster scientists who are in it for money, fame and glory.

CJ, your are again wrong, wrong, wrong and I am not the one with my hands over my ears saying LA LA LA, you are.

I worked in health for more years than you have probably been alive, so I know about infectious and viral diseases. I did not get my information the way you portray, actually I got it at the coal face - interesting term that in this debate, as well as statistics.

Again I will say this, if you want to believe the AGW bulls#*t, that's okay, if you want your children and their children to live a life less than they should, that again is okay by me, that's your call, We so called denialists, a new word made up by the world travelling KRudd, are being told that all the time. So LA LA LA....

RaeBee,
You worked in health? With your knowledge of malaria obviously not in the tropics.

Sure the odd tourist goes down with malaria in the southern climes. The Qld health department's entomologist,whose job it is to prevent or control mosquitoes, told me 12 month or so ago, that he hasn't seen an malaria out break of concern, below Cooktown since the batch in Cairns to Townsville in the 1940s.
The "feared" so called called Malaysian tiger mossie is far more aggressive vector including the drug resistant malaria. This also means the introduction of other mossie borne nasties.

He said the Quarantine Department testing had found both in the Torres Straight islands and could already be on the mainland. The natives from PNG river/coastal areas are coming to Australian waters to fish and seek medical help.
Up untill recently the 'MT' couldn't survive the climate much below Cairns/Townsville but the possible range is increasing southwards.

BTW after growing up in PNG I can confirm that CJ is right. Malaria *was* exclusively a lowland disease but now there is good research that shows the mossies range is moving up the mountains.

Note PNG highlands has the 4 or 5th highest mountain in the world and several others 2 X Kosisosko. Mt Wilhelm Used to have year round snow cover over the last 4th but the snow line has retreated on average nearly 2000 feet(or so I'm told)in 40 years. That means that other peaks that did have snow no longer do. This means that malaria carrying (and other nasties diseases) mossie's range is increasing dramatically UPWARDS to new territory THIS MEANS WARMING.

So what does that prove examinator? That you pulled up information from somewhere that states something you think I should know or something you think proves I know nothing? There are more cases in this country of the mosquito borne diseases such as I have stated and some people have no idea where it was they contacted the disease. That is even more bewildering.

I can't be bothered with that sort of nit picking anyway, when the subject is not about mosquitoes really, it is about the Great Global Warming Con (Gravy Train) and the spin that is put out by our government and the repercussions on people in general.

It looks like America, because they are experiencing such a harsh Winter, will not be able to produce enough food for themselves this coming Spring. To that end I believe climate change, if indeed it is warming, is better than climate change that could bring about the likes of what could be happening in the Northern Hemisphere i.e cooling. Both scenarios are open to debate. Climate happens.

The thing is, if we have water collection at the top end in the Monsoon periods with storage and properly managed water use in this country, we will never ever not be able to grow our own food and export food to other countries. That is if the government is supportive with infrastructure and lets our primary producers produce. This country produces better food than any country in the world and yet we are not supporting the people who do it.

Col Rouge is on the ball. Inserting "socialism by stealth" into every sentence we say on the topic will indicate that we're not mindless ideologues immune to evidence.

It's a good first step, but we need a fall-back argument in case someone asks how socialism is served by Krudd's ETS, which encourages industry to maintain business as usual while shifting the costs of carbon credits on to taxpayers. Otherwise, Australians who have looked at the data, done the numbers, and thought for themselves will just conclude that Krudd is Howard in a green jacket.

If ordinary Australians only look at the facts, they will never know about The Great Scientific Conspiracy that's being foisted on them through the same corrupt mechanism that gave us the internet, antibiotics, and nuclear power.

In order to win the battle of ideas, we need more skeptics like RaeBee, who will claim to be healthcare professionals, then make completely erroneous statements about malaria that anyone with an internet connection can easily disprove, and then and try to defend their ignorance on the topic by claiming that facts and evidence are mere "nitpicking".

Some of you can be quite rude when other people do not agree entirely with your opinions or quotes, aren't you? I don't care if you call me a sceptic I wish more people were instead of taking the word of other, so called experts, some of whom have doubtful creds.

I wasn't specifically referring to malaria in my first comment nor since then. I was saying there are more cases of mosquito borne disease in Australia. Many are unreported.

Whether it is malaria or another virus, the point is moot. Viruses from mosquitoes are quite prevalent in Australia and it is recorded if you wish to look. Mosquito borne disease viruses such as Barmah Forest, Dengue River, Ross River etc are occurring in this country more often. I would point out all the top part of this country is in the tropics! Not that it matters, there have been cases of these diseases reported further south. I have a friend who has had Ross River virus and still suffers from the continuing side effects. She has not spent time in the tropics but she has been on the land.

Try not to get so uptight and outright rude and don't make statements that infer I have no idea about these matters. All I am doing is stating my opinion as you do. The comments about these viruses are from personal observation.

Raebee,
"Anopheles farauti is a major vector of malaria in Papua New Guinea, and it is presumed to be the species of greatest concern in the north of Australia. However, this ‘species’ is recognised to be a complex of closely related species, the members of which cannot be differentiated by eye, and the *capability* to transmit malaria of the different members is unknown. In southern Australia, An. annulipes has apparently been the vector where occasional cases of malaria have been contracted, but this ‘species’ is likewise a species complex and the relative capacities of the various members to transmit malaria is also unknown.

Although malaria is no longer endemic in Australia, approx. 700-800 cases occur here each year in travellers infected elsewhere, and the region of northern Australia above 19oS latitude is the receptive zone for malaria transmission. Occasional cases of local transmission occur in the Torres Strait islands and rarely in northern Queensland, and vigilance is required to prevent re-establishment of the infection in some northern localities."
http://medent.usyd.edu.au/fact/malaria.htm

Other texts up dates to "Kettles" talk about a multitude of factors involved in the transition of Malaria.
An. farauti is a far more aggressive and deeper biter An. in Australia there are several papers on related topics.

Including the fact and CJ and my point that An. farauti range is increasing to once colder climes increasing indirectly because of (A)GW still stands.
The 'tiger' is a concern largely because it is a key vector for other diseases.

Clearly My memory of the conversation with the Qld Entomologist was flawed in that it was in 1981 Malaria was declared eradicated in Nthn Australia. Sorry.

I can't relocate the research article that shows the advance (as in captures in Aust)of An. farauti and another tropical An. species known to be a prime vector . So I'll withdraw the statement until I can re-find its source.
It's somewhere in my filing cabinet of researched (that might be useful, someday) facts.
(I need a sensible cataloguing system. And the motivation to apply it) :-(

Thank you examinator your post is noted.

However, I will again reiterate I was not specifically commenting on 'malaria' if anyone here wishes to look and read what I did say and not interpret it as they want. I referred to mosquito borne viruses. I know maleria in Australia has been all but eliminated.

And as for that belittling "so called health professional" comment by Sancho. I said "I have worked in health care for many years". Get your facts right Sancho if you are going to be believable. You are right though, you can go to the net to prove just about anything. Have a look at malaria in Russia both past and present.

Sancho I see your observation is spot on.

When one smells and sees a fire, from a sense of common decency, one shouts “fire” or if a wild boar or dog were creeping up I would shout “danger”,

Thus, when I smell the fetid stink of socialism and see it creeping up, wearing a disguise of a supposed human catastrophe, from a sense of common decency, I shout “Socialism by Stealth”

“how socialism is served by Krudd's ETS,”

Simple, an ETS means a huge flow of funds being drained, through price escalation, into a conduit of carbon markets.

Such a conduit presents too rich an opportunity for fatuous socialist politicians not to “tax”.

Thus funds are diverted from private discretionary income into government coffers to be squandered on the cause-de-jour or levelling differences, to make the indolent more comfortable, at the expense of the industrious.

If you need any explanation on tax just ask, my professional and personal experience has made me acutely aware and on-guard against
Political irresponsibility, parading as compassion and
malevolent levelling, disguising itself as “fairness”
particularly as practiced by profligate socialist governments.

re “The Great Scientific Conspiracy that's being foisted on them through the same corrupt mechanism that gave us the internet, antibiotics, and nuclear power.”

Ok, not sure about “antibiotics” but the “internet”, being dependent upon development of the silicon chip and nuclear power were both “originally researched” and “initiated” by the US Defence budget

But somehow, I doubt you intend to congratulate the “American Capitalist War Machine” for their successes, especially when it was the determination of the same “Capitalist war machine”, under the helm of Ronald Reagan (Star Wars project), which finally crushed the will of the USSR (aka communism - the goal of socialism) and lose its corrupt and repressive hold on the people of Eastern Europe and the Russian Empire.

RaeBee do not be disturbed by the left, I had one socialist leftie write he wished I would contract cancer, then got me banned for “flaming” him…

Go figure, they (the left) are all just as perverse as they can be

Col,

You poor old fella, The world and facts are all out to get you aren't they.

Perhaps if you didn't leap from one supposition to the next you might be able to see the woods for the trees and that they're not advancing ....As per MacBeth.
Every tree and ever humane action doesn't have a Greenie or a Socialist hiding behind it.

I think you'll find that the internet was developed by a university for universities, and that you have no proof that in the absence of the Capitalist War Industry money(?), that either DoD or other sources wouldn't have funded the internet development anyway.

In short that's just speculation on your part. Do we really need to list all the negatives from the Military Industry bloc for a fair comparison? Your argument is a bit like saying Goering was nice to dogs and children (forget the damage, chaos and death he was responsible for).

Show me *objectively* any country where *pure* socialism has been practiced and then show me how socialism was the *sole or even major* reason for its success or failure!

In truth failure of any state is a combination of many causes. Most of which are abuse of power and greed. (right wing or simply human traits)

Nth Korea isn't really a socialist or Communist state it has pretensions to that, but on closer examination it has more in common with a military/oligarchic dictatorship.

Nothing is truthfully black or white, nor it it just alternative of extremes.
Labels, Col, is a clear sign of a weak argument.

Finally outside a mass conspiracy which is less likely than a Capitalist Cartel. If only because a cartel has the same objective and requires a limited number to agree. Getting scientists to agree individually on anything let alone different disciplines is like trying to get order in a stadium of feral cats. It has to be a massive issue to unite them.
BTW it was scientists who invented all the so called benefits from the military complex, not capitalists