"DDT ban — not global warming — for U.S. mosquito eruption" Topic

link

The recent emergence and spread of vector-borne viruses including Zika, chikungunya and dengue has raised concerns that climate change may cause mosquito vectors of these diseases to expand into more temperate regions. However, the long-term impact of other anthropogenic factors on mosquito abundance and distributions is less studied. Here, we show that anthropogenic chemical use (DDT; dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) and increasing urbanization were the strongest drivers of changes in mosquito populations over the last eight decades in areas on both coasts of North America. Mosquito populations have increased as much as tenfold, and mosquito communities have become two- to fourfold richer over the last five decades. These increases are correlated with the decay in residual environmental DDT concentrations and growing human populations, but not with temperature.…Despite the well-known devastating effects of DDT use on insect communities, most previous analyses of insect abundance and distribution have examined only temperature as a possible driver. Thus, changes in abundance or distribution that have been attributed solely to climate change in previous studies may have been caused, wholly or in part, by other factors.

Hmm….I guess if you are looking to blame something JUST on climate change, there is no scientific need to look for any other possible cause whatsoever, is there? Easy to miss something as obscure as the "well known devastating effects" of another possible variable, right?I think that is called the "scientific method" right? Betcha those previous (totally objective) studies were "peer reviewed" as well.

You are vicious, JJ. Nobody likes an "I told you so". I have that on the very good authority of a former girlfriend. It was leveled at me, because I was right, and I let her know it. I did not marry that one. She ended up not liking me either.

How about we just stand ready to say "No" to all the Gov't "ideas" on the "much we can do" to knock back carbon output? Because nothing short of "emergency powers" seized by the chief magistrate and his cronies are going to knock back carbon emissions………..

You are vicious, JJ.

Oh I DO hope so!

Nobody likes an "I told you so".

You need to tell the true believers that. They keep telling us how right they are and above question despite the continued nonsense that surrounds the whole issue.

I'm all for taking steps to improve our clean energy for the sake of being clean but am pretty tired of the scientists, whose position remains "it's only up to us to inform…it is the politicians who need to do something" (I'm not a security guard. I'm a bank monitor. I'm here to inform you when the bank is being robbed….It's being robbed.) when the politicians have made it repeatedly abundantly clear they are eager for photo ops, self congratulatory pronouncements, and large carbon footprint gatherings where they lecture us all while doing nothing really significant, many on taxpayers dollars and a luxury itinerary.

Given the holier than thou <sarcasm> "Climate Science is REAL science untainted by a lack of bias and peer reviewed to ensure it is worthy of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval while skeptics are really heretics who want to destroy the world and should be burnt at the stake" </sarcasm> crap that is routinely posted here, a glaringly obvious example like this deserves to be posted. Been away from this board for some time and likely to repeat that – though I will want to read the spin on how this isn't really what it appears to be and overlooking the glaringly obvious variable was an "honest mistake" and "not the job of the peer review" and the fact that this was a totally faulty and biased set of previous studies that ONLY looked at temperature, that shouldn't call into question any other research.

Sounds a lot like the logic of "We'll prevent you from putting in place any procedures or methodology that would assist in catching voter fraud and then argue against any rules regarding voter fraud because there is no evidence that it is really a problem.

Not being liked isn't really my concern. I know there are many who don't. Take a number, get in line. Not here to please them. I post here and elsewhere because it amuses me to do so. Nothing more. I have no illusions of changing anyone's mind.

But I do enjoy items like this and the IPCC's "magic trees of South America"

Just because GW is causing problems doesn't let other things of the hook… DDT caused problems but was effective, there's always a trade off.

Anyway, next few years it's all going to be proven one way or the other anyway.

DDT ban has cost lives sadly

Natural selection among mosquitos surviving DDT is reducing it's effectiveness where it is still in use. My wife is from Brazil and wouldn't go back there for no amount of money. Zika has had a devistating effect there as window screens even in a big city like Rio are relatively unheard of, much to my amazement when I was there last.

Mother nature is determined to make survival of our species as challenging as she can. I suspect that what ends up killing us off en mass will come from the most unexpected source. We are by no means masters of the sun, other heavenly bodies, nor this planet, its climate, it's fauna, it's flora nor it's tectonics.

Didn't READ the article, did ya JJ? No one has ever EXCLUSIVELY claimed climate change as THE cause for the increase in the range and population of mosquitos. It is, in fact, only one element (mostly to do with the increase in range). The factors JSchutt cites are of far more importance.

But then, you've never let facts intrude on your constant rants, have you….

JJ, have you looked into the case of Sri Lanka? It was insecticide resistance to DDT rather than the "Rachael was Wrong" / "fear of Watermelons" smear.

For sake people; why on earth do we keep debating global warming on a wargaming website? It's asinine. I myself chose to believe the 90%+ percent of scientists who say it's real and others don't and nothing posted on this site is going to change that. Nobody that posts on this board is going to change the mind of someone on the other side of the debate, instead it just comes across as trolling for a fight. So why keep bringing it up here? Let's give it rest.

Now, if we want to debate the impact on national security pollution or the reliance on fossil fuels or even rising sea levels (no matter what you think the cause may be) or dwindling water resources has that is a different matter. In my opinion, removing our reliance on fossil fuels, which all nations do not have equal access to, or better control of our natural resources can lead to better stability both economically and politically thereby reducing the likelihood of a shooting war breaking out over these resources. This is a more reasoned topic for discussion on a wargaming website as it can lead us to develop some good scenarios for gaming.

Having recently read about the building of the Panama Canal and how the Americans dealt with the scourge of Yellow Fever, I know that it is possible to vastly reduce mosquito populations without using DDT (they didn't have it). But it takes awareness and WORK. Until recently we didn't worry much about mosquito-borne illnesses in the US. Now that we've gotten a good scare, maybe we'll do something.

It has been my experience that most scientists will tell you that something like mosquito variations, populations, and density fluctuations are the product of a range of stimuli.

For example, this week it was announced in the news that for the first time the life-expectancy of Americans has actually gone down. The first paragraph of the story states:

American life expectancy is in decline for the first time since 1993, when H.I.V.-related deaths were at their peak. But this time, researchers can't identify a single problem driving the drop, and are instead pointing to a number of factors, from heart disease to suicides, that have caused a greater number of deaths.

link

So while even climate change has an impact on mosquitoes, it's definitely not the only factor, nor is DDT.

You really have to get past the single source headline to find out what's really going on. Most people don't. Either they don't understand, they don't care, or they think the science is bunk anyway, to name a few reasons.

You also have to be attentive of your source(s). In the particular case of this thread the source is a paper from an "open-source" website, Nature Communications, not to be confused with the journal Nature. Journal's such as Nature subject submitted papers to a rigorous peer review. They look at the author's methodology, sources, research data fidelity and so on. Most papers submitted don't make it through this process.

Open sourced sites have a fee. You pay it and they accept and post your paper. There usually is no serious peer review. That's not to say that those papers and studies are all bunk, but you have to keep in mind that they have not had the same scrutiny as have peer-reviewed studies, and therefore should not be taken with the same authority, for lack of a better word.

DDT ban has cost lives sadly

But on the other hand, the DDT ban has also saved lives…

link

Humans are sometimes poor at weighing up costs/benefits – something like DDT causes specific problems but also has specific benefits. We basically have an 'all or nothing' view on things so it's out.

Easy to miss something as obscure as the "well known devastating effects" of another possible variable, right?I think that is called the "scientific method" right? Betcha those previous (totally objective) studies were "peer reviewed" as well.

Nice speech JJ, but as Charlie12 correctly indicated, I doubt you'll find any scientific paper that claims temperature changes from global warming is the exclusive cause for tropical mosquitos moving into temperate zones. Feel free to look them up and report back.

Climate change impacts insects more than just with ambient temperature. Earlier melt off produces a longer season of larval growth. There is a longer mating season for the mosquitos and a delay in freezing makes for a longer season overall for them to consume blood and lay eggs. As the authors of an old paper put it:

"A consideration of the seasonal profiles of temperature in eastern and central North America shows why recent climate change is imposing seasonal rather than thermal selection on natural populations….."

From a Science article here:

link

There are also genetic changes to the mosquitos brought on by changes in their seasonal environments that is more than just temperature.

pnas.org/content/98/25/14509

Sorry, it's just an abstract.

If you think about Mosquitos in general, the genus is pretty blind to temperature actually. There are only a few places on Earth where there are no mosquitos. Some Polynesian islands, the Seychelles, and Iceland. Again, this has nothing to do with temperature rather the absence of an appropriate or adequate mammalian blood supply. Even the Antarctic Biting Midge is related to the mosquito, both genuses separating 10's of millions of years ago when Antarctica began moving southward.

In my own country, we have the highest population density of mosquitos on Earth. That's in the Arctic tundra. Look it up. They are found in the very north of Ellesmere Island! A very cold and harsh climate.

I'm sure the scientists know about this. I'd be surprised if any one seriously entertained ambient temperature as an impediment to their viability. Mosquitos have adapted to every niche on earth, temperature notwithstanding.

And finally, pay attention to what mandt2 stated. While Nature Communications is under the umbrella of Nature.com, an article published there is not peer reviewed, in contrast to anything published in the journal Nature.

Humans are sometimes poor at weighing up costs/benefits – something like DDT causes specific problems but also has specific benefits. We basically have an 'all or nothing' view on things so it's out.

Absolutely. And DDT is no different in that respect than any other drug or chemical we use, from the ubiquitous ASA to the newest, most advanced chemotherapy cocktails.

Fortunately for us, highly trained epidemiologists have to make these costs/benefits decisions on our behalf. In Canada, there are calls to bring back DDT for everything from bed bugs, West Nile disease and Lyme disease. So far nothing has happened as the benefits don't seem to outweigh the costs.

For Bleeped text sake people; why on earth do we keep debating global warming on a wargaming website? It's asinine.

Yep.

And they don't do it because of a deeply ingrained interest in science. Pretty well everyone here (with the exception of "Martin from Canada") has had no formal training in Climate Science. It's because there are the inevitable political ramifications to any science discoveries, that people will have philosophical differences with. This takes the form of hating proposed carbon taxes, all the way to hating not giving creation science equal time with Darwinism in biology class.

You'll find little actual science is discussed on these topics which accurately reflects the scientific understanding of the audience.

Didn't READ the article, did ya JJ? No one has ever EXCLUSIVELY claimed climate change as THE cause for the increase in the range and population of mosquitos.

Missed the point completely, did ya? Ignoring an obvious historical variable in the correlation to temperature whether claiming it is only climate, or primarily climate or whatever else, THEY STILL IGNORED AN OBVIOUS MAJOR VARIABLE OF HISTORICAL RECORD.

Why might that be? Hmmmm? Makes a stronger case by leaving critical data out? Not caught in any peer reviews?

And if you read my post, I wasn't claiming anything of the sort. I was commenting on the statements from the study that I quoted. THEY claimed it, not me.

But then, you've never let facts intrude on your constant rants, have you….

You've never let facts intrude on your judgments of those who disagree with your warmist positions, have you?

Cynic? Yep. Skeptic? Absolutely. ? A pejorative label folks like you LOVE to throw around with no consideration of the truth. But me? Not one.

What part of the following from the thread above proves your "" charge?

In Martin's recent thread, I stated
"Hardly claiming there isn't a problem or that nothing should be done – of course it should. But reality of now tends to trump the likely (if it even is) of the future."

Don't see any denial there either.

The biggest denial I see is in the mindset of the folks who for whatever reason refuse to acknowledge the realities and practicalities involved. As I've written, the Paris Accord was a meaningless unenforceable non-binding non-treaty that even if complied with fully WOULD NOT PROVIDE THE RESULTS THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS SAY ARE NEEDED.

What's more, you have the realities of teetering economies that have also been inundated with at least hundreds of thousands of refugees / immigrants all of whom need power for heating, light, industry, social services, transportation, etc. That increase in power WON'T be provided by green energy. I've also pointed out that some scientists have claimed we are already past the point of no return.

So it seems the s are not skeptics like me or Dr. Judith Curry, and others who have questions but the folks on the warmist side that are denying the reality that is facing them.

What's more self-congratulations and celebrations for the joke that was the Paris Accord underscores the wilful blindness and self-delusion of the warmist politicians. Further, those same record carbon footprint abusers of the planet couldn't even come up with a worthless agreement that would provide what was needed.

s of reality, every last one of them, and everyone who buys into that same nonsense.

You can find LOTS of posts from me that call things into question, and identify specifics where I have been skeptical, but denial is something I'd like you to link to. "Constant rants" that you claim should be REALLY EASY for you to document.

You also have to be attentive of your source(s). In the particular case of this thread the source is a paper from an "open-source" website, Nature Communications, not to be confused with the journal Nature. Journal's such as Nature subject submitted papers to a rigorous peer review. They look at the author's methodology, sources, research data fidelity and so on. Most papers submitted don't make it through this process.

Did you look at what was documented by the study authors in terms of those very things you claim weren't included?

Reading it shows the following sections:
Introduction
Results
Discussion
Methods
Additional information
References
Acknowledgements
Author information
Comments

so your broad brush generalization seems to have ignored what was actually there just to try to make a point – one clearly not applicable in this case.

Can you explain how the earlier submitted papers that IGNORED DDT and assumedly made it through that "rigorous peer review" failed to catch such a glaring omission? Doesn't give one much confidence in the effectiveness of such a process from where I sit. But then, if the reviewers are like minded, maybe the results they want are more important than actually pointing out such a basic and disqualifying mistake.

Ignoring an obvious historical variable in the correlation to temperature whether claiming it is only climate, or primarily climate or whatever else, THEY STILL IGNORED AN OBVIOUS MAJOR VARIABLE OF HISTORICAL RECORD.

I'm afraid you have missed the point, JJ. The correlation to temperature doesn't exist, as the quote from my 10 year old link shows.

Also, using the term "warmist" will lose you any credibility, as you come across as a ideologue to Marc Moreno and that ilk.

The comment of the title of your thread is wrong and the link you posted to does not support it. Climate change is definitely impacting the mosquito populations. Just look at the increase in mosquito populations in the Arctic. It's surely not due to a DDT ban.

link

Canada did very little spraying in the Arctic and most DDT found there now has arrived by other means.

link

Despite what you think the link in the OP says, the Arctic mosquito populations are increasing because of global warming. It's the seasonal effects brought on by global warming that affect to mosquito populations and not the increase in ambient temperature.

Same old same old. JJ does not care. What he wants from us is a recongintion that we are failures, and that he is right. DDT was good. Banning it is bad. There is nothing that can be done about Climate Change outside of what little the free market can do ,so stop talking about it happening.

Here is how to deal with him. When you post a topic on climate change, clearly say that you are indiffrent about policies in reaction and only interested in it from a clininal perspective. Like the wathcing of a incurable disaese. This way we can continue showing it is happening and it is having negative effects in many places of the world, and be spared JJ yelling at us about the failures of publics and politicians.

KTravlos, that's the "Rachel was Wrong" thesis set up by deniers with the angle of if "Science" was misused for regulating DDT, "Science" is going to be misused for regulating CO2…

From Oreskes' book Merchants of Doubt.
link

I am just trying to keep JJ out of the science posts. Seems to me the best way is to discuss the evidence and ignore the discussion of proposed solutions.

When the evidence is overwhelming it will be incumbent on the JJs (skeptics) as well as the denialists of the world to answer why they opposed any action but the free market. It will be late for a lot of people, but I think enough of us will be alive to hold the JJs et al responsible for their opposition to any actions but free market ones (at least to me it seems that JJ is opposed to any action on climate change that can affect the free market. I am pretty sure others in the skeptic ranks are even more opposed).

My view is that while there are things we can do, the JJs et al will not let us do them because of free markets and unwillingness of other countries to fully commit. Fair enough.

Thus I think the bad results of climate change will come about, I think we will be largely unready to deal with them (massive migration and the social strife resultant from it, collapse of agriculture in many places of the world, famine, war), but I think long term many places will survive and adapt. That means that there will be rule of law, and that means that those responsible for inaction, whether JJs, foreign or domestic political leaders, or others, can be held to account-barring the ones that cope out via suicide.

I do believe the climate Trials, and they will happen, will be a political turning point in human history as they will resolve the question of how much can individuals and politicians ignore science before they become legally culpable.

I think JJ is old, so he will probably be dead by then, so all that will suffer will be his legacy. But I am sure other JJs will be around, and they will suffer the full hammer of an angry humanity.

So let us collect the evidence for that day.

Well JJ isn't around to defend himself. He and I disagree on a few matters, but I can say in my experience, he does listen to the arguments.

I do prefer his contributions to this board to some of the others who simply make bold, unsubstantiated comments like:

"The IPCC is a fraud"

"Climate Scientists further their careers by agreeing with AGW"

"There is no evidence that the Earth has been warming. It's snowing outside my house right now."

and think that settles the argument. Once they are asked to show any evidence for their claims all you get is the sound of crickets. This is a science board. It requires interaction and engagement to be fun and useful, combined with some substantiation and critical thinking.

At the fringes of every argument are those that threaten free thought under the premise that public safety and well being were under assault. There have been many strategies to punish wrong thinking so I guess it's time for those who wish to do so to pick from one of their favorite examples….which will it be?

The Killing Fields of Cambodia
Native American Trail of Tears
Bataan Death March
Armenian Genocide
Gulag Archipelago
Holocaust Gas Chambers
Spanish Inquisition
Madame Guillotine
Salem Witch Hunts
Cultural Revolutionary Purge
Taliban Religious Purge
Congo Free State Democide

You left out the

Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes Trials
Civil Trials against companies and politicians that did not take appropriate public safety measures that resulted in human lives or properties lost.
State trials against companies responsible for oil spills.
Trials about involuntary or voluntary man-slaughter.
The Trial of Illinois Governor George Ryan.

They will not be prosecuted for their words but for their actions once the consequences are fully played out.

The secptics and denialists really do think they are paragons of freedom. I bet Max Blanck and Isaac Harris also considered themselves paragons of freedom when they refused to take simple measures that could had averted a catastrophe ,because it would hurt their economic freedom and anyway only some pointy heads said they are needed. I hope the modern Blanck and Harris will have a lawyer as good as Max Steuer.

And let me ask something. Do you believe that skepticsm and denialism are blameless if the negative consequences of climate change come to pass?

@KT: you're throwing actual names around, that is flirting with the DH. I hope nobody punches the ! button on you. The Bluey Fezzy is your friendly steam venting place……….

Skeptics will be dead long before the negative consequences of climate change come to pass. Maybe you can pee on their graves.

None of this is happening fast, despite the hype. "None". I mean the dramatic and catastrophic changes asserted to be going on. All of the differences observed are natural to climate change. Humans are not causing it. We are changing its direction somewhat. Change will happen always without us. Our presence influences the changes. 99% of all species are extinct. Never forget that fact. We are only one species. American buffalo had an enormous impact on the local climate when they roamed the prairies in their millions. Had some disease carried them off, the climate would have been impacted by the sudden loss of the buffalo. We killed them, like a disease. The dinosaurs have been gone for millions on millions of years. We are burning their remains rapidly to literally fuel our modern industries and lifestyle. You'd think from all the bleating that carbon was a poison. It is merely a part of Nature and cannot destroy; it only alters. If destruction means extinction of most life, while life continues on differently than before, then I guess we are destroyers. We certainly get labeled by our own as such. When what we really are is one species along for the ride, doing our thing.

If we want to increase our chances for survival, and lengthen our "ride", we need to not insist on so many of us getting into line at the same TIME………….

Skeptics will be dead long before the negative consequences of climate change come to pass. No need

Damnatio memoriae will suffice.

I do not fear the Dawghouse. If I am in it, then so be it. The law is the law. But the law cannot mandate morality. One can deny climate change, one can be skeptical of it or any actions to fix it, but one cannot escape the moral damnation if they are wrong and exacerbate the situation. The living must be punished either socially, or where appropriate legally, and for the dead Damnatio memoriae.

You seem to use the word "if" quite a few times….so it would appear you remain unconvinced yourself.

Conflating actions in violation of law, with lack of common sense with being persecuted/killed simply for who you are or what you believe in is not a logical argument.

An argument is either compelling or not.

I am convinced climate change is happening. I am convinced that it will have on average negative effects. However some areas will benefit, and some will be heavily hurt (the idea of average seems to be very hard for most of you climate denialists/skeptics to understand. Ergo why your reaction to every study is, hey my personal experience is great, so it is not happening). I am convinced that action can be taken now to mitigate the hurt. I am convinced not all those actions can be market oriented.

I am not though perfectly sure of the level and kind of hurt. It might be very small for the regions concerned like Great War Ace argues. It may be very devastating for the regions concerned as I and Martin argue. If it is the first, society may make fun of me and mine, and impose damnatio memoriare on me. It would be the fair thing to do.

But if it is the second, those who opposed action should pay the price. And in some cases I am pretty sure there will be criminal and civil liability. And in the others, considering how much science has been attacked by your side in this case, it is only fair that you end up like the supporters of flat earth, or using mercury as a cure. Ridiculed, cursed, and examples to be avoided. That opposition should be the only thing you are remembered for.

Well when lack of common sense kills it is called manslaughter and is punishable by law.

I do believe I have been a bully. I apologise for my behaviour.

This topic is going off the rails a bit. I'm still trying to figure out how the Bataan Death March was a strategy to punish "wrong thinking".

KTravlos,

I don't consider your comments to be bullying, even if you have my position completely wrong.

PM sent.

JJ