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