The Tale Of Two Malaria Studies

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

By Paul Homewood

http://ift.tt/2rzo8v7

In 2000, four researchers led by G D Shanks carried out a detailed study into the apparent rise in malaria admissions at the hospital which Brooke Bond run at their tea estates in Kenya.

This was their Abstract:

The changing epidemiology of clinical malaria since 1965 among hospitalized patients was studied at a group of tea estates in the western highlands of Kenya. These data indicate recent dramatic increases in the numbers of malaria admissions (6·5 to 32·5% of all admissions), case fatality (1·3 to 6%) and patients originating from low-risk, highland areas (34 to 59%). Climate change, environmental management, population migration, and breakdown in health service provision seem unlikely explanations for this changing disease pattern. The coincident arrival of chloroquine resistance during the late 1980s in the sub-region suggests that drug resistance is a key factor in the current pattern and burden of malaria among this highland population.

http://ift.tt/2rzo8v7

In particular, when they looked at climate data, they found:

Climate data were available between 1965 and 1997 as mean monthly ambient temperature (°C) and monthly rainfall totals (mm) recorded at the centre of the estates by the Tea Research Foundation (Ng’etich, 1997). There has been no significant change in the mean annual monthly mean temperature (B = 0·009 (°C/year), r² = 0·04, P = 0·14, not significant) or mean annual monthly total rainfall (B = −0·232 (mm/year), r² = −0·03, P = 0·642, not significant) during the period 1965–97. While these analyses do not exclude complex, combined temperature and rainfall changes it seems plausible to assume that factors other than climate change would have led to the precipitous rise in malaria warranting inpatient care during the 1990s at the Kericho tea estates.

But as we know, the climate industry is not happy with results like this, so another new study was funded, and published by Alonso et al in 2010:

ABSTRACT

Climate change impacts on malaria are typically assessed with scenarios for the long-term future. Here we focus instead on the recent past (1970-2003) to address whether warmer temperatures have already increased the incidence of malaria in a highland region of East Africa. Our analyses rely on a new coupled mosquito-human model of malaria, which we use to compare projected disease levels with and without the observed temperature trend. Predicted malaria cases exhibit a highly nonlinear response to warming, with a significant increase from the 1970s to the 1990s, although typical epidemic sizes are below those observed. These findings suggest that climate change has already played an important role in the exacerbation of malaria in this region. As the observed changes in malaria are even larger than those predicted by our model, other factors previously suggested to explain all of the increase in malaria may be enhancing the impact of climate change.

http://ift.tt/2rzxw1U

The difference between the two papers is stark. The Shanks study starts with an open mind and considers the data objectively.

The Alonso one starts with the objective of proving that climate change is to blame, and then uses computer models to confirm their bias.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

June 15, 2017 at 06:03AM

Australian PM Turnbull Faces Revolt Over Green Energy Policy

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

Malcolm Turnbull in question time yesterday. Picture: Kym Smith

fierce reaction is aimed at forcing the Prime Minister to rule out reforms that hurt coal and gas power, as Liberals and Nationals MPs urged him to put a priority on driving down prices rather than meeting targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

In a test of his authority on an issue that has split the Coalition in the past, Mr Turnbull vowed to adopt a “pragmatic” approach and assured colleagues there would be no penalty on coal power when the government drafted its reforms.

But the furious MPs used a special Coalition meeting late yesterday to demand actions to improve reliability and affordability, warning Mr Turnbull against embracing a plan that went too far to encourage renewable power.

“Finkel in its current form is dead,” one MP told The Australian last night.

Others said the proposal for a clean energy target remained alive but would be shaped by a strongly negative response from the partyroom. “I don’t think it kills it off — it’s too early to say that,” another MP said.

Conservative MPs said after the meeting that about 20 MPs ­bluntly opposed Chief Scientist Alan Finkel’s proposal for a clean energy target or raised significant concerns about the proposal in a clear message about the need to keep incentives for coal power.

“My sense is we’re going to get a clean energy target where there’s no way in hell Labor can back it,” said one Liberal.

“The emissions intensity threshold will be so high to include coal power that Labor will not ­support it.”

Former prime minister Tony Abbott was a sharp critic of the clean energy target and made interjections throughout the ­discussions.

“He was the most sceptical about it — he said it wasn’t going to cut prices or provide certainty for consumers,” one Liberal said.

“He was probably the strongest critic throughout the whole ­meeting.”

Others said there were about 10 who were clearly against the clean energy target while another 10 expressed concerns about its design, leaving the plan on the table as long as it was designed carefully to avoid putting pressure on household prices.

Full story

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

June 15, 2017 at 05:52AM

Finkel report destroys baseload coal power

via JoNova
http://ift.tt/1hXVl6V

Demand enough renewables and you might as well ban coal

There’s a lesson Australia needs to learn from South Australia. When renewables reach a certain point they make baseload power unfeasible. The situation develops into an impossible dead end that can only be solved with container-ships of cash.

The intermittent supply of wind and solar is the immoveable problem. It eats into the daily chart of the cheapest stable electricity supply — which is coal fired. Coal can’t be ramped in and out in minutes. It is a creature that runs best non-stop, efficiently, smoothly, at a high capacity factor (meaning it works best when it is producing around 90% of it’s design limit continuously).

Tom Quirk shows that sometime after these intermittent renewables hit 30% of the average daily supply — there are times during the daily cycle when they are providing almost all the demand. There is little demand left for the massive coal turbines to supply, so they spin, but costs remain, and profits are zero.

In SA, the owner of the last coal fired stations were still willing to pour in money, but even large cash […]

via JoNova http://ift.tt/1hXVl6V

June 15, 2017 at 05:45AM

Grenfell Tower Inferno A Disaster Waiting To Happen

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

Very worrying news about the horrific fire at Grenfell Tower in London.

The Telegraph is reporting that the main factor in the fire spreading so quickly may have been the vertical cladding installed two years ago to meet green energy efficiency targets.

The cladding acts as insulation, but fire experts believe it can create an updraft between the walls and cladding which caused the fire to spread so quickly.

This sort of cladding is used worldwide as an easy way to insulate old buildings.

As one expert put it, the quest for sustainability has trumped other concerns.

The full story is here:

http://ift.tt/2s2h4e4

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

June 15, 2017 at 05:03AM