Those of you who follow climate news have seen this already. Dave Smith, mathematical modeler here at CDDEP, has been getting a lot of (good) attention for his recent paper on malaria and climate change. Joe Romm at Climate Progress, however, has put particular effort into critiquing the paper’s footnotes, the authors, the editors of Nature, and the media for covering the story. He claims those promoting this study have an “anti-science” agenda.

The truth is, in this case the science doesn’t serve his agenda.

Smith and colleagues mapped malaria over the past century  and found:

1) The range of malaria contracted significantly over the past century–a period of time when the world warmed by a degree, and during that time malaria intensity decreased over 98% of its range.

2) Mathematical models do predict malaria intensification with warming, but they also predict a much larger impact from public health interventions.

The paper attracted media attention because an increase in malaria’s range is cited as one of the health effects of climate change.  

Frequently.

Here’s just one example from the EPA: “Climate change may increase the risk of some infectious diseases, particularly those diseases that appear in warm areas and are spread by mosquitoes and other insects. These “vector-borne” diseases include malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis… The IPCC has noted that the global population at risk from vector-borne malaria will increase by between 220 million and 400 million in the next century. While most of the increase is predicted to occur in Africa, some increased risk is projected in Britain, Australia, India and Portugal (IPCC, 2007).”

While malaria might increase in a warming world with no disease control interventions, this is not the world we live in.

The paper does NOT claim that the effects of global warming are overblown, but it does show that increasing malaria is a false fear. There are very real reasons to be worried about climate change. So let’s point to those real reasons when advocating for real solutions.

Good science should be valued, even if it doesn’t serve a particular campaign. Environmentalists, in particular, should realize this.

Photo credit