Indigenous Peoples Hardest Hit By Climate Change

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by Karl

clude:

• In tropical and sub-tropical areas, an increase in diseases associated with higher temperatures and vector-borne and water-borne diseases like cholera, malaria and dengue fever;
•

Bullshit.Read what the experts have to say.

But Paul Reiter, chief entomologist at the US Government's dengue research laboratory in Puerto Rico, says climate change is not to blame.

He pointed out, in an interview with New Scientist magazine, that virtually all of the US was plagued by malaria in the 1880s, and that the disease had been endemic as far north as Finland.

He said: "At times, the disease has been rampant - indeed, the world's first recorded epidemic was in Philadelphia in 1780."

"Specialists in my field have had little voice in this debate. Take the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which produced a global assessment in 1996.

"The bibliographies of the nine lead authors of the health section show that between them they had only published six research papers on vector-borne diseases.

[Karl]

I didn't say it - the Australians in association with the UN said that climate change causes dengue to increase.

The "expert" denial quoted in the above post comes from - Puerto Ricans in association with the US.

So then, AU {UN} < PR {US} ???

Predictions like these are among the few on that list that actually make sense - and not just in the case of tropical disease organisms, but all that biota that exist. In the hypothetical case where a change in weather patterns results in higher rainfall - then additional habitat (and breeding ground) for mosquitos is a likely outcome. If there is an increase in temperature then (in general) the type and diversity of biological organisms is also likely to increase. One of the many idiosyncrasies of nature, is that it does not respect man-made administrative boundaries - a sustained shift in weather patterns mean shifts in bio-climatic zones...the biota will follow the northward expansion of their habitat and thus will have a greater range. That remains so whether personnel of the Puerto Rican/US wildlife management authorities choose to believe it or not. This is also a reality - whether the variations in weather patterns (which over time, progress to climate changes) come from natural sources, human pollution, or intelligent design.

That has always been the case on the Earth over the millions of years of dramatic changes in the climate. Florida was once cold, Alaska was once tropical - and at all such times the biodiversity followed suit. Whether the organisms which cause dengue, malaria, cholera, etc. will be among those with expanded range and habitat will just remain to be seen.

That is one of the major contradictions of the modern environmental movement. It is established that the tropical environment covers something like 20% of the Earth's surface and has over 50% of the species of plants and animals (the exact numbers may be off, but something along those lines). So, therefore with global warming, the tropics expands - let us say from where it is now (23 degrees N and S of the equator) to 30 degrees. How is that negative? Those bemoaning the loss of the Amazon say it will cause global warming and destroy the habitat of the most unique forms of biodiversity anywhere on the Solar System. But if there is global warming, all that will mean is that the tropical environment expands and the enhanced biodiversity (both on the land and the oceans) will be present on more and more of the Earth. So there are tropical fish now in the Adriatic, so what, do they taste bad?

The various non-tropical lands that have "always been green" will simply get greener...(that is, if they still exist in the I-N sense).

[forfismum]

UN="Take the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which produced a global assessment in 1996.

"The bibliographies of the nine lead authors of the health section show that between them they had only published six research papers on vector-borne diseases."

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by forfismum

Bullshit.Read what the experts have to say.

Shem Wandiga is a professor of chemistry at University of Nairobi who has studied the relationship between climate and malaria.

He said malaria epidemics first appeared in Kenya's highlands in the 1920s, but during the last 20 years, the frequency of outbreaks in the region has been more pronounced.

"The best climate conditions for malaria are a long rainy season that is warm and wet, followed by a dry season that is not too hot, followed by a hot and wet short rainy season," Wandiga said.

"Two to three months after that pattern, you see the onset of a malaria epidemic."

Climate Change Fueling Malaria in Kenya, Experts Say

[forfismum]

Ah so.Just as with the MWP and LIA we can ignore reality to fit the picture that we feel best suits our needs.Obviously this bit

He pointed out, in an interview with New Scientist magazine, that virtually all of the US was plagued by malaria in the 1880s, and that the disease had been endemic as far north as Finland.

He said: "At times, the disease has been rampant - indeed, the world's first recorded epidemic was in Philadelphia in 1780.

is completly wrong

I'm sure that Myrtti will tell us aout the warm and verdant conditions in Finland. What was the weather like in Philly back then ?

Perhaps if DDT is factored back into the equation we would see things more clearly?

I am really afraid to suggest that Africa has been unable to manage itself over the past half century and indeed is returning to the conditions which existed when Stanley was a boy.

[UrbanFarmboy]

If they weren't, there would be no need for a massive neo-Marxist redistribution of wealth campaign, I mean global climate change policy.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by UrbanFarmboy

If they weren't, there would be no need for a massive neo-Marxist redistribution of wealth campaign, I mean global climate change policy.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by forfismum

I am really afraid to suggest that Africa has been unable to manage itself over the past half century and indeed is returning to the conditions which existed when Stanley was a boy.

I was wondering how that opinion was relevant to a discussion on climate change, but then it occurred to me that given some of the media-hype global warming predictions (increased tornadoes, hurricanes etc.), a little bit of "Stormfront" type arguments may be inevitable.

Getting back to the point, the statements of the Nigerian chemistry professor appear to be valid from two well-established perspectives - biology and logic. While these may not appear be a prerequisite for all chemistry academics, the relationship between weather and mosquitos should not be seriously questioned, and figuring it out does not require one to be a scientific expert, whether a Nigerian ibo, Argentinian mestizo or Iceland aborigine.

The general ideas stated in the extract of the Kenyan report are not a matter of scientific expertise, they are commonsense; there is a clear relationship between inter-annual variations in the physical environment (weather patterns) and the availability of appropriate habitat (for the breeding of mosquitos). The fact of the matter is that the extent and conditions of successive wet and dry seasons are the defining parameters in this case. Now, in Europe, if you were to leave a pan of water exposed in your garden in summer you will be inviting mosquitos to breed - in the tropics there are no such restrictions, that would be a year-round risk (though obviously related to the severity conditions in the dry season, etc.).

But as you will recall - the tropical environment is not clearly defined, northern and southern limits away from the equator are imposed for convenience, but do not represent meaningful (or even discernable) boundary conditions in any bio-climatic continuum. Further to this the actual latitudinal limits of what is tropical have always contracted and expanded in accordance with shifts in average global climates.

Accepting the climatologists standard of a 30-yr integrated minimum of weather patterns as defining a unit of "climate", it can be see that when these variations in weather become sustained (and therefore the "norm"), climate change can be said to have taken place. The source, spatial extent, and functional dynamics are not the issue - Climate Change is real, and has happened in the past and will continue in the future.

So, the incidence, abundance and species diversity mosquitos in certain countries (especially Europe and Central Asia) will inevitably widen, if the CUMULATIVE trends of the past 50 yr continue unabated, so rather than deny that reality based on the origin, funding or ethnicity of the "expert", it would make more sense to start planning (and hopefully implementing) adaptation strategies to the changing reality of entomological-alien immigration. The invading mosquitos crossing the Mediterranean in the future will not discriminate - they will affect all things in Europe whether your homes, your gardens or your mosques.

Granted that this does not necessarily imply that the incidence of malaria, dengue or any other similar diseases will follow their hosts - there will definitely be an increased PROBABILITY of it happening.

[Myrtti]

Originally Posted by forfismum

I'm sure that Myrtti will tell us aout the warm and verdant conditions in Finland.

Warm it was. And verdant. I'm having enough difficulties remembering if I was a commie or not in the our bloody civil war in 1918 so don't expect me to remember what the summer of 1880 was like.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by Karl

I was wondering how that opinion was relevant to a discussion on climate change, but then it occurred to me that given some of the media-hype global warming predictions (increased tornadoes, hurricanes etc.), a little bit of "Stormfront" type arguments may be inevitable.

Don't start any of that racist shit with me sonny boy.