digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

GUARDIAN.CO.UK: Malaria returns to Peru because of global warming.

guardian.co.uk — "In Peru malaria was almost eradicated 40 years ago, but this year 64,000 cases have been registered in the country."

show profanity settings
expand all
  • p0s3r, on 11/02/2007, -41/+22GLOBAL WARMING!!! FEAR FEAR!!! VOTE DEMOCRAT!! FEAR!! GLOBAL WARMING!!! FEAR!

    Wrong, Warmmongers, malaria is resurgent b/c of the faux hysteria about DDT.
    • ashmael, on 11/02/2007, -18/+11I wonder how much you get paid to post this BS, and if you don't, how you even manage to get onto a computer.
    • nblsavage, on 11/03/2007, -8/+30Care to explain what a British newspaper, reporting on a problem in Peru has to do with the Democrats? Oh that's right...conspiracy.
    • DiggasWAttitude, on 11/03/2007, -9/+24I, unlike you Poser, don't talk out of my ass about things I know nothing about. But since I've lived in Peru for the last 4 years - much of that in the Amazon - I can call ***** on you and your explanation for malaria's resurgency. Since Peru sits near the equator and has such a wide range of ecosystems (mountains, deserts and rainforest), it experiences the effects of climate change probably more than any other country in the world. This means while one location may experience drought, another can experience greater rainfall allowing for mosquitoes to spread diseases like malaria and leishmaniasis (another insect borne disease on the rise). Granted that along with climate change, deforestation is probably as much to blame for the recent outbreak (as the article states so yes, the title to this post is poorly written). If you don't believe in global warming I have some pics you should see showing glacier retreat in the Peruvian Andes I took in 2004 then again in 2007. The difference three years made is unbelievable. While you can argue about the cause, understand that global warming is real. While it might not affect you until your mom's basement floods, it is already wreaking havoc in other parts of the world.
      • p0s3r, on 11/03/2007, -18/+7Are you trying to tell me that in a rainforest it rains alot due to global warming? Or in high deserts it's dry due to global warming!? I would suggest that it rains alot in a rainforest because its a rainforest and its dry in a desert because its a desert. Call me crazy!
        • nblsavage, on 11/07/2007, -3/+10oh....that's just to easy a shot.
      • Lagstorm, on 11/02/2007, -2/+0Chopping down trees that have been alive for many years will release biological mayhem into the air. It isn't really that complicated. Especially since we've been immunizing ourselves via soaps and a multitude of other products. The strains mutate or we have no immunities to the pathogens that have been dormant for eons. What do you expect? ***** humans lol
    • jmpeagle, on 11/07/2007, -2/+10that would have been true except malaria disappeared AFTER DDT was banned and has returned since it have been unbanned because it is perfectly safe in small quantities and has just as much effect as it would by literally spraying people with it like we did until the 1960s
    • OneHine, on 11/03/2007, -7/+5DDT was only banned for agricultural use, which accounted for far, far more use than protection against malaria-carrying mosquitoes. Aside from sticking around in the ecosystem for a long time, it also fostered the evolution of resistance in insects.

      Of course, p0s3r's so consistently anti-science, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that he's a creationist and just discounts that last line.
      • tpzoso, on 11/07/2007, -3/+9Thats quite a bit of judging on someones life considering they only wrote 2 lines, I am going to venture to say your a liberal hippie.
        • Bhima, on 11/07/2007, -1/+5I doubt OneHine is judging p0s3r on the basis of just a few lines. I've been burying his crap for months.
    • Wacer, on 11/03/2007, -6/+3Ya. DDT is great for controlling malaria. It's also great for killing everything off as well.
      • alciadanet, on 11/07/2007, -0/+4Name one single animal that was killed by DDT (except insects of course).
  • BottledSunshine, on 11/06/2007, -27/+19Actually p0s3r is correct. If anyone or anything is to blame, it would be Rachel Carson and her inaccurate and biased tome "Silent Spring", along with the pseudo environmental movement, that got DDT banned.
    • Dweller99, on 11/03/2007, -6/+23Actually no, he isn't. DDT was never banned for use in fighting malaria. DDT was banned IN THE US.

      http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/01.htm

      "Public health, quarantine, and a few minor crop uses were excepted, as well as export of the material."
      • tpzoso, on 11/03/2007, -4/+4Your source says nothing about DDT's legality in Peru, DUMBASS.
        • tmbrwolf19, on 11/03/2007, -1/+5Peru banned DDT in the early 90s, and joined the Stockholm Convention in 2003. It was mostly used for agricultural purposes. Regardless DDT is ineffective as a long term solution and requires constant spraying to have an effect. Once a resistant breed of mosquito develops as in Sir Lanka, it becomes ineffective and malaria rate spike dramatically (often worse as natural predators to the mosquitoes have been damage by the DDT itself).
      • cliffzdude, on 11/03/2007, -1/+5In many places where DDT could be of benefit, its banned. That includes many 3rd world countries. DDT can be very successful if used correctly and isn't nearly the danger it is when sprayed like its the world's largest can of OFF, and the earth is your 10 year old kid.
        • tmbrwolf19, on 11/03/2007, -1/+1DDT has failed in the past, and is best used only when sprayed within the home or inside structures as a last line of defense. Regardless of the ban, many countries still use it for this as well as vector control. Many individuals use DDT as it is a cheap and effective pesticide (in undeveloped nations), however governments do not endorse this. Saying DDT would solve the malaria problem over estimates its potential and effectiveness regardless. Wide spread spraying would only compound the problem in the future, and the article even states that the people of Peru aren't willing to bring back spraying of DDT. Education, vaccination, and further medical study are the most effective solutions, and the developed world can play a huge role by investing in this research.
    • nblsavage, on 11/03/2007, -6/+13DDT is a toxicant across a certain range of phyla. In particular, DDT is a major reason for the decline of the bald eagle in the 1950s and 1960s as well as the peregrine falcon. DDT and its breakdown products are toxic to embryos and can disrupt calcium absorption, thereby impairing eggshell quality. Studies in the 1960s and 1970s failed to find a mechanism for the hypothesized thinning. However, more recent studies in the 1990s and 2000s have laid the blame at the feet of DDE. Some studies have shown that although DDE levels have fallen dramatically, eggshell thinness remains 10–12 percent thinner than pre-DDT thicknesses. DDT is also highly toxic to aquatic life, including crayfish, daphnids, sea shrimp and many species of fish. DDT may be moderately toxic to some amphibian species, especially in the larval stages. In addition to acute toxic effects, DDT may bioaccumulate significantly in fish and other aquatic species, leading to long-term exposure to high concentrations.

      If we hadn't banned DDT - our national symbol might very well have died out.
      • tpzoso, on 11/02/2007, -4/+1Hmm, tough decision, death of a human by malaria in the jungles of "Peru", do to a lack of inadequate treatment facilities, or the extinction of a species, THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST THERE!

        Why don't you try and stay on the subject next time. I'm willing to bet that most Peruvians don't give a flying ***** how thick crayfish egg shells are, I am also willing to bet they don't particularly like Malaria.
      • tpzoso, on 11/03/2007, -3/+6Hmm, tough decision, death of a human by malaria in the jungles of "Peru", do to a lack of inadequate treatment facilities, or the extinction of a species, THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST THERE!

        Why don't you try and stay on the subject next time. I'm willing to bet that most Peruvians don't give a flying ***** how thick crayfish egg shells are, I am also willing to bet they don't particularly like Malaria.
        • tmbrwolf19, on 11/03/2007, -2/+3I am fairly confident the people of Peru would much rather have the money that could be spent on spray an ineffective pesticide, spent on creating adequate medical care. Peru is a country where many are very much dependent on the land, spraying with DDT will only cause many more complex problems then it will solve. Not to mention Peru benefits greatly from ecotourism which would suffer greatly from ecological damage.
    • jmpeagle, on 11/02/2007, -1/+9Clinton's foundation has successfully changed country's policies towards DDT. It was harmful using the 1960s levels but it was just as effective using one tenth the concentration where there is no visible effect on the surrounding environment at those levels. Of course this doesn't make up for the millions of dead Africans that have died between the 1960s and a few years ago when bans were lifted, but you can't blame the banning of DDT on a malaria resurgence now.
    • funktimus, on 11/02/2007, -0/+9DDT hasn't been banned for malaria fighting. It's still used and even backed by environmental organizations like the Sierra Club.
      • tpzoso, on 11/02/2007, -3/+6Yeah, because the bans were lifted during Clinton's term, whilst he put pressure on the UN to do so, and for the record I am a conservative, but I, unlike many liberals who lack the confidence to applaud a conservative for a good action, applaud Clinton for those efforts.
    • Adamness, on 11/03/2007, -1/+6Have you guys seen the old videos showing planes and helicopters spraying massive amounts of DDT all over the place? And the videos of the people spraying the DDT and rubbing it into little kids' hair? Go look them up.

      The truth is, DDT was used in absolutely massive amounts back then, and it obviously had negative effects. But anything sprayed in those massive amounts would cause harm. If DDT was used responsibly, the benefits would far outweigh any environmental impact. Almost 3 million people die every year from malaria, and a relatively small amount of DDT would do whole lot of good.
    • tmbrwolf19, on 11/03/2007, -2/+2Thank god we 'banned' DDT. Had we not, the likely hood is that mosquitoes would be resistant to it at this point. Since its wasn't used indiscriminately, it is still effective in emergency outbreak situations. City of Winnipeg several years ago effectively used DDT to combat the spread of West Nile. Sir Lanka is an excellent case example of this where DDT is now completely useless against malaria carrying mosquitoes and much more toxic pesticides are required.
      Anywho, DDT gets to much credit for what it does. Its a broad spectrum insecticide that does as much damage to predators of mosquitoes as it does to them. While it provides short term control, in the end it damages the ecosystems natural controls and allows for the opportunity for a much worse mosquito problem several years down the road. Not to mention the fact it works its way through the food chain very quickly, and its effects in humans are indicitive of much higher cancer rates as well as possibilities of birth defects.
      People read to much Michael Crichton and seem to believe that this argument is valid. In fact, the 'DDT would save lives' arguments is one of the most poorly informed anti-environmentalism arguments around. It completely ignores the concepts of developed resistances, ecological impact negating the effect, and common sense. The simplest and most correct answer should be to invest more in the malaria vaccine that is effective and cheap.
    • johnkelsen, on 11/02/2007, -0/+2"Somebody's gonna help the people off their, their rooftops, right?"
      "That's not important right now, son. What's important is figuring out whose fault this is."
  • realwx, on 11/06/2007, -14/+30I believe that Malaria is coming back to Peru, but what proof of blame to global warming?
    • whataboutdave, on 11/03/2007, -8/+17Exactly. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation.
      • nblsavage, on 11/03/2007, -4/+8Did you read the article?
        • whataboutdave, on 11/03/2007, -6/+5I did. Hardly conclusive stuff.
        • nblsavage, on 11/03/2007, -3/+4I expect people living there know more about the situation than you do.
        • Pake, on 11/03/2007, -3/+6nblsavage, just knowing that people are getting malaria does not mean they know the reason for the growth in cases. Until true, scientific research is done by multiple different teams who come to the same conclusion, there is not enough evidence to even start blaming global warming.
        • tpzoso, on 11/03/2007, -8/+2@nblsavage, have you seen the college graduate % rate in Peru compared to the US's, let alone the literacy rate. By all means, I expect most educated Americans to know far more about the situation than most Peruvians they themselves know.
      • nick111, on 11/03/2007, -1/+5This is a pattern we're seeing all over the planet though - average temperatures increase and species that normally only exist in warmer climates show up.

        I think causation is fairly obvious to be honest.
      • HollowMarkeD, on 11/03/2007, -1/+2It doesn't say malaria is caused by global warming; it says malaria is back due to climate change. The climate has changed, its been observed, making unusual rainfall for mosquito eggs to live in puddles. The title is Digg style - inaccurate and designed to provoke reaction.
    • tas08, on 11/02/2007, -2/+2You are absolutely right. This entire article was about the correlation between deforestation and malaria.
      • scott2007, on 11/03/2007, -2/+0Nobody actually read the article carefully. I buried the story because the title is inaccurate.

        I believe global warming is happening and causing disastrous effects, but this kind of propaganda just hurts the goal of education.
    • nskinn, on 11/03/2007, -1/+240 years ago Peru eradicated malaria by destroying the larval habitats by filling depressions that collect water, by draining swamps, and by ditching marshy areas to remove standing water.

      Peru became complacent about doing this because malaria had become eradicated so they stopped destroying many potential mosquito breeding grounds.

      Corruption probably siphoned off a lot of U.N. money that was supposed to go towards prevention.
    • cambob76, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1RTFA.
  • meepus, on 11/06/2007, -17/+6Uh. Global warming, or an excess of standing water for mosquitos to breed? Which seems more likely?
    • briansearles, on 11/02/2007, -2/+1Obviously global warming. Duh.
    • slicedoranges, on 11/03/2007, -1/+5abundance of mosquitoes != abundance of malaria
      • tpzoso, on 11/03/2007, -2/+3Its a rainforest, it has always had a lot of standing water, yet DDT still brought them under control. But now DDT is gone, and Mosquitoes are finally getting back up to the numbers they once were before, Global Warming is the obvious reason... *SARCASM*.
    • HollowMarkeD, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1The actual article states Climate Change: they have observed the climate change, whether via global warming or deforestation the climate has changed in the region.
  • Cenobite, on 11/06/2007, -14/+4God damn you, Global Warming! God damn you straight to Hell!
    • tas08, on 11/02/2007, -2/+1Did you read the article or just the headline on Digg? In the article I believe there is a sentence that reads something like "Climate change and deforestation are behind the return of malaria in the Peruvian Amazon" followed by an entire article talking only about the correlation between DEFORESTATION and malaria.

      Whoever submitted this Digg article title it like this simply because they have an agenda and know most people will read the title, get the impression the submitter wanted to give, and move on.
  • nblsavage, on 11/06/2007, -6/+29Ok..since you people can't be bothered to actually click on the article before jerking your knees:

    Off-season rain is altering the pattern of mosquito development, leaving puddles containing the lethal larvae in areas where malaria had been nonexistent.
    "The actual malaria problem of the Peruvian Amazon is caused by constant climate changes," said biologist Carlos Pacheco, head of the mosquito control unit in Iquitos, the regional capital south of Mazán.
    And deforestation is having a similar effect, forcing the mosquito to move to new areas and spreading the disease to places where people are not aware of the disease, where villagers lack the means to get hold of mosquito nets and preventive medicines, and where health authorities have no presence.
    "Every time we fight the mosquito, we feel we are fighting against a much more evolved and adaptable one, one that can easily migrate to areas that were clean of malaria before and that are very hard to access," said Mr Pacheco.
    Two scientific reports last year linked malaria with deforestation. Peruvian researchers found that frontier areas cleared of trees for logging, settlements, roads, farming or mining were far more likely to harbour malaria-carrying mosquitoes.

    Let me guess tho, the head of the mosquito control unit is part of the carbon-tax conspiracy right?
    • cheney08, on 11/03/2007, -18/+5Even the condensed version suffers from "factual inadequacy", or for you uneducated communists out there, "lies".
      • nblsavage, on 11/03/2007, -2/+12care to point out the "lies" Mr. capitalist?
      • nblsavage, on 11/03/2007, -3/+11oh good god..nevermind...you're one of the NWO nuts. It's not even worth the effort to debate with you.
        • unorginalityftw, on 11/03/2007, -1/+6No no. What you do is goad him into blustering inane rantings and laughing because your amused.
          • HollowMarkeD, on 11/02/2007, -0/+2My thoughts exactly :)
          • cheney08, on 11/03/2007, -2/+1Thanks for that intelligent, unbiased argument in support of your position. The level of intelligence on display here is mind boggling, which is to say, nonexistent.
    • geekee, on 11/03/2007, -6/+5The unseasonably cold day today where I live was caused by global warming. So was the unseasonably cold day last week.
    • funktimus, on 11/03/2007, -2/+7The article has too much sensationalism and that quote from the biologist is far too broad. The deadliest strain of malaria is of the old world, p falciparum. It causes more than 90% of the malaria cases annually and is the most deadly. Peru probably has the 2nd in line, p. vivax. It's a horrible disease, don't get me wrong, but it can be controlled. The US had malaria itself up until the 1950s. We still do but its mostly imported and mostly affects rural areas and migrant workers so an epidemic is unlikely.

      Anyway, I just want to say there isn't evidence to support that climate change, particularly temperature and rainfall, has any longitudinal effect on the range of anopheles mosquitoes (the ones that carry malaria parasite). One study supports it increases their altitudinal range, so villagers that are heigher in the mountains amidst endemic areas of the mosquitoes have something to worry about, but only if their poor, since the best defense against the disease is still simple netting (if you can't afford a net, i doubt you can afford pills everytime you get bit). But the hardest part is to get it out to the people and then keep them from using it to fish with (im not kidding) or taking it down when its too hot and humid.

      besides, other mosquito borne diseases that show strong evidence to range changes with temperature and rainfall (dengue fever) don't extend their ranges. The ranges change!!! mosquitoes like a lot of things can only withstand temperatures so high. so even if you keep the temperature constant it just keeps the ranges the same, it doesn't alleviate the problem. that has to be done with education, netting, medicine, and proper land land use managment.



    • Petrarch1603, on 11/02/2007, -0/+4you know, the rainforests are pretty complex places...there is a lot going on at a local level too
    • tpzoso, on 11/02/2007, -6/+1You expect me to make all my decisions about the situation because of one mans statement. The so obviously well known and always correct, Mr Carlos Pacheco! Do you believe everything you read on the internet, I guess not, you probably just believe only the anything and everything thats supports your OPINIONS! NOT FACTS! SO PLEASE, don't push your opinions on me as a FACT, because they AREN'T!

      And an OPINION it shall remain, until a reputable Science team is called down to create a THEORY, or are you, MR ALL KNOWING NBLSAVAGE, a scientist yourself? I think not, I venture to say you couldn't pass a Gen Ed chemistry class.
  • SilverStandard, on 11/06/2007, -13/+1If schools have their students watch An Inconvenient Truth, they should balance it with 'CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off.' Whether or not you believe global warming is human caused, I think we can all agree on hearing all sides. Link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-330991046 ...
    • ironhide, on 11/02/2007, -0/+9Thank you for injecting something irrelevant to the story at hand and posting a broken link
    • OneHine, on 11/02/2007, -1/+9Just so long as "both sides" are equally well-supported by science. Unfortunately for you, your side is not. You might as well ask schools to teach evolution and intelligent design.
    • unorginalityftw, on 11/02/2007, -0/+3To say Global Warming is human caused would likely be false, Earth has natural cycles. However, I realize humans are overloading and contributing way more than the Earth can handle of us. In a natural state, the planet is supposed to be capable of supporting about 6 billion humans (I think)-- natural state mind you, so not factories pumping out toxins. In any case, I think that our contribution has ultimately sped up the Earth's warming cycle significantly, so we'll be seeing effects sooner and quicker than it should be due.

      But then I'm a middle ground kind of guy.
      • Pake, on 11/03/2007, -0/+4The more middle ground is actually to say that global warming is a theory, whereas Earth having natural cycles is a fact. No one knows whether or not it's just a cycle, human caused, or other.
        • Pake, on 11/03/2007, -1/+4Should read "global warming caused by man is a theory..."
      • hiphopjon, on 11/02/2007, -1/+0kudos man
    • slicedoranges, on 11/02/2007, -1/+2While we're at it, let's teach the schools the Bible. After all, evolution is only one side.
      • tpzoso, on 11/03/2007, -4/+2The bible, being the worlds proven most historically accurate text, should be used in schools.
        • HollowMarkeD, on 11/03/2007, -1/+1Really? The Bible is the most historically accurate PROVEN text? Please forward the proof's of the resurrection and the various miracles, all those pesky evolutionists can read it and weep about the evil hell they are heading to.
        • slicedoranges, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1Let me fix your sarcasm meter for you.
  • noseeme, on 11/02/2007, -13/+16Ron Paul told me global warming doesn't exist, so buried as inaccurate.
    • chillypacman, on 11/02/2007, -2/+1I thought Ron Paul was one of *those* types of people who didn't comment beyond the scope of his chosen profession.

      Then again he might be getting some misunderstanding, he's said that "Fear is constantly generated by politicians to rally the support of the people. Environmentalists go back and forth, from warning about a coming ice age to arguing the grave dangers of global warming." he does seem to acknowledge it's a problem but has his own take on it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vbMly74cZ8&eurl=ht ... so he's basically saying that he's not willing to drum up fear for global warming and capitalize on it.

      It's kind of funny but I just realized Ron Pauls campaign is pretty much 'more power to the people'. If he wins we'll see if his theory works, at least it will b e anice change of pace to 'a noun a verb and 9/11'.
      • rz8472, on 11/02/2007, -0/+2Ok, first theres a serious distinction everyone needs to make. There's a difference between PARTICULATE POLLUTION and GREENHOUSE GASES. Particulate pollution actually reflects sunlight, which obviously works to reduce the temperature. This is the reason why scientists referred to a cooling trend in the 1970s - at the time very few factories had scrubbers and there were a lot fewer vehicles out on the road, so "Global Dimming" actually was outpacing "Global Warming". But it turns out it's a lot easier to install scrubbers on smokestacks than it is to reduce carbon emissions... also the effects of "Global Dimming" (ie acid rain, direct impact on quality of life in the immediate area) were much more immediate and so there was much more pressure to reduce particulate pollution at least in the US. But now that particulate pollution has been reduced, we now find that its own effects are actually MASKING the effects of global warming.

        This is, btw, NOT an implicit endorsement of increasing Global Dimming to offset Global Warming. Global Dimming has its own, very serious effects - most notably messing with the world's rainfall patterns, since particulate pollution can act as 'seeds' to stimulate precipitation. Areas that depend on seasonal rain may end up with no rain at all, resulting in drought and mass starvation. Areas that normally have no rain may be flooded and cause loss of life and infrastructure damage.

        You can find more about global dimming here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/
  • briansearles, on 11/06/2007, -9/+4*****, all this talk about Global Warming is going to give me malaria out of annoyance.
  • TsuruchiBrian, on 11/06/2007, -4/+11Mosquitoes do not need warm temperatures, contrary to popular opinion.
  • slicedoranges, on 11/06/2007, -6/+12"You're all a bunch of moonbats" comment in 5... 4... 3...
    But seriously, how can people continue ignoring these effects? It will only get worse.
    • spyd3rweb, on 11/02/2007, -7/+4because the earth is not a stable environment and this could be happening because of other factors? and causation != correlation.
      • nick111, on 11/02/2007, -0/+7But the vast majority of climate scientists - the people who are absolutely at the top of their game are saying that in this case there is a causation.

        Who are you going to believe? Scientists or snearing right-wing bloggers?
        • HollowMarkeD, on 11/02/2007, -1/+2They'll believe whatever their leaders tell them to believe.
  • brucerchapman, on 11/02/2007, -10/+3Deforestation != Global Warming.
  • blitzer, on 11/02/2007, -2/+6I blame the rampant poverty.
    • Bamont, on 11/08/2007, -1/+2The irony is that you aren't too far from the truth. It's not that I disagree with Global Warming - but I back up what I've always said: There are too many things in the Universe, too many outside influences on our planet, and far too many things in nature we still can't measure - yet we're certain that global warming is having these adverse effects on our planet. Pollution and CD emissions hurt our environment - you'd have to be an idiot to not see this, however, melting of the polar ice caps, crazy seasonal rains and changing weather - there's no real definitive proof that we're causing it. The reason why I don't call it "definitive" is because until we can measure other conditions within our own galaxy, it's not even feasible to begin saying that Global Warming is causing all these different situations - when we don't really know what else it could be.
  • kalidav, on 11/06/2007, -11/+5***** it has anything to do with global warming.
    • tas08, on 11/02/2007, -3/+1I concur, even if you read the article the whole thing is about deforestation.
  • tpzoso, on 11/06/2007, -9/+8Global warming isn't the culprit, the banning of DDT is to blame.
    -
    Now before you condemn the use of DDT, lets take a look at this tough decision. Would a Peruvian today prefer death by malaria in the jungles do to a lack of inadequate treatment facilities, or the extinction of a species, THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST THERE (An environmentalists main argument being the near extinction of Bald Eagles).
    -
    I'm willing to bet that most Peruvians don't give a flying ***** how thick crayfish egg shells are, and I am also willing to bet they don't particularly like Malaria. If they want to use DDT, they should be allowed to, the UN shouldn't be able tell them they can't, and them blame global warming for the return of Malaria. :P
    -
    For the record I believe in Global Warming and fully support lessening it with necessary means, however propaganda is not the way to take action.
  • cmpshotty, on 11/02/2007, -5/+5There is more evidence in the article that the problem is from deforestation, not any ***** global warming.
    • bigmike7, on 11/02/2007, -1/+5Oh, that's a big relief! It's just the largest rainforest in the world being decimated. No effect on the global environment there....
  • HappyScrappy, on 11/02/2007, -2/+2That's not how it works.

    Science is dead.
  • troycott, on 11/06/2007, -7/+7Apparently, now don't quote me on this, Global Warming was the cause of the Iraq war, 3 Mile Island, Japanese Dolphin killers, Che Guevara, and the Red Sox sweeping the world series.
    • bmunichman, on 11/02/2007, -1/+1Global warming made Hayden Panettiere sad? Damn you global warming, thats one thing you should never, EVER do
  • tas08, on 11/06/2007, -8/+5Ok, about global warming. The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years. Even if we had perfectly accurate records dating back 100 thousand years, that is only 0.0022% of earth's history.

    If tomorrow you walked outside and it was 90 degrees and sunny w/o a cloud in the sky would you say summer must be back? That one day is more than 100 times bigger a chunk of the year than the 100,000 yrs to the age of earth, and we don't even have accurate records going back that far.
    • nick111, on 11/02/2007, -1/+6Well since you seem so keen on numbers, why don't you go and find the number of scientists that think you're wrong and compare it to the number who think you're right.

      This isn't a debate that's going on at the moment... it's disinformation created by corporate lobbiests [1] and endlessly repeated by people who don't have the courage to face up to what's going on.

      But what you have provided isn't even terribly good disinformation. The 4.5 billion year age is not relevent to the swing we're seeing at the moment. We do actually have records going back far enough to draw conclusions.

      [1] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cooler_ ...
      • kindpastor, on 11/02/2007, -3/+1Nick111 I know you won't be able to answer this question but...Is there any consensus of scientists that says what EFFECTS global warming will have on the earth...or whether or not there's even any way to reverse it?
  • flamingmb, on 11/06/2007, -2/+3What was the reason for the all caps address in the title? Guess I should follow suit:

    FLAMINGMB: making a comment!
  • Richandler, on 11/06/2007, -6/+3Forcing everyone to stop driving and halting our economy isn't going to stop people from getting malaria.
  • psion01, on 11/02/2007, -3/+4"Malaria *returns* to Peru because of global warming." When did it leave? And does this simple statement imply that environmental conditions favorable for the spread of malaria have *returned* as well? How long was the respite? Was the world undergoing global warming the last time Peru had malaria?
  • hiphopjon, on 11/06/2007, -9/+3global warming is BULL S H I T

    read The Politicaly In Correct Guide to Global Warming
  • flatpick, on 11/06/2007, -2/+3in other news, piracy is at an all-time high...

    • hiphopjon, on 11/02/2007, -1/+0ARRRRRGGGGGG!!!!!!!!

      long live TPB

      sharing is caring bitc hes!
    • Bamborzled, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1Don't you mean an all-time low? HOW DARE you misinterpret the holy teachings of the FSM!
    • hitmonval, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1Very few people are going to get your reference to Peru's extremely high piracy rate.
  • hiphopjon, on 11/06/2007, -5/+2ya those "vast majority of climate scientists" that you are refering to are biased polititions in th UN whos soul goal is to gain political gain

    there are three teirs of scince

    ONE hypothesis - this is a educated guess or prediction

    TWO theory - this is when we start to THINK something based on educated GUESSES

    THREE scientific fact - for example "fire is hot" proved and unarguable
    • bigmike7, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1Climate scientists keep pretty busy doing their work. I don't think they have time to pull double shifts trying to enslave the world over at the UN.

      Also, you have little understanding over the "teirs" of science.

      Facts are the foundation of science, the starting point. They are just simple things we can measure and observe. A theory never becomes a "fact" after being studied enough.

      Theories aren't when we "start to think something based on educated guesses". Theories are scientific explanations that are supported by a large body of evidence. It's not a theory just because people have thought about it. A theory is the closest we have to the truth based on available data. Theories don't get to graduate to "fact". But they can develop and change as new data becomes available. If someone dismisses something as "just a theory", they are confusing a theory with a hypothesis.
    • arjie, on 11/02/2007, -0/+2Oh god, you people are as bad as Truthers and moon landing nuts.
    • HollowMarkeD, on 11/02/2007, -0/+2ONE Learn to spell to have people value your opinion (soul=sole)
      TWO The people who deny global warming gain more from denying it than those who support it. Follow the money.
      THREE Ha Ha Ha HA (Count von Count stylee)
  • theviolist, on 11/06/2007, -1/+3When I was in Peru in 2004 I had to take a malaria prophylactics for my entire stay. It is widely known that when visiting the amazon, or its tributaries you take the necessary steps to prevent malaria. This is not is not new. Why is this so shocking?
  • bigmike7, on 11/02/2007, -2/+4Global warming or deforestation, it really matters very little which is the cause since they are inextricably linked. Deforestation exacerbates global warming and deforestation is accelerating as tracts are cleared for biofuel agriculture.

    Those ostriches out there that want to blame only deforestation, try looking at what solutions are required to stop deforestation in the Amazon. You'll see they are the same measures environmental scientists are calling for to bring a halt to global warming.
  • horseplay, on 11/06/2007, -7/+2*****! Global warming is a natural phenomenon. The Government will dump millions of gallons of nerve gas in the ocean but when it comes to carbon dioxide, a healthy life giving gas which makes plants grow, well we have to tax the ***** out of the middle class and stop them from having too many kids by shooting them up with delicious mercury vaccines and give their kids autism.

    Learn the truth about global warming, watch the Great Global Warming Swindle. That is only one film refuting man made global warming. Al Gore's film is pure propaganda. The New World Orders own documents chart how they are to make up environmental crisis and use it to limit life and population and tax the ***** out of the middle class so they can't fight back against a world Government.

    Watch Alex Jones new film just released called "Endgame - Blueprint For Global Enslavement" and you will see it is all documented. Here is the link to watch it directly, but please get the DVD from him and support Alex Jones. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=10703290536 ...
    • HollowMarkeD, on 11/02/2007, -0/+3Yes, lets carry on pumping out healthy CO2; which coincidently is what all the rich heavy industries need!
    • crazywarthog, on 11/02/2007, -2/+2Please don't use facts or logic when discussing man made global warming. You are suppose to use your feelings. Everyone wants to save the earth ! Just feel good !!!
    • anachronaut, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1"carbon dioxide, a healthy life giving gas"

      That was the first thing (of many) in that post which made me laugh. Funny stuff.
  • bmunichman, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1Well, clearly, the solution is for everyone in Peru to start drinking gin & tonics! The quinine in tonic water works wonders with malaria.
  • hitmonval, on 11/06/2007, -4/+3Next idiot to question global warming in my presence gets a punch to the face.
  • heystoopid, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1The problem regarding "Malaria" is a difficult multifaceted one , and the parasite that causes the disease has evolved with the host in the harsh chemical environment caused a combination of all forms of pollution and the vicious over use and abuse of all man made chemical pesticides from DDT onwards !
    We also forget until recently that the malaria bug has developed resistance to the cheapest and widest available low cost medicines which have been in constant use for well over a hundred years ! These are the only cheap medicines available to those of whom but a very small rich corrupt minority of elite living in exclusive enclaves are mostly on a very subsistent average annual income can afford !
    The sudden spike would reflect massive growing unchecked pollution problems within the entire country itself and the ruling elite living in exclusive enclaves living in denial as the environment implodes from the combination of growing population and influx of multinationals seeking to build facilities that pollute without controls to maximize every centavo they seek to steal and paying the least possible in local taxes whilst paying the absolute minimum wages with zero health benefits ! Such Industrial facilities have been outlawed by most if not all western environmental control laws ! Effectively all Western Multinationals operating in third world countries like Peru today literally make Charles Dickens "Scrooge" very poor treatment of his workers look like an extremely generous benefactor in comparison !
    It is an extremely complex problem and there are no simple answers and requires numerous very hard small logical very expensive interlocked steps to correct the causes of the problem in the first place !
    Finally there is no such thing as total eradication all we are doing in modern medicine is moving the problem from the visible front page of the book to the invisible back page where it is awaiting patiently in the back ground until a specific set of environmental conditions make it ripe to return explosively with little restraint !
    As always , since many of us view the world through distorted rose colored glass we only see want we want to see and listen to only what we think we want to hear blocking everything out that we choose not to think about or consider !
    Hint Rachel Carson actually only assembled all the hidden and concealed research data from the very same chemical companies small groups of isolated research scientists that created DDT whose board of directors driven by Wall Street greed for profits first last and foremost basically chose to operate in the same denial mode that cigarette maker RJ Reynolds elected to do !
    What price a choice ?
  • crazywarthog, on 11/02/2007, -3/+2Now I know why I'm having hair loss on my head ? It's rather simple ... it's global warming !

    Stupid me !!!
  • cambob76, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1It's because they are tolerant of homosexuals...
  • Biskino, on 11/02/2007, -1/+2It's true that correlation does not (always) equal causation. But it's also true that, even if the science isn't 'finished' on a subject yet, it's still science. Science is not about the creation of static laws, it's about dynamic inquiry. It's the failure on a lot of people's part to understand this that lets fundies argue that their theories on the origins of life should get the same air time as evolution (which, after all, remains 'just a theory') and let the tobacco industry deny that their product casued lung cancer of decades (science still can't show that smoking causes cancer - only that a high proportion of people who smoke happen to get it).

    Global warming is, indeed, still a theory and it certainly makes sense to treat it as a hypothesis and critically examine the evidence being presented (and there is a lot of evidence to support the hypothesis).
    To stick your fingers in your ears and deny, hence forth and always, that man made global warming is an impossibility and that you have an alternative theory that explains once and for all the changes to global weather patterns that we are (categorically) observing is simply proclaiming your ignorance.



  • skeptilingus, on 11/02/2007, -1/+2Global warming has nothing to do with it. Peru has had malaria epidemics for hundreds of years. It only was eradicated in the age of DDT. Peru stopped using DDT. Eventually, malaria returned.
  • opticwind, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1I don't deny global warming is most likely the culprit but you can't pass it off as a fact that it's the reason this is happening. Just because there is an unstable climate somewhere, for 2-3 years, doesn't mean global warming is behind it.
  •  

    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.