The inconvenient truth about malaria

02 December 2009

/article_images/articledir_11185/5592863/1_listing.jpg

Al Gore has made bold claims that climate change is aiding the spread of insect-borne diseases. The science does not support him, says Paul Reiter

Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, was a masterpiece. Like an elder brother to all humanity, he patiently explained the familiar litany of disasters — droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level rise and the rest — spiced with heartrending personal stories: his baby son’s near-fatal accident, the agony of losing a sister to lung cancer. It was a science lecture crafted by Hollywood.

In his book — the version for adults, not the one for schoolchildren — he even included a colour photograph of a corpse, a young man, floating face downward, drowned by Hurricane Katrina. I wonder whether the dead boy’s family were consulted.

I am a scientist, not a climatologist, so I don’t dabble in climatology. My speciality is the epidemiology of mosquito-borne diseases. As the film began, I knew Mr Gore would get to mosquitoes: they’re a favourite with climate-change activists. When he got to them, it was all I feared.

In his serious voice, Mr Gore presented a nifty animation, a band of little mosquitoes fluttering their way up the slopes of a snow-capped mountain, and he repeated the old line: Nairobi used to be ‘above the mosquito line, the limit at which mosquitoes can survive, but now…’ Those little mosquitoes kept climbing.

The truth? Nairobi means ‘the place of cool waters’ in the Masai language. The town grew up around a camp, set up in 1899 during the construction of a railway, the famous ‘Lunatic Express’. There certainly was water there — and mosquitoes. From the start, the place was plagued with malaria, so much so that a few years later doctors tried to have the whole town moved to a healthier place. By 1927, the disease had become such a plague in the ‘White Highlands’ that £40,000 (equivalent to about £350,000 today) was earmarked for malaria control. The authorities understood the root of the problem: forest clearance had created the perfect breeding places for mosquitoes. The disease was present as high as 2,500m above sea level; the mosquitoes were observed at 3,000m. And Nairobi? 1,680m.

1 | 2 | 3 Next page

More articles from: Paul Reiter | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (2)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Richard King

December 16th, 2009 6:21am Report this comment

Many, who like myself, have looked at the work of Michael Chrichton will be familiar with his speech about journalism. In it he challenges us to read a newspaper article on a topic we know well, and assures us we may well discover the reporter has it all wrong, and is quite likely to confuse the cause and the effect. He goes on to say that then we will likely, illogically, proceed to turn the page and believe everything else in the newspaper.
Paul Reiter has given us a similar opportunatey, a window into one of the IPCC 'articles'. Now how are we to feel about the rest of their 'publication'.

LoboSolo

December 16th, 2009 3:38pm Report this comment

The "inconvenient truth" is that it is the ban of DDT that has allowed the surge in malaria cases. The myths surrounding DDT are as strong as the myths surrounding AGW.

Post comment