date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 04:23:10 +1000
from: "Tony McMichael" <Tony.McMichaelatXYZxyz.edu.au>
subject: RIF: Paul Reiter
to: "Mike Hulme" <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Sari Kovats" <sari.kovatsatXYZxyztm.ac.uk>
You've probably already had colourful comment from Sari and Jonathan. Paul Reiter is, in my view, smart, confrontative and inflexible. He has been leading the charge of the (mostly US) professionally-affronted field epidemiologists, who think:
1. That if IPCC says that climate change is likely to affect VBD transmissibility, then it is also saying that this is happening already; and
2. That if climate is invoked as a causal influence, then it seems that the silly IPCC epidemiologists don't understand that there are a few other influences that are more important.
Paul's documentation that, historically, malaria was often more serious in Europe during relatively cooler times is very interesting - but is essentially irrelevant for the second reason above. Those historical times also coincided with other major shifts in social, economic, nutritional and political circumstances.
Well, it helps to keep us on our toes.
Da: Mike Hulme [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Inviato: ven 21/06/2002 1.25
A: Tony McMichael; email@example.com; Sari Kovats
Oggetto: Paul Reiter
Tony, Jonathan, Sari,
I engaged in robust conversation with Paul Reiter last night at an
Institute of Ideas debate on climate change - he is clearly very unhappy
about the IPCC health chapter and contributed to the public debate a rather
dismissive comment about IPCC in general as a process of 'citizens science'.
I've not come cross the guy before. Is there something I need to know?