Stephen Leahy, International :- Environmental JournalistDiscovering Global Environmental Interconnections
I had the following conversations at http://stephenleahy.net/2010/08/31/warmer-climate-gives-malaria-new-hunting-grounds/
Another so called “international” journalist trying to blame the spread of malaria on Global warming and hence on our raping of the planet through our burning of fossil fuels and producing CO2.
Later on after viewing my blog, he is unable to publish the links I included showing the same old alarmist nonsense happened in the ’20’s and ’70’s.
He then spouts on about how the planet is warming up. As if I ever denied that although this is becoming more and more arguable as NOAA finds problems with their equipment” http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2010/08/satellite-temperature-record-now.html
However he forgets the real issue, that being the cause of this warming.
This guy, and I do not care how famous he thinks he is, is simply an alarmist mouthpiece for the AGW camp, and has never considered or perhaps even conceived thoughts about the most important base issues.
In the end he simply trashed my final comments. In spite of being a “great journalist” he had no answer to support his alarmist convictions.
What a lot of baloney!
Malaria is not a disease of climate, it is a disease of poverty.
How can even a modest historian not be aware that malaria was once endemic in the USA, Britain, New Zealand as well as other temperate countries, and is only eradicated through efforts of the respective governments funded by their fortunately sufficiently wealthy tax payers.
01/09/2010 at 12:14 am
Roger you really should read the story to the end before you declare it “baloney”. It plainly says malaria is a disease of poverty and that is why it is no longer endemic in USA NZ etc. All the experts interviewed in the story are… well experts on malaria and they know the history of the disease. Why would you assume they don’t?
Let me sum up the story for you: There are plenty of poor areas like the highlands of Kenya that didn’t have malaria because it was too cold. Now the region is getting warmer due to climate change and the disease is spreading.
01/09/2010 at 9:35 amReply
“There are plenty of poor areas like the highlands of Kenya that didn’t have malaria because it was too cold. Now the region is getting warmer due to climate change and the disease is spreading.”
Sorry, I think it is still baloney. For your information, neither Gt Britain nor New Zealand are warmer than the highlands of Kenya neither summer or winter, yet the disease was endemic until eradication measures were taken. History even records that Henry VIII exhibited symptoms of malaria.
Your article, or your interpretation of the facts does not simply meet the known facts.
You should be running around figuring out ways to boost the Kenyan Highland economies instead of blaming anything else.
01/09/2010 at 7:38 pm
Roger there are no Anopheles gambiae sensu lato mosquitos (the prime malarial vector in Africa) in the UK or NZ because it is indeed too cold. They are very sensitive to cold. Endemic malaria in the UK was transmitted by another kind of mozzie. So your comparison is invalid.
01/09/2010 at 10:55 pm
What absolute nonsense,
You are confirming what was is already obvious that malaria can be spread by more than one type of mosquito.
We are talking about the disease malaria here not the habitat of Anopheles gambiae sensu lato.
02/09/2010 at 2:02 amReply
Roger you are not making any sense. Of course there are many species of mosquitoes that transmit malaria. And of course the expanding habitat of the Anopheles gambiae sensu lato — the main vector of malaria in Africa — is directly related to the spread of the disease. That habitat expansion is due to warming temps scientists determined. Read the studies.
02/09/2010 at 10:51 am
Yes but the cooler climates could just as easily be invaded by the mosquito species that survives in cooler climates. Which is how malaria historically spread around the world anyway as traders apparently carried that mosquito with them.
What I object to is your contortions of the truth by your claim that global warming is the cause.
02/09/2010 at 3:04 pmReply
If what you suggest was true wouldn’t the cool-loving mozzies have been there long ago?
The experts who spent years studying this do think global warming is behind it. That is their conclusion not mine and your objection looks a little foolish in the face of their facts & evidence.
02/09/2010 at 4:00 pm
I read their evidence and it looks like alarmist propaganda to me.
The highlands of Kenya were probably isolated enough to not have the “cool-loving” mozzies introduced, but still it is only a matter of time.
The claim that malaria is on the increase because of global warming is still fallacious.
Without preventative measures it is and always will be a world wide disease; global warming or no global warming.
02/09/2010 at 4:11 pmReply
Lets not forget that it is not just a matter of “cold & warm”. mosquitoes need still-fresh water places to breed. So the increased rainfall in eastern Africa probably has a lot to do with worsening of the malaria situation there, and the long-term lack of rains has alleviated the situation of malaria in places like Senegal.
Note that rainfall patterns are part of what we call climate-change also.
I guess this aspect only works for the eastern African situation if it is reasonable to assume that breeding spaces for mosquitoes were limited in the past (still freshwater).
04/09/2010 at 12:32 am
I don’t know that eastern Kenya has experienced an increase in rainfall. Most of the country has experienced drought through much of the last decade. Changes in rainfall would have been part of the analysis in any event and the researchers concluded that climate change is a factor in the spread of malaria into new regions.
05/09/2010 at 11:51 amReply
Global Warming could not possibly effect mosquito breeding in terms of rainfall. We are going to get eithr drought conditions or flood conditions, neither of which favour the conditions need for mosquito larvae.
How do I know the conditions will be extreme like that? Will the IPCC says it will be! http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm.pdf
Really you guys will be blaming global warming for the earthquake, I have just been through, next.
05/09/2010 at 5:38 am
That’s a misunderstanding of the IPCC reports. There will be (and already are) increases in extremes due to climate change (look at all the records that have broken this year alone).. But there will also be shifts, minor changes in rainfall patterns.
And maybe there is a connection to earthquakes — everything is connected to everything else on this planet. Hope all is well in NZ
05/09/2010 at 11:57 amReply
Inuit (Inuvialuit) elders and trappers have told me that spring thaw/ice breakup is occuring practucaly a month earlier now compared to 30-40 years ago in the Northern Yukon (Herschel Island area).
That is quite a telling change.
05/09/2010 at 7:53 pm
I have spoken to many in the North as well and been in the high Arctic. It is a very serious issue for them and for us as well. You can read more in my articles
just google: “Stephen Leahy” + arctic.
I have been covering this for years. We should also understand that a warmer Arctic is changing the weather in the entire northern hemisphere.
05/09/2010 at 8:08 pmReply
Well I think you should take a look at the title of your blog “Warmer Climate Gives Malaria New Hunting Grounds” and bearing in mind that malaria could have established itself in those “new” places if the right mosquito had been accidently introduced, (as it was in New Zealand by the european settler I understand), and just ponder on your standard of journalism
And now you are effectively trying to tell me that if I hadn’t burnt coal in my iron pot belly stove for the last 25 years, this earthquake may not of happened.
But you are right, global warming has effected the arctic
Try some balanced reporting for once.
Check out http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
You may not agree with what is there, but you might have a lot of trouble disproving it.
Roger you’re simply offering up standard global warming denial talking points, that’s not proof of anything other than an all-too human wish to believe climate change isn’t happening. I wish that were true too. But I have actually read hundreds of climate science studies, talked to hundreds of experts and been to many places like the Arctic where climate change is real and present danger.
Your libellous nonsense about Pachauri is a pathetic pastiche of assumptions and lies cut’n pasted from other bloggers. I have removed your link. I have met and interviewed Pachauri a few times. FYI here’s a real verifiable fact: he was appointed to the IPCC at George W Bush’s insistence after the US forced a real climate scientist out of the job.
I have been on this climate denial bus too many times to continue this conversation with someone who is happy to post lies about other people. Give yourself a shake.
06/09/2010 at 10:11 am
Evidence for global warming????
What the science says…(from Skeptical Science)
All the indicators show that global warming is still happening.
The 2009 State of the Climate report of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), released in mid-2010, brings together many different series of data “from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean”. The conclusion? All of these independent lines of evidence tell us unequivocally that the Earth is warming.
The very accessible 10-page summary examines the trends for 10 key climate indicators using a total of 47 different sets of data. All of the indicators expected to increase in a warming world, are in fact increasing, and all that are expected to decrease, are decreasing.
The 10 indicators are:
1. Land surface air temperature as measured by weather stations. You know all those skeptic arguments about how the temperature record is biased by the urban heat island effect, badly-sited weather stations, dropped stations, and so on? This is the only indicator which suffers from all those problems. So if you’re arguing with somebody who tries to frame the discussion as being about land surface air temperature, just remind them about the other nine indicators.
2. Sea surface temperature. As with land temperatures, the longest record goes back to 1850 and the last decade is warmest.
3. Air temperature over the oceans.
4. Lower troposphere temperature as measured by satellites for around 50 years. By any of these measures, the 2000s was the warmest decade and each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the previous one.
5. Ocean heat content, for which records go back over half a century. More than 90% of the extra heat from global warming is going into the oceans – contributing to a rise in…
6. Sea level. Tide gauge records go back to 1870, and sea level has risen at an accelerating rate.
7. Specific humidity, which has risen in tandem with temperatures.
8. Glaciers. 2009 was the 19th consecutive year in which there was a net loss of ice from glaciers worldwide.
9. Northern Hemisphere snow cover, which has also decreased in recent decades.
10. Perhaps the most dramatic change of all has been in Arctic sea ice. Satellite measurements are available back to 1979 and reliable shipping records back to 1953. September sea ice extent has shrunk by 35% since 1979.
Science isn’t like a house of cards, in that removing one line of evidence (eg. land surface air temperature) wouldn’t cause the whole edifice of anthropogenic global warming to collapse. Rather, “land surface warming” is one of more than ten bricks supporting “global warming”; and with global warming established, there is a whole other set of bricks supporting “anthropogenic global warming”. To undermine these conclusions, you’d need to remove most or all of the bricks supporting them – but as the evidence continues to pile up, that is becoming less and less likely.
Well I suggest that you read my blog a little more carefully and if you can see any phrase where I deny that there is global warming, please let me know.
Its obvious that my links were too embarrasing for you so you removed them, but no worries. I am in the habit of recording these sorts of conversations on my other blog http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com where my readers await your un-censored responses.
Talk about “standard global warming denial talking points” I recognise that you are using “Standard Alarmist Talking points”.
I am very familiar with the skeptical science web site and although it is well and carefully written, it is still alarmist nonsense.
Finally, although you have listed a bunch of one sided nonsense with a number serious omissions, you have missed out the real issue. That real issue is stated in my blog, so try reading it more carefully this time.
You may think you are a wonderful international journalist but I think you are simply a vociferous sheep such as illustrated in Orwell’s Animal Farm.
Try looking at the real issue.
The above comment was trashed at Stephen’s blog
Well it appears you trashed my comment.
Not very secure in your understanding of global warming are you.
Showed in your last comment as well.
Never mind, I published the complete conversation on http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com where my readers are currently writing you off as a straw man because you cannot take any challenge to your “convictions” except by refusing to answer.
I do not suffer from that syndrome. I will listen to anyone and always publish their comment unless it is obscene.
Of course my task is easier because when the actual facts let you down, what else can you do but refuse to answer?
Hope you can live with your concience and I seriously recommend that you start using your own brain to sort out what facts there are instead of repeating your alarmist propaganda.
But the guy simply does not want to discuss the basis of the Global Warming hypothesis and the facts that make it unlikely.
To me that shows that he is insecure about it himself, yet he continues as an “International Climate Change Reporter” avoiding anything that contradicts his views.
How does this guy sleep at night?
With all due respect, you have not read my blog. This is evident because you keep refering to Climate Change happening etc.
My blog gives no comment on climate change or global warming, instead it talks about the causation.
Causation I might add is a subject somewhat missing in anything of yours I have read.
Neither do I slander Pachuri, I simply refer to both sides of the controversy and let the reader make up his or her mind.
Therefore I suggest you start using your own brain in following the logic instead of repeating what people you consider “authorative” are telling you.
My blog points to serious holes in the logic behind the “anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming” hypothesis.
If you do have proper answers, I am all ears.
Stephen said 7 hours ago:
Roger you need some counselling help. Your blog offers nothing but rantings, innuendo, paranoia. You libel people and you don’t offer any evidence only your opinions ie.:
“Al Gore dosn’t really believe in global warming but has also positioned himself to become ultra wealthy (hence the smug look and gesture) especially should Rajendra Pachauri become head of a world government. (which is what the UN will be once the revenues and commissions from world carbon trading and a signed Copenhagen agreement start flooding in).”
This is utter nonsense. Your losing your grip on reality. please get some help and don’t try to post any more comments here
It appears that you avoid discussing anything that throws doubt on the validity of Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.
To me and the readers this implies that you are both not secure in your belief and unsure of the facts.
My only question is :- If you therefore know you are spreading questionable facts presumably in order to further your career, how do you sleep at night?
Most of our “conversation” is duplicated on my other blog at https://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/39-2/stephen-leahy-international-environmental-journalistdiscovering-global-environmental-interconnections/
My readers will view this with great interest.