Things I don't understand >

Science • Viewpoint • climate science > The faceless consensus of idiot experts

The faceless consensus of idiot experts

Science, Viewpoint, climate science February 13th, 2008

Another episode where you conclude that climate modellers have been elevated to a new branch of government or a special priesthood. Why else would you think that the UK government would do the following [my emphasis]:

Malaria warning as UK becomes warmer

The UK is to be hit by regular malaria outbreaks, fatal heatwaves and contaminated drinking water within five years because of global warming, the Government has warned the NHS.

Following a major consultation with climate change scientists, the Government is issuing official advice to hospitals, care homes and institutions for dealing with rising temperatures, increased flooding, gales and other major weather events.

Hospitals have been warned to prepare for outbreaks of malaria and tick-born viruses.

It warns that there is a high likelihood of a major heatwave, leading to as many as 10,000 deaths, hitting the UK by 2012.

Really? Suddenly climate scientists are experts in malarial diseases and tropical medicine? Since when? I must have missed that part of the earth sciences course I took at university.

A spokesman for the Health Protection Agency said: “Our work is based on what is likely to happen if we do nothing to prevent it – and it could well be that we see an increase in diseases such as malaria.

“Malaria has been seen in these islands in the past, and it is not impossible that it will return regularly if the UK experiences more tropical temperatures and rain on the scale experienced last summer.

“Our nearest continental neighbour, France, has already experienced a severe heatwave, with thousands of people dying, mostly the old and frail, so it was very clearly seen by scientists as possible here within a short timeframe.”

So the people in France were killed by tropical diseases? No they weren’t. They died because they could not afford to air condition their homes, possibly because of those extra “green” taxes designed to reduce electricity consumption.

What of the claim that the UK has seen these diseases before? Well it has. Up to the 19th Century, malaria was endemic to certain marshy parts of England. But the greatest loss of life from malaria in England came in the teeth of the Little Ice Age when temperatures were a degree celsius lower than today, the growing season was five weeks or more shorter and snow and ice covered the land in winter for months at a time.

Want to find a real expert on malaria and disease transmission? Try Professor Paul Reiter, who works at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in San Juan, Puerto Rico:

Discussions of the potential impact of human-induced global warming frequently include malaria, a disease widely perceived as tropical. Articles in the popular and scientific press have predicted that warmer temperatures will result in malaria transmission in Europe and North America. Such predictions, often based on simple computer models, overlook malaria’s history; until recently, malaria was endemic and common in many temperate regions, and major epidemics extended as far north as the Arctic Circle. Despite the disappearance of the disease from most of these regions, the indigenous mosquitoes that transmitted it were never eliminated and remain common in some areas. Thus, although temperature is important in the transmission dynamics of malaria, many other variables are of equal or greater importance.

Interestingly Professor Reiter withdrew from the IPCC because of its politicization of scientific issues and pre-ordained conclusions which ran counter to the scientific evidence. He even had to threaten to sue them to withdraw his name from the list of authors for the IPCC Review. He also reported that the IPCC had no other comparable expertise on tropical medicine and the transmission of tick-born diseases.

But hey! Why bother when climate modellers can fulfill any expert role.

The English word for malaria was ague, a term that remained in common usage until the 19th century. The Medieval Warm Period was already on the wane when Geoffrey Chaucer (1342-1400) wrote, in the Nun’s Priest’s Tale, “You are so very choleric of complexion./ Beware the mounting sun and all dejection,/ Nor get yourself with sudden humours hot;/ For if you do, I dare well lay a groat/ That you shall have the tertian fever’s pain,/ Or some ague that may well be your bane.”

Such mention of agues did not disappear when the coldest years of the Little Ice Age began. In 16th century England, many marshlands were notorious for their ague-stricken populations and remained so well into the 19th century. William Shakespeare (1564–1616), who was born in the autumn of Bruegel’s first fierce winter, mentioned ague in eight of his plays.

So says Professor Reiter. But what does he know? He’s not creating stupid panics from computer models unable to predict the next El Nino, the next drought or anything else.

But he’s not listened to, because he doesn’t represent the views of a self-indulgent consensus of over-qualified idiots. Whatever makes climate modellers believe their own publicity? Its the rockstar syndrome transplanted into academia.

I recommend the entire essay “From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in England in the Little Ice Age” and learn the medical and climatic reality. The UK Government won’t, because scaring Britons with imaginary hobgoblins and unlikely scenarios is a form of social control, and the British taxpayer gets to foot the bill.

You can bet that by 2012, with the UK government unable to produce a single case of domestic malaria, no-one will be held responsible for the money wasted and no-one will be to blame, and the report will be quietly forgotten to be replaced by the next health scare promoted by “the faceless consensus of idiot experts”.

Update:

Professor Paul Reiter testified as to the IPCC’s expertise in tropical medicine and malarial transmission to the UK House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee in 2005. His judgment on the IPCC’s “expertise” was devastating [my emphasis]:

The natural history of mosquito-borne diseases is complex, and the interplay of climate, ecology, mosquito biology, and many other factors defies simplistic analysis. The recent resurgence of many of these diseases is a major cause for concern, but it is facile to attribute this resurgence to climate change, or to use models based on temperature to “predict” future prevalence. In my opinion, the IPCC has done a disservice to society by relying on “experts” who have little or no knowledge of the subject, and allowing them to make authoritative pronouncements that are not based on sound science. In truth, the principal determinants of transmission of malaria and many other mosquito-borne diseases are politics, economics and human activities. A creative and organized application of resources is urgently required to control these diseases, regardless of future climate change.