Yet more shenanigans from the Al Gore AGW crowd

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
66,861
Reaction score
19,677
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
One of the big claims by the AGW fraudsters is that tropical diseases (especially malaria) will run rampant. Here is a excerpt from an anti AGW documentary that debunks that particular bit of propaganda.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxtWEW2nKRI]YouTube - The Distortion of the Malaria Issue by the UN and Al Gore - from The Great Global Warming Swindle[/ame]


Yet more evidence that they will lie their asses off to promote their agenda.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
7,232
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Of course the yapping of an ignoramous on a message board is supposed to carry more weight than what real scientists say.

Early Warning Signs of Global Warming: Spreading Disease | Union of Concerned Scientists

Early Warning Signs of Global Warming: Spreading Disease
Climate change affects the occurrence and spread of disease by impacting the population size and range of hosts and pathogens, the length of the transmission season, and the timing and intensity of outbreaks (McMichael, 1996; McMichael et al., 1996; Epstein et al., 1998; Epstein, 1999). In general, warmer temperatures and greater moisture will favor extensions of the geographical range and season for vector organisms such as insects, rodents, and snails. This in turn leads to an expansion of the zone of potential transmission for many vector-borne diseases, among them malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and some forms of viral encephalitis. Extreme weather events such as heavy rainfall or droughts often trigger disease outbreaks, especially in poorer regions where treatment and prevention measures may be inadequate.
 
OP
westwall

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
66,861
Reaction score
19,677
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
Of course the yapping of an ignoramous on a message board is supposed to carry more weight than what real scientists say.

Early Warning Signs of Global Warming: Spreading Disease | Union of Concerned Scientists

Early Warning Signs of Global Warming: Spreading Disease
Climate change affects the occurrence and spread of disease by impacting the population size and range of hosts and pathogens, the length of the transmission season, and the timing and intensity of outbreaks (McMichael, 1996; McMichael et al., 1996; Epstein et al., 1998; Epstein, 1999). In general, warmer temperatures and greater moisture will favor extensions of the geographical range and season for vector organisms such as insects, rodents, and snails. This in turn leads to an expansion of the zone of potential transmission for many vector-borne diseases, among them malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and some forms of viral encephalitis. Extreme weather events such as heavy rainfall or droughts often trigger disease outbreaks, especially in poorer regions where treatment and prevention measures may be inadequate.



I suggest you watch the video oldie. The professor has been with the Pasteur Institute for quite a while, and is recognized as one of the worlds leading experts on malaria and insect born diseases, he is a member of the WHO expert advisory committee, was chairman of the American Committee of medical entymology of the American Society for Tropical Medicine, and a lead author of a US survey of consequences of climate variability so for you to characterise him as a "yapping ignoramous" merely confirms your continued incompetance and inability to review data that might not conform to your pre-concieved ideas......in other words you have proven yet again that you are indeed a yapping ignoramous.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
7,232
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Letters to The Lancet

Global warming and vector-borne disease"

Letters to the Editor Copyright 1998 The Lancet June 6, 1998

LETTER 1:

Sir--Paul Reiter (March 14, p 839) misses the main point: it is not that vector-borne diseases have never before occurred at high elevations during especially warm years. Rather, it is the resurgence of highland malaria, dengue fever, and their vectors in Latin America, central Africa, and Asia during the 1980s and 1990s, coincident with three other changes--namely, (1) the widespread and accelerating retreat of tropical summit glaciers, (2) the upward displacement of plants, and (3) the main underlying measurement, the upward shift of the freezing level (0°C isotherm) in the mountains (30°N to 30°S latitudes)--150 metres since 1970, equivalent to a 1°C warming.

Insects, in the fossil record, are excellent indicators of climate change, their distribution shifting rapidly with warming and cooling--particularly in response to changes in night-time and winter temperatures. These temperatures have risen twice as fast as daytime temperatures (1·86°C per 100 years vs 0·88°C per 100 years) since 1950, which is best explained by enhanced evaporation from warmer oceans, leading to the increased cloudiness that blocks outgoing night-time infrared radiation.

Our understanding of Earth's climate system, and the impact of our rapidly altering of the chemical components of the lower atmosphere, are based on an n of (one earth). Pattern recognition, consistency of data with model projections, and internal consistency among datasets are our primary tools for evaluating trends and risks. It is axiomatic that climate circumscribes the range of vector-borne diseases, whereas weather affects the timing and intensity of outbreaks. Models project that global warming will provide conditions conducive to transmission at higher latitudes and higher elevations, and four independent sets of physical and biological data indicate climatic warming.

The global emergence, resurgence, and redistribution of infectious disease in the latter part of the twentieth century is--as Reiter rightly argues--multifactorial, involving land-use change, local biogeography, population migration, immunological history, control measures, and--most fundamentally--the level of socioeconomic development. We are all concerned about emerging infectious diseases, but many are also worried about climate change from burning fossil fuels. The true challenge in the coming decades will be to develop healthy economies with clean energy sources.

Paul R Epstein, Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA
 

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
27,965
Reaction score
4,119
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
The warmer it gets the more insects there will be. Even if its not a totally tropical disease, warmer weather would spread the range and population of malaria carrying mosquitoes. For all his credentials, it sounds like this scientist has sold out.
 

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
27,965
Reaction score
4,119
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
Oh yeah, BTW, those who know the issue, discuss it. Those that don't or are trying to distract others from the real facts, mention Gore.
 

Si modo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
44,120
Reaction score
7,132
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, Virginia
When you need to cheat, you know you've lost the game.

Scientists with integrity don't cheat. They depend on the science to talk for them.

It's very simple.

An Insult to All Science – Are We Beyond Reproach? by Nancy Neale
Thursday, December 24th 2009, 1:33 AM EST

How do we know our medication is effective; that our vehicle is safe; that the bungee cord in our jump will not break? Most of the population has taken it on faith – faith in the integrity of the scientists – that these questions have been sufficiently studied and answered. And they have been, through effective communication of science in the scientific community. Knowledge is consistently exchanged using our currency, peer-review, until the point where the public benefits from the application of science in our everyday lives. We’ve had faith in the value of that currency, until now.

....

Many scientists have had suspicions about the state of the climate science and the overstated solidity of its predictive ability for some time. I am not a ‘denier’, whatever a denier denies; but I, along with several others have been asking questions about the peer-reviewed science. We cannot conflate climate scientists with environmentalists and activists, though. The latter two have compiled predictive models by the former and asserted that we are headed for doom and destruction if extreme environmental policies are not enacted immediately. Many scientists and critical thinkers have dared ask fundamental questions, though. We have questioned whether the state of the science can allow any definitive conclusion about the significance of anthropogenic carbon dioxide on global warming, let alone its ability to predict future effects.

....

Other indications and warnings that the science is less than solid have been there as well. A rhetorical analysis of many of the reports indicates that the focus on the science and logic have taken a back seat to a focus on the source and emotions, combining near sophistry and propaganda with bandwagon (consensus) and post hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation as causation) fallacies in logic, for example. When presenting science, if the primary tools of rhetoric are not the science and logic, we should immediately probe further into the actual science.

....

We all should value scientific integrity, but all scientists must value it above all else if there is to be continued growth of scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, this discipline of science has been so soiled by politics that the lines between science and politics are gone. This scandal is an insult to the integrity of all scientists and a devaluation of our currency of peer-review. It deserves the scoff and scorn of our community.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4734
 
Last edited:

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
27,965
Reaction score
4,119
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
It's the deniers that cheat. They routinely misrepresent the data as flawed, because that's all they have. This is a purely political exercise on their part as evidenced by their bringing Gore into the conversation, as if his talking about changed anything, except that they hate him for it.
 

Si modo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
44,120
Reaction score
7,132
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, Virginia
It's the deniers that cheat. ....
What are the deniers denying?
.... They routinely misrepresent the data as flawed, because that's all they have. ....
When the data is flawed by improper procedure, that is cheating. Nothing more is needed except proper science.

Read the piece I posted. You might learn something about simple principles in the scientific community.
 
Last edited:
OP
westwall

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
66,861
Reaction score
19,677
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
It's the deniers that cheat. They routinely misrepresent the data as flawed, because that's all they have. This is a purely political exercise on their part as evidenced by their bringing Gore into the conversation, as if his talking about changed anything, except that they hate him for it.




Yeah right konrad,

Have you been under a rock for the last two years? Climategate exposed 10,000 emails of lies form the AGW crowd, you claim that Mann was exonerated and yet the truth is he was not as is shown below I put the most important part in bold not that you'll pay any attention as you are a mindless worshiper at the altar of AGW. Congrats, you have sold your soul to people who want your money and think you a moron, and they are correct.


With their reputations thus disappearing faster than the snows of Kilimanjaro, the zealots have become hysterical. Mann attacks a prominent sceptic, Lawrence Solomon, for citing the scientists’ criticisms of the Antarctica study, and is in turn answered by Solomon -- an exchange reproduced in Canada’s Financial Post, for which Solomon writes, here and here. Mann repeatedly accuses Solomon of lying. In doing so, he has left himself dramatically exposed. Claiming that Solomon

repeatedly lies about my work

he cites as evidence of this that his ‘hockey stick’ study was

vindicated in a report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences

and seeks to back up this assertion by citing the way the media reported this study as

‘Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate’ (New York Times), ‘Backing for Hockey Stick Graph’ (BBC), and so on.

This is, to put it mildly, disingenuous. While it is certainly true that the media reported it in this sheep-like way -- thanks in part to the manner in which the NAS chose circumspectly to spin its own conclusions -- it is nevertheless the case that in every important particular the NAS actually agreed with the McIntyre/McKitrick criticisms. Far from vindicating the ‘hockey stick’ graph, the NAS said that although it found some of Mann’s work ‘plausible’, there were so many scientific uncertainties attached to it that it did not have great confidence in it. Thus it said that

Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions

and that they had downplayed the

uncertainties of the published reconstructions...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.’

What Mann also does not say in his diatribe is that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ study and devastatingly ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’ – and panel member Peter Bloomfield were asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, they said they did:
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE: ‘the two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’ (Am Stat Assoc.)

As Mark Twain might have put it, there are three kinds of lies -- lies, damned lies and global warming science.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top