The malaria myths of climate change

This is naïve. Across much of the region, the climate is already more than adequate for transmission, the disease is endemic and ubiquitous, and in most cases people are already exposed to numerous infective mosquito bites every year. You can't add water to a glass that is already full.

Malaria is certainly a ruinous problem for Sub-Saharan Africa. But again, the driving forces are economic, ecological and societal. They include population growth, increasing mobility of people, deforestation (which creates ideal conditions for malarial mosquitoes), irrigation, deteriorating health infrastructures (accelerated by the ravages of HIV-AIDS), drug resistance, and war and civil strife. Above all, the driving force is poverty.

Manipulative motives

How have these myths arisen?

In large part they stem from an escalating trend for political activists to use the “big talk” of science to manipulate public opinion with emotive and fiercely judgmental “scientific” pronouncements.

These activists legitimise their cause by publishing opinion articles in professional journals and quoting each other liberally, while essentially ignoring the mainstream of science.

Less than a dozen authors dominate this practice in the field of public health. Nearly all are non-scientists, yet they have been the main authors of the relevant chapters in the Assessment Reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Legitimate scientists who try to counter their statements are ignored, or even denounced as a tiny minority of “sceptics”, paid stooges of the oil industry.

Genuine concern for humankind and the environment demands the inquiry, accuracy and scepticism of authentic science. Without these, the public is vulnerable to abuse.

Human activities may be affecting global climate, but a true perspective on the problem must be based on science, not politics.