Global Warming ???

[Oberon]

(continued from above)

I hope you are not accusing me of being dishonest here.

Not at all, and I'm sorry if it sounded like I was. I have appreciated the civility of this debate.

 

[Oberon]

(continued from above)

Yet this study says "But that's only half the story. The problem is that you've just made it more likely that that mosquito will bite your neighbor instead, and you've also decreased the chances that it'll pick up a lethal dose of insecticide from your walls or your treated bed net. This "behavioral avoidance" of DDT has been cited as one of the reasons for the declining effectiveness of African anti-malaria campaigns based on DDT."
DDT can make malaria worse | Pesticide Action Network

You didn't cite a study. You cited a blog. As for the study the blog refers to, "Historical review of malarial control in southern African with emphasis on the use of indoor residual house-spraying," they conclude the exact opposite: "Evidence presented in this review confirms that malarial control by IRS has made epidemics less frequent and reduced malaria from hyper- to meso-endemicity and from meso- to hypo-endemicity at the southern fringe of transmission in tropical Africa."

It seems like your source blatantly misrepresented that study.

 

[Oberon]

(continued from above)

You said "In Brazil, there is no DDT resistance in important vectors, yet malaria has rapidly increased (Roberts et al. 1997)."

This actually coincides with deforestation. Lets look at the data.

You missed the point of my quote (and didn't reproduce it entirely either). The point was a lack of correlation between DDT resistance and DDT ineffectiveness. The quote continued as follows:
"In Belize, there is no significant DDT resistance in vector populations, yet malaria increased when the DDT-spraying program was stopped; rates quickly dropped when DDT spraying was resumed in 1995 (PAHO 1992). In Mexico, extensive and intensive levels of resistance occur in vector populations, yet DDT was used to effectively control malaria from 1988 onward (PAHO 1992; Roberts and Andre 1994). "

Roberts, D. R., Masuoka, P., & Au, A. Y. (2002). "Determinants of Malaria in the Americas." in Casman, E. A., & Dowlatabadi, H. (Eds). Contextual Determinants of Malaria. Washington, DC.: Resources for the future.

In other words, not only is there a lack of correlation between DDT resistance and its effectiveness, it has been used effectively even against resistant vector populations. Your deforestation argument simply doesn't hold any weight, because it can only explain increases in malaria, whereas the rates go up and down depending on effective use of DDT (and other measures).

Yet we know even before the ban in india it was improperly used. The same improper use happened in many places, which lead to ddt being much less effective before it was ever banned in most places. The evidence for this is substantial.

This much is true. Ineffective use of DDT was a significant problem as well. But it doesn't negate the efforts of the US and other countries to stop the use of DDT and the millions who died as a result. Again:

“In 1977 environmental groups sued to force AID to ban exports of DDT, after which many countries could no longer obtain any. The World Bank extended $165 million dollars to India’s malaria sufferers, but specified that no DDT could be used. Madagascar suffered from a similar forced lack of mosquito control. Dozens of other countries, where massive numbers of malaria deaths continue to occur, also cannot receive financial aid unless they agree not to control mosquitoes by using DDT. In 1986, the AID issued Regulation 16 Guidelines. Secretary of State George Schultz, relying on that as his authority, telegraphed orders to all embassies, stating: “The U. S. cannot, repeat cannot, participate in programs using any of the following: (1) lindane, (2) BHC, (3) DDT, or (4) dieldrin.” Millions of poor natives in tropical countries died as a result, from starvation or from malaria and other insect-transmitted diseases. The term .genocide. is used in other contexts to describe such numbers of casualties. The ban on DDT, founded on erroneous or fraudulent reports and imposed by one powerful bureaucrat, has caused millions of Deaths…” p. 87

Edwards, J. G. (2004). "DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud." Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 9(3).

 

[Oberon]

"Air pollution costs the California economy more than $28 billion annually, according to a new study released today and co-authored by two Cal State Fullerton economics professors."
Dirty Air Costs California Economy $28 Billion Annually

You can't possibly be serious. You are equating air pollution with carbon emissions? The two aren't the same. Sure, cars and other large sources of CO2 emissions pollute, but this doesn't mean that kyoto will have any real effect on pollution. Where are the studies which show that kyoto would result in such cleaner air? You don't cite anything to that effect.

 

[Lavender]

I've been reading some of the articles posted on Piers Corbyn's web sight. He is the long range weather forecaster that successfully predicted the harsh winter in Europe, and snowy east coast in America. Interesting stuff about how much effect the sun has on our climate. He has a low opinion of the man made global warming theorists, and has data saying other wise to what global warming believers believe.

Piers Corbyn (Piers_Corbyn) on Twitter

 

[iholdit]

Oberon,

You said "The two sources don't disagree on the facts, in that they both recognize the possible risks. The expert commentator simply disagrees that these possible risks outweigh the gains, and the 2009 study doesn't properly address that."

The panel of scientists agreed with the stockholm convention and the WHO that ddt use should be limited to only when there is no other option available. As for the risk outweighing the gains, this is up for debate at this point which is what we are doing. The argument is not whether the risk of ddt use outweighed the gains 50 years ago but if it outweighs the gains now. We have other options working now without ddt use so the panel seems correct that ddt use should only be used when there is no other option available.

You said "All your dates are talking about the 1990s. I'm not saying that deforestation doesn't have anything to do with malaria rates in the 90s and later. But it can't account for an increase of 17 to over 2 million in five years. Are you seriously suggesting that the jump from 1964 to 1969 was due to deforestation?"

I could not find specific data for deforestation rates in sri lanka during that time. However i am not just talking about the 1990s. The dates for deforestation line up almost exactly with malaria increase in most cases and in fact they seem to line up better than the ddt/ malaria link in many cases. In brazil for example.

"DDT spraying on the walls inside the houses and the use of chloroquine to treat febrile cases - succeeded in freeing the majority of the country from malaria transmission by the late 1960s/beginning of the 1970s, it was, however, unable to contain the rapid spread of the disease in the Amazon Basin, where malaria still remains a serious health problem".
Malaria Journal | Full text | Malaria in Brazil: an overview

So we see that even though ddt was used effectively in other areas of brazil it was ineffective in the exact area that deforestation occured and at the exact time a huge increase in deforestation occured.

" It was in the 1960s that deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon became more widespread, chiefly from the removal of forest to make way for cattle ranching to raise national revenue during a period of high world beef prices, to eliminate hunger and to pay off international debt obligations.[3] Extensive transportation projects, such as the Trans-Amazon Highway, were promoted in 1970, meaning that huge areas of forest would be removed for commercial purposes.
Before the 1960s, much of the forest remained intact due to the restrictions in access to the Amazon aside from partial clearing along the river banks."
Deforestation in Brazil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So we see a link between an increase in the deforestaion in the 1960s in the amazon to an increase in malaria in the amazon, despite ddt use. We also see

"the number of reported cases in the country that rose from 52 000 in 1970 to 578 000 in 1989"
Malaria Journal | Full text | Malaria in Brazil: an overview

Yet we know this wasnt related to ddt because an agricultural ban didnt happen in brazil until 1985 and it was still used for vector control until 1997.

"In Brazil, DDT was banned from agricultural use in 1985. In 1997, the Fundacao Nacional de Saude [FUNASA; National Health Foundation] also banned its use for vector control."
http://www.scielosp.org/pdf/csp/v23n12/03.pdf

However this increase in malaria appears to be linked to the exact time of an even greater deforestation in the amazon through the 1970s and 1980s.

"Slash and burn forest removal in Brazil increased dramatically in the 1970s and 1980s."

"By the late 1980s, an area the size of England, Scotland and Wales was being removed annually."
Deforestation in Brazil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We see this in other places as well such as kenya before the 1990s.

"The highlands were considered free of malaria through the 1960s, but since the 1980s malaria has been increasing "
Reemergence of Epidemic Malaria in the Highlands of Western Kenya

Yet we know ddt was not banned for agricultural use in kenya until 1986 and ddt was still allowed to be used to control malaria. So ddt did not appear to be effective at this time.

"DDT was banned for agricultural use in 1986, but is still authorised for malaria control".
The cost of hazards posed by pesticides in Kenyan export crops

But this malaria increase fits perfectly with the time frame of deforestation. Here we see a major deforestation taking place between 1981 and 1990.

"In the East African highlands, 2.9 million hectares of forest were cleared between 1981 and 1990, representing an 8% reduction in forest cover in 1 decade "
Deforestation and Malaria Transmission, Kenya | CDC EID

You said "In India malaria was nearly eradicated in the early 1960s, and its resurgence coincided with shortages of DDT (Sharma 1996)."

We are talking about a 10 year increase in malaria here, was there really a 10 year ddt shortage?

"After 1965, malaria rates in India rose gradually and consistently with a peak of 6.47 million cases in 1976 (NMEP, 1996)."
Malaria in India

However, this timeline fits nicely with a 50% mangrove deforestation in india.

"Today, mangrovesare one of the world's most threatened ecosystems, and are rapidly disappearing in many tropical countries where they were once abundant. For example, Malaysia may have lost 17% of its mangrove area between 1965 and 1985, India as much as 50% between 1963 and 1977"
http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/barbier/Does Economic Development Lead to Mangrove Loss.pdf

You said "The population at high to medium risk of contracting malaria in Colombia and Peru doubled between 1996 and 1997 (Roberts et al. 2000b)."

In cambodia we see major deforestation at the end of the 1997-1998.

"Despite domestic and international efforts to reform forest policy, illegal logging has escalated in Cambodia. The Cambodian Forestry Department and the holders of legal timber concessions estimate that Cambodia's forests will be commercially logged out within 3 - 5 years. During 1997 and early 1998 between 2.4 - 4.5 million m3 of logs were illegally felled, against a sustainable yield of 700,000m3."
Deforestation in Cambodian - the implications for the July 1998 elections and the country's reconstruction. | Global Witness

We then see a decrease in deforestation at the same time we see a decrease in malaria.

"While the estimated annual net rate of deforestation during the period 2002-2006 has declined to 0.5% in Cambodia"
Cambodia Signs Avoided Deforestation Carbon Agreements for Voluntary Carbon Standard Project | Pact - Building Capacity Worldwide

The decrease in deforestation occurs around the same time as a decrease in malaria rates.

"Between 1997 and 2005, the number of malaria cases decreased by 57 %"
Malaria Journal | Full text | Large-scale malaria survey in Cambodia: Novel insights on species distribution and risk factors

For peru, there again seems to be a link between deforestation and malaria rates.

"In the 1980s and 1990s extensive areas in the Andean foothills were cleared for coca plantations. Falling coca leaf prices and eradication efforts by the government cut the area under cultivation from 115,300 hectares in 1995 to 31,150 hectares in 2003."
Peru: Environmental Profile

We see an increase of deforestation in the 1990s which is in the same timeframe as an increase in malaria.

"From 1992 to 1997, malaria increased 50-fold in Loreto and fourfold in Peru."
Malaria Reemergence in the Peruvian Amazon Region

After 1998 we see a dramatic decrease in malaria which seems to be linked to the dramatic decrease in deforestation "from 115,300 hectares in 1995 to 31,150 hectares in 2003". Please see the chart on this link to see the decrease in malaria between 1998 and 2003.
http://www.paho.org/english/AD/DPC/CD/mal-cases-deaths-1998-2006.pdf

This study also discusses the link between malaria and deforestation in peru.
THE EFFECT OF DEFORESTATION ON THE HUMAN-BITING RATE OF ANOPHELES DARLINGI, THE PRIMARY VECTOR OF FALCIPARUM MALARIA IN THE PERUVIAN AMAZON -- VITTOR et al. 74 (1): 3 -- American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

 

[iholdit]

Oberon,(continued)
You said “In 1977 environmental groups sued to force AID to ban exports of DDT, after which many countries could no longer obtain any." In 1986, the AID issued Regulation 16 Guidelines. Secretary of State George Schultz, relying on that as his authority, telegraphed orders to all embassies, stating: “The U. S. cannot, repeat cannot, participate in programs using any of the following: (1) lindane, (2) BHC, (3) DDT, or (4) dieldrin.”

The usaid has made this statement.

"USAID has never had a “policy” as such either “for” or “against” DDT for IRS."
USAID policy statement on DDT and malaria control « Millard Fillmore's Bathtub

You said "The World Bank extended $165 million dollars to India’s malaria sufferers, but specified that no DDT could be used. Madagascar suffered from a similar forced lack of mosquito control. Dozens of other countries, where massive numbers of malaria deaths continue to occur, also cannot receive financial aid unless they agree not to control mosquitoes by using DDT."

Do you know what year this happened?

You said "As for the study the blog refers to, "Historical review of malarial control in southern African with emphasis on the use of indoor residual house-spraying," they conclude the exact opposite: "Evidence presented in this review confirms that malarial control by IRS has made epidemics less frequent and reduced malaria from hyper- to meso-endemicity and from meso- to hypo-endemicity at the southern fringe of transmission in tropical Africa."It seems like your source blatantly misrepresented that study."

The statement "This "behavioral avoidance" of DDT has been cited as one of the reasons for the declining effectiveness of African anti-malaria campaigns based on DDT." in the blog is referring to this part of the study."

" Behavioural avoidance of DDT sprayed surfaces by vectors due to its irritating effects also posed an effectiveness problem"
Historical review of malarial control in southern African with emphasis on the use of indoor residual house-spraying - Mabaso - 2004 - Tropical Medicine & International Health - Wiley Online Library

Here is the study that shows this.
Effect of DDT on survival and blood feeding succes... [J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1990] - PubMed result

You said "The point was a lack of correlation between DDT resistance and DDT ineffectiveness. The quote continued as follows:
"In Belize, there is no significant DDT resistance in vector populations, yet malaria increased when the DDT-spraying program was stopped; rates quickly dropped when DDT spraying was resumed in 1995 (PAHO 1992). In Mexico, extensive and intensive levels of resistance occur in vector populations, yet DDT was used to effectively control malaria from 1988 onward (PAHO 1992; Roberts and Andre 1994). "

The problem is these quotes do not validate your point. The quotes do not rule out others factors being responsible for the decrease in malaria. For example in mexico there is in an increase in malaria due to el nino in 1986-1987. This would make 1988 look like a decrease in malaria compared to 1986-1987.

"An analysis of total malaria cases in Mexico for 1986 - 2000 (excluding years 1990, 1991 and 1992, for which information was missing) shows that malaria tends to be higher in El Niño years (1986-1987 and 1997-1998)"
Mexico Research Results IAI 200209

Another factor for the increase in malaria in the mid 1980s is deforestation.

"A related project, initiated in the mid-1980s, called for large investments in roads to facilitate the felling of the valuable tropical hardwoods for export."
Underlying Causes of Deforestation: Mexico

A decrease in deforestation that happened between 1987 and 1991 would also be a factor in the decrease in malaria.

"A 1987 meeting of concerned professionals proved to be decisive in formulating a long-term strategy for protection and welfare. The unanticipated participation of communal authorities contributed to building a broad coalition that would redesign the well-intentioned efforts to transform the Zoque homeland into a biosphere reserve that would have effectively remove them from the zone. The meeting had been convened in response to a concern about the consequences of decades of lumbering, colonization, expansion of the agricultural frontier, and ranching activities in southern Mexico; the tropical rain forests had been disappearing at an alarming rate. As the biologists and environmentalists met with a local NGO, Maderas del Pueblo del Sureste (Maderas), and community representatives over the next four years, they accepted an important modification in their original program. Instead of proposing a biosphere reserve to protect the largest remaining rain forest in North America, with its dense concentration of biodiversity hardly equaled anywhere in the word, including Amazonia, they developed an alternative jointly with the communities."
Underlying Causes of Deforestation: Mexico

When we look at the rate of malaria in mexico, we see an increase in the mid 1980s when deforestation increased and a decrease in malaria between 1988 and 1991 which is the same time frame as the decrease of deforestation.

"Malaria increased dramatically from 36.9 cases per 100,000 residents in 1980 to 171.5 cases in 1985, before dropping to 31.1 in 1991."
Mexico-Morbidity Patterns Mortality Patterns

 

[iholdit]

You can't possibly be serious. You are equating air pollution with carbon emissions? The two aren't the same. Sure, cars and other large sources of CO2 emissions pollute, but this doesn't mean that kyoto will have any real effect on pollution. Where are the studies which show that kyoto would result in such cleaner air? You don't cite anything to that effect.

I am serious. If you look at the study it says this.

"Hall; CSUF economics professor Victor Brajer; and Fred Lurmann, manager of exposure assessment studies at Sonoma Technology Inc., examined the health and economic consequences of two pollutants, ozone and particulate matter (PM2.5)."
Dirty Air Costs California Economy $28 Billion Annually

Now it is true that, particulate matter (PM2.5) is not a greenhouse gas. However,
ozone is a greenhouse gas and kyoto would reduce ozone.

There are other studies that show greenhouse gases besides ozone have health effects. Here are a few of them.

Life prevalence of upper respiratory tract disease... [Rural Remote Health. 2009 Jul-Sep] - PubMed result
Princeton University - Study: Methane emission controls can save thousands of lives
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Linked To Human Mortality

I couldnt find economic studies, that went into the economic costs of all of the medical costs and lost wages etc. associated with all of the greenhouse gases.

So i will try to do a little math again. Lets say we cut the $28 billion in half to account for costs related to ozone. Then lets be fair and cut the cost of ozone in half to account for the costs of the other greenhouse gases.

So thats $14 billion + $7 billion = $21 billion x 27 = $567 billion

The costs associated with kyoto were "$716 billion, 2/3 of which would fall on the US"

So, 2/3 of $716 billion = about $478 billion

Based on this math signing kyoto still seems the better deal economicallly. Obviously im not an economist and i dont have all the data to do the correct calculations but we are still talking similar money here.

Even if we call it even and say signing kyoto has no economic impact good or bad. The u.s. still saves thousands of lives by signing kyoto.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I don't even know what this means. I'm thoroughly addressing every point.

It's an old game: Drown out your opponents' points with crap faster than they can refute it. Thus, at least some of it slips through. Fox "News," BTW, excels at this. In fact I had to split this post just to get all my answers in--first time I can recall having to do that at RF!

How? All the citations I gave in that list are real. They are easily verified by google. As for the journals or conferences they appeared in, these are also easily verified to be peer-reviewed journals. Just look at the home pages. Journal of Geophysical Research, the Proceedings of the Royal Society, GPR, and so forth are all big journals. Apart from Science or Nature, do you have any idea at all where climate science research is published?

Prove it. Where are your peer-reviewed articles that indicate that climate change science is likely wrong?

As for peer-reviewed studies in favor of it, here is a minute sample of reports with direct references to such studies (one of these links is an actual study):

http://www.offnews.info/downloads/SPM2feb07.pdf <- also has some info on global dimming, as well as solar cycles
Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature <- completely debunks the solar-influence myth
Global Climate Change <- click on any endnote number to see the reference list

Those are large documents, and each one has a ton of references, so I'm just going to go with these for now.

It is the last step in the scientific method in the classic hypothesis-test-theory model of science. Obviously, science itself continues and theories can be shown to be false.

Right! But you should have been more specific.

It's simply a matter of language. Science doesn't use the word proof. Theories can be shown to be false (in fact, to be theories they must be falsifiable) but they cannot be proven true because they don't result from a formal system which has at its base various axioms and in which everything is known. Logic and math use proof. Science doesn't.

Science can't prove any claim with 100% certainty, but it can support them with 99.9999999% probability.

Because I've read extensively in the area of climate science. How many studies have you read? How many journals do you even have access to? Can you search JSTOR, Science Direct, Academic Search Premier, and other databases? Or do you have easy access to the hard copies of these journals? Have you read them?

You're shifting the goalposts now. Earlier you completely dismissed all the work that all the climate scientists across all the years had ever done. And now suddenly, the amount of research that someone has done is back in play again? Come on, man, can we please dispense with the double standard?

I've spent the past few years reading the studies. I know many of the big names in the field, and I know that quite a few of them don't buy AGW any more than I do, often for the same reason.

Already covered this.

Everyone in climate science obviously. Clouds and other subsystems of climates are FUNDAMENTAL to understanding climate change, and we don't understand them.

That sounds suspiciously like the justification for Intelligent Design. You wouldn't happen to be a creationist by chance, would you?

And you know this how? Exactly what have you read on the subject?

Again, goalpost shift. Either someone's expertise counts or it doesn't.

You don't get it. NO STUDY and NO SCIENTIST argue that BY ITSELF CO2 will do anything. Do you even know what AGW is? Let me explain- CO2 is a radiative gas. That is, it is one of those gases which prevents infrared energy from leaving the atmosphere. An increase in CO2 results in a logarithmic increase in temperature. NO MODEL OF THE CLIMATE predicts that this rise will be anything substatial.

lolwut?? No scientific model out there of any kind forecasts an astronomic rise in CO2 emissions, not even a worst-case scenario one?

However, the rise from roughly 1970- 1998 was greater than can be accounted for by CO2. Many climate scientists, therefore, posit a positive feedback parameter. What this means is that the rising CO2 causes changes in other climate subsystems (like water vapor) which increases temperatures even more. It is this positive feedback parameter which is at the heart of the issue. Without it, the climate change from CO2 isn't an issue. And if, as some research suggests, the warming is accounted for by other factors (e.g. GCRs or natural oscillations), then the positive feedback parameter which is at the heart of AGW is wrong.

Comments like this are why I really wish there were a talkorigins.org for climate change. First you accuse me of not knowing basic climate science (LOL), and then you make a massive statistical fail. Look at the numbers, look at the trend, it is there whether we like it or not. Pseudoscientific explanations such as yours carry no weight.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

NOT solar flares. GCRs result in cloud seeding, and the flux of these particles is related to the magnetic flux in our solar system due to the sun. Again, see for example

Kirkby, J. (2008). Cosmic rays and climate. Surveys in Geophysics 28 pp. 222-275.​

Scafetta, N. (2009). Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics.​

Scarfetta, N., West B. (2007). Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the northern hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600. Journal of Geophysical Research 112.​

Shaviv, N J. (2005) On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget. Journal of Geophysical Research 110.​

Svensmark, H. (2007). Cosmoclimatology: A new theory emerges. Astronomy & Geophysics 48.​

Is that Fox "News"'s climate talking point this week? Again, the solar influence myth has been thoroughly debunked.

No. You are supposed to actually read the research and make-up your mind.

And that is exactly what I have done, Oberon. What you may not know about me is that I, too, used to be a climate change denier. What convinced me was not merely someone saying, "Hey, global warming is real", but looking at the hard evidence. I may not have scoured the ends of the Earth and read even a tiny fraction of all the mountains of peer-reviewed studies stating, in no uncertain terms, that we humans are by far the primary cause of climate change. But when I see graphs that look like this:

and then this:

It is awfully difficult to dissuade me from this inconvenient truth that these graphs so clearly show.

Try reading the studies on climate opinion, or looking at the number of public climate scientists who have come out against the theory.

For example, .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.




On general lack of knowledge in climate science, see http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf

This study found a significant minority who didn't follow AGW. Subsequent studies which actually polled scientists found generally higher numbers supporting AGW (c. 80%).

As expected, the majority of experts agree with climate change, particularly climatologists. The problem, of course, is judging by publications (as people who publish contrary research are either not funded or not published), and the fact that climate is so complicated that nobody can understand more than a few of the various involved fields. This is why those who study long term climate are far more likely to doubt AGW, because they see a 30 year warming period in the context of millions of years. But whether or not the 82% figure is spot on, I think it's clear that the majority of those in relevant fields feel that AGW is an accurate theory.

Again, though, consensus is nothing. Everbody followed newtonian physics until Einstein. Eugenics was a consensus position too. Groups like the IPCC are primarily political, and funding and publication goes to those scientists who are mainstream. So no wonder we have consensus. Anybody who followed climategate or the hockey-stick controversy knows what a tight-knit exclusive group the climate community is.

What matters is the research. If you haven't read it, then you can't really say anything about it.


What of this evidence have you read?

So am I to play along with this game? Am I to re-post graphs that clearly, irrefutably, show a (1) sudden rise in atmospheric CO2, (2) sudden rise in global temperatures, and (3) a very strong correlation between the two, as far back as can be measured? What game will you play in response? The "this information has been questioned" game? Or how about the old "causation doesn't equate to correlation" game, which is just an appeal to ignorance? Perhaps you will choose the "this data was obtained wrong" tactic, despite the fact that the graphs come from multiple independent sources? I know that there are several other options I'm leaving out--I'm still learning all the games out there.

 

[Alceste]

I've been reading some of the articles posted on Piers Corbyn's web sight. He is the long range weather forecaster that successfully predicted the harsh winter in Europe, and snowy east coast in America. Interesting stuff about how much effect the sun has on our climate. He has a low opinion of the man made global warming theorists, and has data saying other wise to what global warming believers believe.

Piers Corbyn (Piers_Corbyn) on Twitter

He's just a weather man. He is not equal in credentials or expertise to the 97 % of published climate researchers who agree with the AGW theory. Even if he were equal in expertise, his opinion would still be part of an extremely small minority.

 

[Oberon]

The argument is not whether the risk of ddt use outweighed the gains 50 years ago but if it outweighs the gains now.

No, actually, that's not my point at all. My point is addressing the precautionary principle, or rather the version that says "let's act now just in case." Both action and inaction have consequences. We banned DDT and set in motion actions which prevented or made difficult it's use in many other countries and as a result millions of people died.


“In 1977 environmental groups sued to force AID to ban exports of DDT, after which many countries could no longer obtain any. The World Bank extended $165 million dollars to India’s malaria sufferers, but specified that no DDT could be used. Madagascar suffered from a similar forced lack of mosquito control. Dozens of other countries, where massive numbers of malaria deaths continue to occur, also cannot receive financial aid unless they agree not to control mosquitoes by using DDT. In 1986, the AID issued Regulation 16 Guidelines. Secretary of State George Schultz, relying on that as his authority, telegraphed orders to all embassies, stating: “The U. S. cannot, repeat cannot, participate in programs using any of the following: (1) lindane, (2) BHC, (3) DDT, or (4) dieldrin.” Millions of poor natives in tropical countries died as a result, from starvation or from malaria and other insect-transmitted diseases. The term .genocide. is used in other contexts to describe such numbers of casualties. The ban on DDT, founded on erroneous or fraudulent reports and imposed by one powerful bureaucrat, has caused millions of Deaths…” p. 87

Edwards, J. G. (2004). "DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud." Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 9(3). [/quote]


Notice this is not some random blogger or wiki article. This is a peer-reviewed academic journal and the article is written by an expert.

The dates for deforestation line up almost exactly with malaria increase in most cases

This is a fundemental problem for most of your examples: I'm not talking about just increases. The rates rise and fall. All of your examples can only explain rising. In many examples I have given (which again come from academic sources written by experts) rates fall when spraying occurs, rise when it stops, and often fall again. Not only that, the rates rise and fall dramatically. Deforestation has been happening all over the globe for all of the 20th century. It can certainly explain part of the increase in malaria in many places. The books I have cited on malaria deal with this issue. It cannot explain all or even most of the increases, and more importantly it cannot explain the flux. Not only do the dates not line up well enough, they DO line up with DDT use. Now, we know that DDT isn't a cure all. Both of our sources have noted times when it was either used improperly or not effective enough. But I have quoted time and time again from sources which showed dramatic decreases in malaria cases thanks to DDT, and dramatic increases when it stopped. And I'm going to accept malaria experts as to the cause, particularly when deforestation can't explain how cases jump from 17 to over 2 milllion.

succeeded in freeing the majority of the country from malaria transmission by the late 1960s/beginning of the 1970s

Here again we see an example of ddt saving many, many lives.

So we see that even though ddt was used effectively in other areas of brazil it was ineffective in the exact area that deforestation occured and at the exact time a huge increase in deforestation occured.

Why did you ignore the reason given by your academic source for this increase, and jump to a wiki article which says nothing about malaria? "The great increase of malaria cases during late 70's and 80's was due to massive and uncontrolled migration to the Amazon region of people attracted by colonization programmes, sponsored by the government." Malaria Journal | Full text | Malaria in Brazil: an overview

Nothing about deforestation.

So we see a link between an increase in the deforestaion in the 1960s in the amazon to an increase in malaria in the amazon, despite ddt use.

No, we don't. We see a link between massive migration and malaria according to your source. The government wasn't able to address this with spraying because it wasn't prepared to.

"The highlands were considered free of malaria through the 1960s, but since the 1980s malaria has been increasing "
Reemergence of Epidemic Malaria in the Highlands of Western Kenya

Yet we know ddt was not banned for agricultural use in kenya until 1986 and ddt was still allowed to be used to control malaria. So ddt did not appear to be effective at this time.

According to the source you just quoted: "Indoor spraying campaigns in the past in western Kenya with DDT (12) and Dieldrin (7) have effectively combated malaria epidemics"

You said "In India malaria was nearly eradicated in the early 1960s, and its resurgence coincided with shortages of DDT (Sharma 1996)."

We are talking about a 10 year increase in malaria here, was there really a 10 year ddt shortage?

Again, these are expert sources I'm quoting. Not wiki articles.

"After 1965, malaria rates in India rose gradually and consistently with a peak of 6.47 million cases in 1976 (NMEP, 1996)."
Malaria in India

However, this timeline fits nicely with a 50% mangrove deforestation in india.

So where is any source you have linking this with malaria increase in india? Again, deforestation in india began prior to the decrease in malaria: "deforestation was primarily driven by subsistence activities and government-sponsored development projects like transmigration in countries like Indonesia and colonization in Latin America, India, Java etc. during late 19th century and the earlier half of the 20th century." Deforestation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So no, your timelines don't match up.

You said "The population at high to medium risk of contracting malaria in Colombia and Peru doubled between 1996 and 1997 (Roberts et al. 2000b)."

In cambodia we see major deforestation at the end of the 1997-1998.

So the timelines don't match.

We then see a decrease in deforestation at the same time we see a decrease in malaria.

A decrease in deforestation can't cause a decrease in malaria. It can cause a lack of increase. The trees are still gone. They aren't going to regrow at a great rate in a few years. That's ridiculous.

 

[Oberon]

The usaid has made this statement.

"USAID has never had a “policy” as such either “for” or “against” DDT for IRS."
USAID policy statement on DDT and malaria control « Millard Fillmore's Bathtub

I quoted a peer-reviewed journal written by an expert. You quoted a blog. And my source said nothing about USAID "policy." It refered to 1986 guidelines and QUOTED the message relayed to ALL EMBASSIES.

Do you know what year this happened?

I do not, off the top of my head, but I would suggest reading the full article I quoted.

The statement "This "behavioral avoidance" of DDT has been cited as one of the reasons for the declining effectiveness of African anti-malaria campaigns based on DDT." in the blog is referring to this part of the study."

The study concludes that spraying is effective. The blog makes it appear that the study concludes the opposite. It's a misrepresentation of sources.

The problem is these quotes do not validate your point. The quotes do not rule out others factors being responsible for the decrease in malaria. For example in mexico there is in an increase in malaria due to el nino in 1986-1987. This would make 1988 look like a decrease in malaria compared to 1986-1987.

You aren't accurately representing what I quoted. It didn't say "a decrease in 1988." It said DDT was effective in from 1988 onward.

A decrease in deforestation that happened between 1987 and 1991 would also be a factor in the decrease in malaria.

Again, ridiculous. Decreases in deforestation don't really matter, because trees don't regrow any where near the rate they are cut down.

 

[Oberon]

Is that Fox "News"'s climate talking point this week? Again, the solar influence myth has been thoroughly debunked.

You are doing nothing other than clearly showing you have NO CLUE what you are talking about. These are RECENT studies in peer-reviewed journals written by experts. If the solar influence were as debunked as you say, they wouldn't exist. Ad hominem attacks only make you look foolish because clearly these are not studies published by fox news.

And that is exactly what I have done, Oberon.

REALLY? Then why are you completely unable to recognize which journals are peer-reviewed? Why can't you recognize where climate studies are published? What research have you read?

But when I see graphs that look like this:

Temperature increases have historically preceded rises in CO2, by hundreds of years, and only those who rely on sources like An Inconvenient Truth for all their climate info don't know this. Scientists, whether they believe in AGW theory or not, all know of the time lag. You know, I hope, that Science is a peer reviewed journal? Then see, e.g., "Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations" Science, 03/12/99, Vol. 283 Issue 5408

and then this:

That's a prediction. There was an increase in temperatures at the beginning of the 20th century which was statistically no different from the one scientists believe was caused by CO2 emissions. Yet it wasn't cause by CO2 emissions. Then, there was a large dip in temperatures from the 30s to the 70s, while CO2 increased dramatically.

It is awfully difficult to dissuade me from this inconvenient truth that these graphs so clearly show

Probably because you aren't reading accurate graphs accurate. Because there is an average 800 year time lag between the CO2 rise and temperature rise. Historically, as actual scientists know, the temperature has increased first. For other peer-reviewed articles on this lag, see e.g.

Vakulenko, N.V., Kotlyakov, V.M., Monin, A.S. and Sonechkin, D.M. 2004. Evidence for the leading role of temperature variations relative to greenhouse gas concentration variations in the Vostok ice core record. Doklady Earth Sciences 397: 663-667.

Fischer et al. "Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations" Science 12 March 1999: Vol. 283 no. 5408 pp. 1712-1714

Caillon et al. "Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III" Science 14 March 2003: Vol. 299 no. 5613 pp. 1728-1731

Prove it. Where are your peer-reviewed articles that indicate that climate change science is likely wrong?

It isn't that they show it is "wrong" but that it isn't anywhere near as certain as you are convinced. I gave you plenty such articles, including some on solar factors. You didn't read them, didn't even bother to check out the authors or journals, but rather dismissed them with some ridiculous comment about fox news, which I still don't understand.

lolwut?? No scientific model out there of any kind forecasts an astronomic rise in CO2 emissions, not even a worst-case scenario one?

Exactly. For someone who claims to know about global warming theory, your seem not to know about the most important, central point of the theory. The crux of the debate is about the feedback parameter. The NONE of the models which forecast problematic warming base this on warming from CO2 rises, but from the feedbacks those rises are thought to generate. THIS IS AGW THEORY.

Those experts who don't agree posit one or more of the following:

1. Our models and knowledge of the climate system aren't adequate enough to be at all sure this feedback parameter is either accurate or even necessary to account for observational records. And without a highly positive feedback parameter, we don't have a problem.
2. The observed warming can be accounted for by other, natural factors, such as natural climate oscillations or natural changes in cloud cover.
3. The models (and the theory behind them) don't match up with the most accurate temperature records (i.e. the satellite records).
4. The temperature record itself is too problematic to use as a basis for modelling.

There are recent, peer-reviewed studies on all of the above.

 

[ninerbuff]

We cannot accurately predict how the climate of Earth will change even over the next 6 months, and while I'm a science supporter, I just believe the warming of Earth is a continuous cycle that the Earth has gone through for millions of years. Yes man made CO2 may accelerate it, but even science has shown climate temperature increase without man made influence.
I feel now that a big cold spell is about to hit and it's going to affect us much more than the "global warming" of the past few years.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

You are doing nothing other than clearly showing you have NO CLUE what you are talking about. These are RECENT studies in peer-reviewed journals written by experts. If the solar influence were as debunked as you say, they wouldn't exist. Ad hominem attacks only make you look foolish because clearly these are not studies published by fox news.






REALLY? Then why are you completely unable to recognize which journals are peer-reviewed? Why can't you recognize where climate studies are published? What research have you read?




Temperature increases have historically preceded rises in CO2, by hundreds of years, and only those who rely on sources like An Inconvenient Truth for all their climate info don't know this. Scientists, whether they believe in AGW theory or not, all know of the time lag. You know, I hope, that Science is a peer reviewed journal? Then see, e.g., "Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations" Science, 03/12/99, Vol. 283 Issue 5408



That's a prediction. There was an increase in temperatures at the beginning of the 20th century which was statistically no different from the one scientists believe was caused by CO2 emissions. Yet it wasn't cause by CO2 emissions. Then, there was a large dip in temperatures from the 30s to the 70s, while CO2 increased dramatically.




Probably because you aren't reading accurate graphs accurate. Because there is an average 800 year time lag between the CO2 rise and temperature rise. Historically, as actual scientists know, the temperature has increased first. For other peer-reviewed articles on this lag, see e.g.

Vakulenko, N.V., Kotlyakov, V.M., Monin, A.S. and Sonechkin, D.M. 2004. Evidence for the leading role of temperature variations relative to greenhouse gas concentration variations in the Vostok ice core record. Doklady Earth Sciences 397: 663-667.

Fischer et al. "Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations" Science 12 March 1999: Vol. 283 no. 5408 pp. 1712-1714

Caillon et al. "Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III" Science 14 March 2003: Vol. 299 no. 5613 pp. 1728-1731





It isn't that they show it is "wrong" but that it isn't anywhere near as certain as you are convinced. I gave you plenty such articles, including some on solar factors. You didn't read them, didn't even bother to check out the authors or journals, but rather dismissed them with some ridiculous comment about fox news, which I still don't understand.



Exactly. For someone who claims to know about global warming theory, your seem not to know about the most important, central point of the theory. The crux of the debate is about the feedback parameter. The NONE of the models which forecast problematic warming base this on warming from CO2 rises, but from the feedbacks those rises are thought to generate. THIS IS AGW THEORY.

Those experts who don't agree posit one or more of the following:

1. Our models and knowledge of the climate system aren't adequate enough to be at all sure this feedback parameter is either accurate or even necessary to account for observational records. And without a highly positive feedback parameter, we don't have a problem.
2. The observed warming can be accounted for by other, natural factors, such as natural climate oscillations or natural changes in cloud cover.
3. The models (and the theory behind them) don't match up with the most accurate temperature records (i.e. the satellite records).
4. The temperature record itself is too problematic to use as a basis for modelling.

There are recent, peer-reviewed studies on all of the above.

I am not going to play any more games with you. You tactics are as bad as the creationists', who claim that there is zero evidence for evolution, who cherry-pick and quote-mine to get the information that they want. You are in no position to judge me, or my recollection of sources, and for you to attempt that sorry tactic is argumentum ad hominem at best and insulting at worst. You are so completely close-minded to the overwhelming evidence of climate change that you refuse to acknowledge that it even exists. You still think you know better than every scientist in every research institution in every nation on this one planet who have given their entire careers to studying this. That is pure, unadulterated arrogance, and nobody who talks like that is worth listening to. Besides, in a day and age where aggressive conservatism has become the norm, I have had to realize that such people are unwilling and perhaps unable to have a rational conversation. I do not wish to engage someone any further with such a pro-pollution stance. Goodbye.

 

[Oberon]

I am not going to play any more games with you. You tactics are as bad as the creationists'

I'm not the one playing games, and I'm not the one using bad tactics.

1. I cited numerous studies to back my points. You didn't read any of them or address any points any of them made. You just made disparaging comments about journals you apparently aren't familiar with.

2. I made claims about solar factors, and cited peer-reviewed studies to back up this point as well. You ignored the studies and made some pointless comments about fox news as if this had any relevancy. You then made claims about the state of research on solar factors in climate, even citing some study on solar flares which I said nothing about, and ignored every all of the research I referred to.

3. You claim to know about climate science, but apparently you don't even know where the research is published, nor which journals are peer-reviewed, nor even that the fundamental issue the feedback parameter.

4. You claim I'm "cherry-picking" data but you have consistently failed to address any and all points and research I have referred to. You also don't seem aware of any of it.

5. You make claims about the historical relationship between co2 levels and temperature but do nothing to address the c. 800 year time lag, nor even appear to be aware of it.

In short, you haven't addressed any argument I've made, or addressed anything I've said by citing research which addresses these arguments. All you've done is make ad hominem attacks about "fox news" and other ridiculous comments and make claims about my knowledge and the state of research without actually reading any studies at all. I've asked where you get your information from, which licenses such blanket statements, but unlike me you seem completely unwilling to engage in a debate by citing actual research.

And then you accuse me of playing games. Right.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I'm not the one playing games, and I'm not the one using bad tactics.

1. I cited numerous studies to back my points. You didn't read any of them or address any points any of them made. You just made disparaging comments about journals you apparently aren't familiar with.

2. I made claims about solar factors, and cited peer-reviewed studies to back up this point as well. You ignored the studies and made some pointless comments about fox news as if this had any relevancy. You then made claims about the state of research on solar factors in climate, even citing some study on solar flares which I said nothing about, and ignored every all of the research I referred to.

3. You claim to know about climate science, but apparently you don't even know where the research is published, nor which journals are peer-reviewed, nor even that the fundamental issue the feedback parameter.

4. You claim I'm "cherry-picking" data but you have consistently failed to address any and all points and research I have referred to. You also don't seem aware of any of it.

5. You make claims about the historical relationship between co2 levels and temperature but do nothing to address the c. 800 year time lag, nor even appear to be aware of it.

In short, you haven't addressed any argument I've made, or addressed anything I've said by citing research which addresses these arguments. All you've done is make ad hominem attacks about "fox news" and other ridiculous comments and make claims about my knowledge and the state of research without actually reading any studies at all. I've asked where you get your information from, which licenses such blanket statements, but unlike me you seem completely unwilling to engage in a debate by citing actual research.

And then you accuse me of playing games. Right.

Enough. I answered your questions, yet you completely dodged them and twisted my words out of context. I have better ways to spend my time than playing your childish games or attempting to debate someone who is so militantly pro-pollution, let alone both. I'd say more, but I have no interest in starting a flame war. To my Ignore list you go.

 

[iholdit]

Oberon,

Forgive me for any misquotes, i am not home and will not have access to a computer this weekend, so i can not copy and paste and will have to type everything out.

I HAVE USED EXPERT SOURCES and i honestly dont remember using any wiki blog quotes that werent backed up by scientific sources. For example one EXPERT i quoted from was Mary Berenbaum, head of the department of entomology at the university of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. This is a quote from her i used in an earlier post.

"What people are`nt remembering about the history of DDT is that, in many places, it failed to eradicate malaria not because of environmentalist restrictions on its use but because it simply stopped working."
If Malaria's the Problem, DDT's Not the Only Answer - washingtonpost.com

Im going to guess you didnt read the studies i posted regarding deforestation and malaria. In the 3 studies i posted from kenya,peru and brazil you will notice several things such as an increase of 300 times in the rate of biting in freshly deforested areas. Notice freshly deforested which means the mosquitos will not bite as much once plants begin to regrow. Another aspect is that it doesnt take trees to completely regrow in deforested areas like you are assuming. Once any plant growth happens in deforested areas standing water is reduced, which leads to a reduction in mosquito breeding sites, which leads to a reduction in malaria. Less deforestation leads to less breeding sites which means a reduction in malaria.

As i have already shown the timelines for increases in deforestation DO match up very well with the timelines for increases in malaria in most cases. Just like the timelines for decreases in deforestation DO match up very well with the timelines for decreases in malaria in most cases. I showed this in brazil, kenya, india, peru and mexico. You only pointed out a mistake for cambodia, so i guess you accept the rest of my examples as valid. I also showed DDT use DID NOT line up with decreases in malaria in many of these cases.

As for brazil i guess you didnt read the deforestation sources which said deforestation occured as part of the migration. The malaria source probably assumed the reader would realize deforestation would have to occur for a migration into a forested area of the amazon to even happen. Deforestation took place to make roads and living space for the migration. I also already posted a study linking deforestation and malaria in brazil.

As for the study the blog quoted it was in reference to the plos one study about mosquitos avoiding ddt sprayed houses. If you look at the study i posted you will see the blogs point.

Let me clarify what i am arguing. You said that the ban on ddt caused millions to die from malaria. What we have seen is that most countries did not ban ddt for agricultural use until the mid 1980s and even then most of those countries still allowed ddt use for controlling malaria. My argument is that ddt was not effectively controlling malaria by the mid 1980s in most areas. For example sri lanka they used ddt between 1972 and 1977 and had very little success controlling malaria, they then switched to a different chemical and had much better success controlling malaria then they did the previous 5 years using ddt. As a side note there was a decrease in deforestation at the same time sri lanka stopped using ddt which could account for the decrease in malaria.

My problems with your argument are that when ddt use is in effect and there is a decrease in malaria you seem to give all or at least most of the credit to ddt. Yet when ddt use is in effect and malaria increases you seem to ignore it. You also seem to only or mostly give ddt use credit for reductions in malaria and ignore most other factors involved at the time. The same goes when ddt is not in use and there is an increase in malaria you ignore other factors that could have caused the increase. You have no problem believing deforestation contributed to malaria increases in the 1990s, yet you ignore deforestation as a factor for malaria increases in the mid 1980s when most countries first banned ddt, even though most of those countries still allowed ddt use to control malaria at that time.

 

[iholdit]

Oberon.

Deforestation can easily account for an increase of 17 malaria cases to 2 million cases in the 5 year period this happened in.

The studies showed mosquitoes bite approx 300 times more during fresh deforestation. So if we say this translated to an increase in malaria of 15 times(this is only 5% of the 300 times more biting). The math would be as follows.

1963- 17 cases
1964- 17 x 15= 255 cases
1965- 255 x 15= 3,825 cases
1966- 3825 x 15= 57,375 cases
1967- 57,375 x 15= 860,625 cases
1968- 860,625 x 15= 12,909,375 cases

This is significantly(6+ times) more than what you say is impossible from deforestation.

Whether this is what happened i cant say for sure because i can not find data for the exact years in question of deforestation in sri lanka.

Of course deforestation is also not the only factor that increases malaria that i have mentioned but this does show it is not a big stretch to imagine deforestation being able to cause this kind of an increase in malaria.