Global Warming And Vector-Borne Disease: Is Warmer Sicker?

Question

One of the scarier claims made by supporters of an international climate treaty is that global warming will spawn epidemics of deadly "tropical diseases" – malaria, dengue fever, Yellow fever – not only in countries where such scourges are already entrenched but in North America and Western Europe as well. Many prominent individuals in government, academia, and media embrace the "warmer is sicker" hypothesis. Indeed, some claim the expansion of disease vectors due to global warming is already under way.

http://www.cei.org/gencon/014,01520.cfm

Answer 1

More nonsense coming from the alarmists IMO. Malaria has had horrible epidemics in the Artic and Siberia. It is not a heat related disease.
http://www.malaria.org/factpack.html (search for siberia or canada)
In fact, when considering deaths from cold related diseases, far more people die from those than heat related ones. Influenza and other diseases are more common in the winters due to the fact that our environments are more contained and we are indoors more. If it warms, it should decrease the number of dangerous diseases.

Answer 2

Because I was bored, I ran the search query "disease* and climate change" through Science Citation Index to see what was out there in peer-review land on this topic. There is some interesting stuff.

For instance four of the more recent of the total 195 hits to my query were:

"Climate change and the emergence of Vibrio vulnificus disease in Israel" (Paz et al., ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 103 (3): 390-396 MAR 2007)

"Global change shifts vegetation and plant-parasite interactions in a boreal mire" (Weidermann et al., ECOLOGY 88 (2): 454-464 FEB 2007)

"Influence of global climate changes on arboviruses spread" (Toussaint et al., ANNALES DE MEDECINE VETERINAIRE 150 (1): 56-63 2006)

"A growing degree-days based time-series analysis for prediction of Schistosoma japonicum transmission in Jiangsu province, China" (Yang et al., AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HYGIENE 75 (3): 549-555 SEP 2006)

The point being that these papers are all direct field observations, citations from the early 1990's were mainly theoretical studies suggesting these effects might be possible. Now they are being observed: the subject has moved out of the realm of speculation to documentation of the effect.

Ultimately, the Earth is going to obey the laws of physics as they pertain to climate regardless of whether you find it inconvenient or frightening. What the literature record demonstrates, whether you believe it or not, is that these things are happening. On behalf of the planet, I apologize that it scares the beejeezus out of you. Stockpile food, medicine, firearms, and freshwater if it will make you feel better.

Answer 3

Admittedly a controversial issue, with reasonable people on both sides. You've posted one side, here's the other:

http://www.who.int/globalchange/news/fsclimandhealth/en/index.html

But where the discussion is lopsided are two very important things.

Global warming will cause coastal flooding and damage to agriculture. That will cost rich countries large sums of money to fix. In poor countries already struggling to feed themselves many will die of starvation, or flee across national borders which could cause wars.

It's not necessary to accept areas still controversial to know that we need to take action.

Answer 4

It is a scary idea. The core of it is essentially that climate change may expand the range of some organisms--e.g. the kinds of mosquitos that carry some of thesee diseases.

At this point, its one o fa number of hypotheses about the likely effects of global warming and ensuing climate change. the good news, though, is that we can control most of these diseases with vaccinations, antivirals, and antibiotics.

Answer 5

I guess the Competitive Enterprise Institute is probably the leading institution in epidemiology...

Why not ask a priest or truck driver ?

Answer 6

Their thesis is not borne out by the data. If anything it would be healthier.