digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at divinecaroline.com

5 Diseases Flourishing Thanks to Global Warming

divinecaroline.com — Mosquitoes and other insects have long been harbingers of disease, but global warming is allowing them to venture into the newly warmer areas and spread once uncommon ailments to unfamiliar locations.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • RogerTourbiner, on 05/06/2008, -24/+50Could this simply be a planetary defense mechanism against human infestation?
    • FuckThaMeme, on 05/06/2008, -3/+10This ain't Halo
    • lpmiller, on 05/06/2008, -3/+24The earth doesn't actually care how hot or cold it is, or what lives on it. This is a result of global warming improving the living conditions of certain species, just as other species find things getting worse. It's how the pendulum swings, it has nothing to do with planetary preference.
      • halobender, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3The earth truly doesn't care at all if anything is living on it or not.
    • bullcutter, on 05/06/2008, -7/+4its more likely that pressing the thumbs down icon is a defense mechanism against having to read your comments...

    • EnjoyTheFact, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
    • metric7, on 05/06/2008, -1/+9Its all *****. There is an abundance of mosquitos in Arctic areas, just like there always was.
    • userperson, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2That's funny!
      You're doing Gaia's work my friend.
    • cyb3rdemon, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Earth's immune system is fighting off late-stage invasive ape cancer.
    • Abram730, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Bats eat Mosquitoes thus preventing outbreaks.

      How are the American bats doing?

      http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...

      :(
  • MuddyMudskipper, on 05/06/2008, -11/+6Mosquito larvae are delicious.
  • Bajayjay, on 05/06/2008, -6/+13I'm a mosquito magnet, they can't get enough of Bajayjay.
  • WoogieHauser, on 05/06/2008, -9/+6It'll be interesting to see how these diseases mutate based on region/climate.
  • kterrance, on 05/06/2008, -4/+16I didn't realize we had eradicated Malaria in the U.S. I really hope it doesn't make a comeback.
    • Jashobeam5, on 05/06/2008, -2/+8Ever hear of the banning of DDT? It has caused massive deaths in other countries. It's use is still limited around the world: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals ...
      • RobN, on 05/06/2008, -2/+13Except that nobody has really died from DDT, compared to many millions of actual, documented deaths from malaria.

        The war against DDT began with the book Silent Spring, which has over the years been proved to be inaccurate at best -- largely it was just fraudulent. The concerns today are "potential" concerns, based on studies where animals are given massive doses. Lower levels of DDT usage are both effective and greatly reduce or eliminate any of the concerns over harm to other life. Meanwhile, we try to convince everyone in the world to stop using DDT, while millions of people continue to die.

        Forget the stupid nets -- send DDT to Africa, and save millions of human lives! http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

        But never mind -- global warming proponents don't care if the third world STAYS the third world forever. Poverty and death is fine with them (even beneficial, since overpopulation is evil). One thing that could truly bring the third world into the "first world" -- industrialization -- is the thing that environmentalists oppose at all costs, no matter what the facts.
      • Tomchei, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5You must have gotten your science education from the Entertainment Tonight science course.
        Silent Spring is the reason DDT is no longer in use. While there are some legitimate concerns, that book is nothing more than cheerleading the hippie generation and not to be taken seriously.
  • CalmBlueOcean, on 05/06/2008, -10/+9win some, lose some. for every coral reef, species of amphibian, arctic sea mammal that goes extinct, there is new opportunity for parasitic insects and mutagenic viruses. who is to say one is better than the other?
    • macweirdo42, on 05/06/2008, -1/+12Amphibians, coral reefs, and arctic sea mammals don't try to kill me. Well, arctic sea mammals might, but I never go to the arctic, so I'm just fine with 'em.
      • SkippyDoorknob, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6I dunno man, you ever make a coral mad? They're ruthless, they'll hunt you down in your own house, hiding in your living room aquarium until you fall asleep on the couch. Then, WAM! They beat you with a baseball bat a flee on the neighbor kid's bike and ride right off the end of the pier back to their watery home.
        • j3ff86, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Coral reefs never give up or let down!
        • macweirdo42, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Dayamn, I had no idea... See, I don't have a living room aquarium, and I try to be nice to corals - not that I ever feared them before, but I just think it's a good idea to try to be polite to people. Geez, I hope I haven't accidentally pissed one off by mistake.
  • JimmySpaza, on 05/06/2008, -18/+59Actually, we could have wiped out malaria and saved untold millions of lives by using DDT, a substance now banned because of junk science and knee-jerk politicians. DDT worked wonders by killing off mosquitos better than anything in use today.

    But, what the heck. According to the leftist population control idiots at the time, the majority of the people being killed by malaria were Africans, so they deemed it was OK.

    http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html
    • SuperWinner, on 05/06/2008, -31/+5I think the right wing kills more brown people than the left, they just use bombs to do it.
      • seraph582, on 05/06/2008, -5/+11wake up
        • alittleroy101, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Why, what's going on? Am I late?
      • userperson, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Good to know ... it's okay to kill people as long as you don't kill as many.
        That's for putting that in perspective.
        I'm sure the kids who are dying of malaria count their lucky stars they're not in Iraq getting bombed.
    • borez, on 05/06/2008, -19/+5Bye bye malaria...hello cancer, birth defects and lack of fish on the menu
      • InfidelAl, on 05/06/2008, -0/+12Did you read the link you responded to?

        Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."
        [Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner's recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972)]

        Feeding primates more than 33,000 times the average daily human exposure to DDT (as estimated in 1969 and 1972) was "inconclusive with respect to a carcinogenic effect of DDT in nonhuman primates." [J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1999;125(3-4):219-25]
        • userperson, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Didn't they dump tons of DDT in the 50's (in America)? Did anything happen besides the thinning of egg shells? Even so, isn't the amount of DDT needed to fend of mosquitoes like tinsy in comparison? *shrugs*

          Of course never mind the millions of lives that would be/could have been saved.
          If you count the DDT ban in the same category, it may rival Stalin and Mao in sheer numbers, perhaps even surpasses them.
          • borez, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1Of course it could save millions of lives, but why would you wanna do that on an already vastly overpopulated planet that's about to fall into a global food/oil crisis?

            Woohoo...digg me down
          • BeardedClem, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5It has later been surmised that thinning egg shell problem that effected bald eagles and California condors was more likely due to heavy metal toxicity from lead shot in carrion.
          • userperson, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5@BeardedClem
            For real? I'd not heard that before, interesting thanks for adding.

            @borez
            Dude, I think you're way off.
            Due to technology and capitalism (to whatever extent it's allowed) we can produce plenty of food. Food shortages are usually tied up repressive governments, or other idiotic policy like ethanol subsidies. The people DDT would save are mostly poor African and Asian kids who may not take any oil anyway. If there were really a problem with food, the price would go up 'til most land that could be used to produced cheap food would be. Not to mention perhaps if more children survived birth rates in certain places would slow. Even so if you've got more people working on the problem, either thinking up solution or working on crops, how could that not help?

            So if there is not any real problem? and assuming your not a sadist, there is no reason for people to suffer needlessly.
    • macweirdo42, on 05/06/2008, -5/+14Wow Jimmy, I do believe that's the closest to a sane comment you've ever made. Until you got to the whole left-wing conspiracy to kill all the brown people part, anyway. I do, however, agree with you that the dangers of DDT were greatly over-hyped compared to the benefits, especially in places like Africa. Dear God, for once in my life, I find myself almost agreeing with JimmySpaza! This cannot possibly be good.
      • JimmySpaza, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Yeah, when I heard that some people didn't have a problem with banning DDT because of the side-effect of more black or brown-skinned human beings dying, I was skeptical too. I mean, that kind of rumor is almost always false or, at least, seriously embelished.

        Then again...

        http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/92/

        "In Remembering Silent Spring and Its Consequences, 3 Professor J. Gordon Edwards quoted from a speech by Victor Yanconne, founder of the Environmental Defense Fund. In that talk, Mr. Yanconne related a story told to him by a reporter who had asked Dr. Charles Wurster, one of the major opponents of DDT, whether a ban on DDT wouldn't actually result in far greater use of more toxic pesticides. Dr. Wurster is reported to have replied, "So what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them and this is as good a way as any."

        When asked by the same reporter, "Doctor, how do you square the killing of people with the mere loss of some birds?" Dr. Wurster is reported to have replied, "It doesn't really make a lot of difference, because organophosphate acts locally and only kills farm workers and most of them are Mexicans and Negroes.""

        And why do I say leftists? Because it is politically left-leaning bureaucrats who ran (and still run) the United Nations which helped push population control measures. These are the same types of people who push gun control, unlimited abortion services, wealth redistribution programs bordering on communism, and globalization of economic, political, and legal systems.
    • Dweller99, on 05/06/2008, -16/+7Somehow I knew that (false) argument was going to come up. Thanks for stepping up to the plate Jimmy!. Your own site states that DDT was banned *in the US* by the EPA in 1972. (yeah, the same US that eliminated Malaria) Your implication is that DDT was banned worldwide. you would be wrong. DDT was never banned for use against malaria.

      As recently as 2006 - "There are now 17 African countries using at least some indoor spraying of insecticides to combat malaria. Only 10 of them use DDT — Eritrea, Madagascar, Ethiopia, Swaziland, South Africa, Mauritius, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Namibia and Zambia"

      We now return you to your regularly scheduled JimmySpaza trolling.

      • InfidelAl, on 05/06/2008, -1/+11Not exatcly
        In the 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use of DDT was banned in most developed countries. DDT was first banned in Norway and Sweden in 1970 and the US in 1972, but was not banned in the United Kingdom until 1984. The use of DDT in vector control has not been banned, but it has been largely replaced by less persistent, and more expensive, alternative insecticides.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddt

        Also
        15 SEPTEMBER 2006 | WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease. WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa.
        http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/ ...
      • BeardedClem, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1The largest reason that DDT isn't used more widely in many African nations is due to the fact that agricultural exports to Europe are the mainstay to many of their economies.

        EU nations will ban food imports from any country that uses DDT.
    • petrodollar, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3"According to the leftist population control idiots at the time, the majority of the people being killed by malaria were Africans, so they deemed it was OK."

      Sounds like sound logic to me. What's your argument against it?
    • userperson, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1But what about the baby birds? /s
      • partrow, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2If it is applied judiciously on limited parts of a hut, for example, there is no danger to birds. The edge of the thatched roof is a prime mosquito habitat, and when treated with DDT is not a hazard to birds.
        • userperson, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1human > birds,
          Of course both co-existing is preferable. I was being sarcastic ( /s ), however it's still good info and should be spread anyway.
          Thanks for adding.
  • scamerica, on 05/06/2008, -32/+52Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.

    Guess he never met these guys:

    Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.
    Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."
    Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
    Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.
    Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."
    Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
    Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
    Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."
    Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."
    Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."
    Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
    Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
    Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."
    Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
    Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."
    Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
    And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers
    • thesubs, on 05/06/2008, -17/+3only in america...
    • swrostmore, on 05/06/2008, -23/+9Just like those on the "500 Scientists that disagree with global warming" list that was distributed by the GOP, I wonder how many of those scientists would be shocked and dismayed to find their names being used dishonestly as "evidence" for a position they disagree with.
      • keymanjim2, on 05/06/2008, -7/+8That kind of deception has only been perpetuated by algores flying circus.
      • 0xbaadf00d, on 05/06/2008, -3/+17Kind of like the scientists who found that their names were on the IPCC reports when all their input had been removed.
      • OffPiste, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1I see what you did there. Make a claim and then leave it up to the reader to prove you wrong.

        Nice!

        The sheep will never figure that out.
        • swrostmore, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1You're right, I must have underestimated the Denialist's ability to be ignorant of all news and events that contradict their ideology.
      • swrostmore, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2http://digg.com/environment/45_Scientists_Dump_Glo ...
        Happy now that denialist fraud is documented, Offpiste?
    • Chassit, on 05/06/2008, -21/+11Buried as spam. Please sell your book of lies somewhere else.
    • seraph582, on 05/06/2008, -9/+40please - people have been beating the same "the sky is falling" drum for decades now - back in the 70's it was all about the coming ice age. It's as silly now as it was then. The earth will be fine.
    • macweirdo42, on 05/06/2008, -15/+4You know what's hilarious - you people do the exact same damn thing. Anyone who even considers the possibility of anthropogenic global warming is a kook or a crook in your eyes. I'm not defending the Al Gore crowd (though I do believe in the possibility of AGW) - I just want to point out the hypocrisy here.
      • ReinMasamuri, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Perhaps some people do. I personally see it this way:
        We have evidence that the earth may be warming, but we currently don't have any hard evidence of how or why it's warming.
        So when people say it's man-made or it's natural, I usually brush it off unless they have HARD evidence.
        Currently, the natural side is winning. Unless you believe that we migrated here from Mars which had a very similar evolutionary track that Earth had.
    • chesscat, on 05/06/2008, -7/+5Dugg down for being too frickin' long.
    • SSCrow, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5I thought that it was widely accepted in the Scientific Community that Global Warming was occurring but it was a matter of whether its Man made or just the sun.
      • Jashobeam5, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Nope.
      • petrodollar, on 05/06/2008, -7/+3I depends. There's no shortage of right wingers claiming (falsely) that the earth is cooling and that we're entering a period of global cooling. See e.g. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2010336/p ...

        But when it's documented that the glaciers are melting and you point out that, according to right wingers, that can't be happening because the earth is actually cooling, they piddle their pants and cry about how "they're not actually saying that."

        This is called cognitive dissonance. In some circles, it's considered a symptom of mental illness.
        • petrodollar, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Here's a recent example of right wingers acknowledging that global warming is happening but claiming that it's all natural and, anyway, it's really a good thing: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2008048/p ...

          These are the same people who would claim just a few days later, in the link I posted above, that global warming isn't happening.
      • ReinMasamuri, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Glaciers are melting...
        Oct 20, 2005 — OSLO (Reuters) - Greenland's ice-cap has thickened slightly in recent years despite wide predictions of a thaw triggered by global warming, a team of scientists said on Thursday.

        The 3,000-meter (9,842-feet) thick ice-cap is a key concern in debates about climate change because a total melt would raise world sea levels by about 7 meters. And a runaway thaw might slow the Gulf Stream that keeps the North Atlantic region warm.

        But satellite measurements showed that more snowfall was falling and thickening the ice-cap, especially at high altitudes, according to the report in the journal Science.
        • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1So do we have ReinMasamuri on record as stating that global warming is NOT happening?
        • ReinMasamuri, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Just google "ice caps are thicker"
          Tons of info
          • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Why are you dodging the question, ReinMasamuri?

            Why is it so difficult for you to go on record as saying that global warming isn't happening?

            Clearly you're trying to insinuate something, but when push comes to shove you refuse to man up and take a stand. What gives?
          • ReinMasamuri, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1How would I go on the record? It's a freaking Digg comment, not a news conference.
            You want my opinion? Fine:

            The Earth goes through a natural heating and cooling process. The heating process has either ended, or is ending, and it's starting to cool again. Our environment is too complex to even come close to predicting what it's going to do and humans are WAY too young to be able to consider the environmental history we have available to us as an accurate way to predict trend.

            I have no hard evidence on this, and I completely expect to get Dugg down for making this statement without proof, which is exactly why I didn't inject my thoughts in the original post. I prefer to give people HARD information, and let them make their own choices, unlike those who make a ton of money on the Climate Change idea and LOVE to shove opinion down your throat as "fact."
    • zadadka, on 05/06/2008, -5/+2Oh please.
      If you are going to try to use your brain, at least see reason first.
    • spoonchucks, on 05/06/2008, -5/+6All those people are manbearpig in disguise.
    • alittleroy101, on 05/06/2008, -7/+4If digg had it's way, Ron Paul would be in the White house, we'd have no control over corporations or monopolies, and environmental safeguards would be left up to the conscience of each company.
      Thank god you loons still have some years to grow up before you can vote.
    • kelmaster1, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2It's the largest control system experiment ever taken in by man.
      we have statistical data ranging back 2000 years on weather at best, with accurate data ranging back as far as 400 years ago
      volcanoes and methane gas pockets from the ocean put more CO2 in the atmosphere than we possibly ever could
      atmospheric pressure keeps the alkalinity process going (CO2 reacts with water keeping an equilibrium)
      The last minor ice age (the little ice age) ended approximately at the beginning of the 19th century, this was the source of North Americas current glaciers, not the ice age that was 10,000 years ago like most people think.
      I could go on and on....
      Any scientific theory can be "proven" if you look for the right evidence; but the earth is an incredibly complex system, The variability is extreme. Global warming is using inductive reasoning to justify itself, which is a scientific fallacy. You can't use information from the last 1000 years out of earths multi-billion year history to justify the reasoning that we are causing global warming. Sure we might be able to measure the quantity of CO2 or O3 (ozone) in the atmosphere but that doesn't mean *****. I could come up with the theory that the moon moving away from us caused a slight gravitational difference which changed the ocean currents to change and hence caused warming in areas above those which we have experienced before and I could justify that with a bunch of cool graphs and data on the change of currents and gravity from the moon. I could probably find a ton of evidence to support that and people would believe me because I have evidence. Global warming can be very profitable for some people...
    • monoa, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2You want a pissing match? You lost - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
    • monoa, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Edward Wegman: "We were not asked to assess the reality of global warming and indeed this is not an area of our expertise."
      Paul Reiter - a specialist in mosquito-borne viruses. His opinion on climatology is of importance because?
      Christopher Landsea - is commenting purely on frequency and intensity of hurricanes - not anthropogenic climate change, which he acknowledges
      Antonino Zichichi - appears to have made a career on making controversial statements. Roundly criticised by many scientists in different fields.
      Zbigniew Jaworowski - described by Professor Hans Oeschger as "drastically wrong from the physical point of view"

      Then I got bored - it was too easy.

      You're attempting the same tactic as used by creationists. They roll out a few contrarian scientists and think they've hit a winning argument. I usually introduce them to http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541 ...
      • plutarch, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Unfortunately, you're not going to reach the digg crowd with "science" or "logic." They'll gang up to mock the ***** out of creationists for using the exact same denialist tactics and canards they themselves use to deny facts about climate change. They don't see the difference between an objective statement of scientific fact and a subjective opinion on what to do about it.
    • monoa, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2Actually, just one more:

      Freeman Dyson: "One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."

      In other words, he accepts the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

      So much for that "devastating" new book. Looks like it's gonna be devastating in the same way Ben Stein's recent film was - if 'devastating' also means 'really ***** dumb'.
  • mooseontheloose, on 05/06/2008, -22/+166. Kool-Aid disease - an abundance of Americans drinking the kool aid of one Mr. barack HUSSEIN obama
    • MaddieCakes, on 05/06/2008, -6/+8O'Reilly? Is that you?
    • macweirdo42, on 05/06/2008, -16/+3What's wrong? You afraid of the possibility of a ***** president with a sand-***** middle name? I find your attitude disgusting.
      • skatastrophy, on 05/06/2008, -5/+4I would enjoy seeing you get your ass kicked after you said that in real life.

        /reported
        • macweirdo42, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3Look, I admit I was a bit tactless, but it really pisses me off the way he puts "Hussein" in all caps, like it's supposed to offend us or something. Just strikes me that someone who would make a big deal over a name like that is probably a racist. I only used that language to emphasize that fact.
      • KevinRWright, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3I don't think people get what you are doing there.
        • macweirdo42, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3Goddamnit... I think you're right. Great, now everyone thinks I'm some sort of horrible racist bigot. Come on people, I was using those words satirically!
          • KevinRWright, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2haha, yeah. It's tough to get it right with those words. Don't worry mate, people with intelligence understand what you did. You have to understand that most people on digg, regardless of the silly posturing, really aren't intelligent. It's all psedu-smarts here.
      • petrodollar, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1They doing a good enough job of punking the world's most powerful army in eye-rack. Why shouldn't they be able to run a country?
        • KevinRWright, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1WOOSH
          • petrodollar, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Not at all. I don't care if he was being sarcastic. A lot of people like to denigrate the camel sambos but neglect to consider that they're punking the good 'ol USA with leftover munitions and outdated technology.
    • Asianwaste, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Ohhh... that's why Obama's popular.. because of GLOBAL WARMING!!!!! It's all coming together now.
  • terrizance, on 05/06/2008, -7/+9Believe me, you do not want Dengue Fever. I had it when I was a missionary in Guatemala. It put me out of commission for a month with a very high fever accompanied by whole-body pain (Dengue Fever is AKA Breakbone Fever) and excessive tiredness. As soon as the rest of my symptoms went away, my whole body broke out in a very irritating rash that lasted 2 more weeks. Fight global warming if only to save yourselves from Dengue!!!
    • sandman979, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Dude is not about warm weather, is about precipitation. Dengue needs steady water to lay eggs. A place with tons of precipitation is more suitable to breed mosquitoes. A full of water hole in a stone is a perfect breeding place for example. In a dry place the water evaporates and the mosquito dies, but not in the tropic (AKA warm) where rain is abundant.
    • bullcutter, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1fail for buying right into the mongering
  • borez, on 05/06/2008, -13/+6Global warming is the politicians way of making you use less oil coz they don't have the balls to tell you that in ten years or so it's gonna start to run out.
  • patpl22391, on 05/06/2008, -3/+28Okay, what can we do to stop these natural processes from occuring. Since we are about to plung into another ice age.
  • seraph582, on 05/06/2008, -10/+23Buried as inaccurate. West nile infections have DRAMATICALLY decreased in the southeastern U.S. thanks to drought killing off mosquitos like CRAZY. It's been wonderful w/out them!
    • Itazura, on 05/06/2008, -5/+7To bad it has increased in the southwest. Just because you don't live somewhere doesn't mean it isn't happening.
    • spoonchucks, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Yeah. That only leaves that whole pesky "no drinking water" thing to worry about...
      • alittleroy101, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Yeah no ***** that's already becoming a problem.
    • kakwakas, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I'm in the midwest (MI) and I've barely seen ANY mosquitoes this year.
    • monoa, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Yeah, if it ain't happenin' in your corner of the good ol' US of A then it ain't happenin'.

      Idiot voted up by idiots.
  • RaspberryBarret, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3Insect repellant might be the cologne of the next millennium.
  • LizNovack, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3I hope this doesn't increase helicopter spraying over neighborhoods. It's pretty common in Southern California I think.
  • TribalCouncil, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5Planting carnivorous plants tonight.
  • WCL23, on 05/06/2008, -7/+1OM NOM NOM NOM
  • gametavern, on 05/06/2008, -4/+5thanks to global warming, or nature... mosquitoes carry disease and rains, muddy areas will bread those whether it is because of dried up lakes or damming, or shifts in climate.

    But a blanket cause of global warming is good enough right?
  • BECoole, on 05/06/2008, -5/+32This is idiotic. Has this author ever been to Alaska? Cold as hell and mosquito swarms so thick they look like clouds.
    • thejamabides, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3I have and you are exactly right. Not only are the swarms huge, but the individual mosquito is huge too. Bigger than the midwest anyway...
  • stikkitjim, on 05/06/2008, -3/+12Breads Resurfacing Again thanks to global warming:

    1. Rye
    2. Wholemeal
    3. Mighty White

  • The_Red_Monkey, on 05/06/2008, -4/+13And I guess global warming means that the Temperature of the Earth has not risen in a decade. Jackass.
  • Twan2649, on 05/06/2008, -5/+14I thought global warming was put on hold.
    • bullcutter, on 05/06/2008, -3/+8we should wager how many months it will be before Al Gore takes credit for "stopping climate change"
      • Jashobeam5, on 05/06/2008, -3/+7He is waiting to see who wins this year. If a repub wins, he will scream climate change is still going on. If a dem wins he will say global warming has been slowed thanks to him.
  • Nlewis4, on 05/06/2008, -5/+24buried for pure speculation
  • alphonseragusa, on 05/06/2008, -9/+39Unfortunately the Earth has been cooling for the last 10 years: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc1MzdjOWEwM ... But let's not have facts get in the way of drinking the eco-nut kool-aid.
    • Zemenar, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Your link doesn't work. =(
      • hempydave, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1it used too.
        Got flushed down the memory hole
    • monoa, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1You're probably right - every scientist outside of right wing, bible belt USA has made a mistake or maybe colluded in a giant conspiracy to force all Americans to drive Toyotas. Yeah, that sounds plausible.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
    • aarin, on 05/14/2008, -0/+0..because, as everyone knows, the National Review has no political agenda at all.

      But don't let bias get in the way of drinking Right Winger kool-aid. After all, people still cite Fox News as Unbiased!

  • Jovensdesciple, on 05/06/2008, -13/+29*****. Global warming is not happening. There is no proof it is happening. Gaylord Algore is screaming it from the mountain tops but that doesn't mean *****. And seriously, do you liberals really need Another reason to be mocked??
  • Ganja420, on 05/06/2008, -11/+5Agent Smith: "I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure."
    • KingMoses, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4You know he was the villain, right? Agreeing with him kind of puts you on shaky moral ground.
    • userperson, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Indeed if we cannot trust a fictitious matrix (which want to use & control us), what can we trust?
  • 9bpm9, on 05/06/2008, -5/+4And what diseases aren't flourishing because of global warming? Probably a lot more than 5.
  • leerayIG88, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6Diseases...only a bump on the road. 200 years from now, we will be immune to all diseases.
    • tymilu, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0Diseases will just become more virulent as their hosts increase their resistance.
  • erhanaltay, on 05/06/2008, -4/+22There are mosquitoes in cold places... maybe somebody should inform Al Gore of this.
  • joe122370, on 05/06/2008, -7/+12enough with the freaking Global hysteria scare tactics! The sky is falling global warming nuts are just as bad as the people screaming terrorism in order to get their agenda across. Gore has already claimed the cyclone deaths for global warming. It's a f'ing planet and it does what it wants. No human can change the weather
    • randumbusername, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2global warming = the people who look down on people who believe in god want to use government to play god.
  • troycott, on 05/06/2008, -5/+9make that 6: excessive-global-warming-article-itis
  • chesscat, on 05/06/2008, -7/+1We're all doomed. I'm in favor of anything that helps thin our over-population.
    • yes_its_me, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6Ok then you wont mind me sending someone to your house and killing you and your family?
      • chesscat, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Hey dumbass, try a little decaf and get a sense of humor.
    • bullcutter, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4actually this planet has quite a while to go before we reach a true "maximum population of sustainability"
    • BECoole, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5Suicide works. Try that.
  • PolarBearCa, on 05/06/2008, -5/+20Wait - mosquitoes carrying malaria were in North America BEFORE Global Warming - but now Global Warming is making them come back?

    What made the mosquitoes go away - sulfate-based aerosols?

    Seriously - are we really supposed to continue to buy into this tripe?

  • sandman979, on 05/06/2008, -2/+10Mosquitoes love warm areas? Damn I guess that's why Greenland is full of them... It's damn warm in the arctic area.
  • hempydave, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2I have learned that almost Everything on TV and in the newspaper was a lie.
    Like I'm going to believe anything but the opposite from now on.
    Earth sheltered home heated with wood stove + wind mill power FTW
  • IllBeBack, on 05/06/2008, -3/+12Step 1: Scare us with Fear.
    Step 2: Confuse us with Uncertainty.
    Step 3: Stall our thinking with Doubt.
    Step 4: ???
    Step 5: Profit!
    • neopolaris, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Don't forget the control aspect. It's key.
  • bullcutter, on 05/06/2008, -3/+14utterly propagandized, fearmongering *****.

    more people on the planet = more people to catch disease, you dumbasses.

    the rates of disease increase are no greater than the rates of population increase in the areas mentioned in this article.

    god, people are stupid.
    • vectorb, on 05/06/2008, -3/+0Link to your numbers please. Im pretty sure you full of it.
      • bullcutter, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3the article itself doesnt supply any numbers, but the fastest growing areas of the world are the most disease-prone, largely because they are 3rd world cities expanding into rainforests, jungles and other lands previously uninhabited by man. of course there is going to be more disease because there is more opportunity for infection.

        regardless, its rubbish to believe that "global warming" (the earth COOLED last year BTW, shouldn't disease now go DOWN?) is a bigger factor for growth of disease than a GROWING INFECTABLE POPULATION.
  • BigManOnCampus, on 05/06/2008, -4/+8Ah, yes, divinecaroline.com.... the website that gave us this crazy-paranoid-bitch gem...
    http://www.divinecaroline.com/article/22084/24225

    Yeah, I don't put too much stock in the crap that comes out of that website.
    • userperson, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Pr0n causes global warming too! all the heat created by the friction between peoples' jimis and their hands has to go somewhere...
      see you really are killing kittens!
  • Gophergreg, on 05/06/2008, -3/+10These aren't diseases of warm areas, they're diseases of poor sanitation. Keep the area clean, remove the insect habitats, and the diseases go away. This article is fearmongering *****.
  • zadadka, on 05/06/2008, -7/+5FFS....I've never seen so much dissent amongst people who are supposed to be sensible and intelligent (ignoring the mass of American youth on Digg who continually demonstrate themselves to be silly little boys).

    CO2 increases are a very real danger, and ignoring that danger is what I would expect from commercial institutions hell-bent on making a buck.

    Are you really telling me that "some bloke in the bar last night reckoned" this was all political hype and you suckled on it?

    Remember folks. political animals and commerce seek power, not a better world for you !
    • thejamabides, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3You sir, are stereotyping man-made-global -warming skeptics into a bunch of snot nosed kids who think they know it all.

      You're wrong. About us, and man-made-global-warming. ANd this article is SOOO full of ***** it's not even funny.
  • Wonderama, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3It could be global warming...or it could be the random interactions of a bazillion other unknown variables causing an alleged spread of mosquitoes.
  • Mickelonis, on 05/06/2008, -5/+5Oh please, stop with the global warming crap! You know Al Gore is about to get sued because of that.

    Stop posting left wing crap on Digg!
  • rational1, on 05/06/2008, -4/+10Malaria is making a come back from one main reason and that's the ban on DDT. You can thank the environmentalists for the death of millions of people each year due to this ban. Environmentalist are pro-human death.
  • Jareth86, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6(takes one look at the comments)
    So this is where all the libertarians have been hiding?
  • neopolaris, on 05/06/2008, -6/+4The earth has been cooling for 10 flipping years Miss Greenie earth-worshipper...
  • ultraJesus, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1I just went to the "global warming" page on wikipedia to read up on some of this stuff, but was forced to retreat from a many large words and blindingly colourfull graphs.
  • Hetman, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1The article should be called. Why mosquitos are the greatest threat to humanity.
  • 3leggedHorse, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1 Dugg for Mosquitoes, I live in the UK in one of the areas affected by the flooding last year. 1-2 months after the place was filled with mozzies. It was a joke I got in a lift and they were everywhere,
    This is the UK not the tropics or southern Europe.
    • PolarBearCa, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2The Rideau Canal in Canada lost as many as a thousand workers during its construction. Many of the deaths were due to malaria. It was widespread in much of North America at that time.

      That time was the 1820s.

      'Global Warming' didn't make the mosquitoes or the malaria happen - then OR now. Malaria has been around for 50000 years, simply because Mother Nature is a badass bitch who periodically likes to remind mankind that she can pwn us on a whim.
  • DifferentAngle, on 05/06/2008, -2/+9divinecaroline = instant bury

    the website has so much false information it should be banned from digg
  • OffPiste, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2"but global warming is allowing them to venture into the newly warmer areas"

    What a joke!!! Ever been above the arctic circle in Summer? Yeah no bugs there.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.