Climate change risks triggering a spike in infectious disease outbreaks: three reasons why

submitted by ActuallyNot from theconversation.com

all 8 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

How many lies can you fit together: the article.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You don't think there are any diseases spread by a vector that is affected by climate?

[–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The article talks about Covid-19 but not malaria. What a bunch of bullshit. You are a faggot.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The article talks about Covid-19

It really doesn't.

but not malaria

It talks about diseases spread by a vector and gives mosquitoes as an example.

What a bunch of bullshit.

You may have misread the article.

You are a faggot

[–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You may have misread the article.

I only skimmed it because it was posted by you, and 99% of what you share is utter bullshit from propaganda outlets.

You are a faggot

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The article talks about diseases like malaria.

The first of the three reasons mentioned in the title is

  • Increases in temperature and changes in precipitation patterns create conditions for disease vectors, such as mosquitoes, to flourish and expand their distribution ranges.

The article doesn't talk about Covid-19.

Most of the media you see has fewer and fewer specialist science journalists and more and more native advertising, in an effort to be profitable. The Conversation is a reversal of this trend, by having the articles co-written by a journalist and a scientist.

It's generally a very good source, that is at least scientifically literate. You should recognise it as not a propaganda site.

[–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Way to miss my point. I'm no longer contesting that it discusses malaria, and I never claimed The Conversation to be a dubious source. I'm saying I feel inclined to dismiss your sources by default now because you post too much junk, and oftentimes a wall of them. Our previous interaction ended with you posting this link barrage, which contains The Guardian, Snopes, Time, and CBS News. These are all propaganda sources. Time has been controlled by 'former' CIA agents since the beginning. There's a CIA memo that referred to getting help from "friends in the media" in order to squash skepticism about the murder of JFK; this is exactly what they meant by that. CBS news is likewise controlled by the CIA. You show yourself to have bad judgment by taking those seriously, and therefore it's better to take anything you link to with a grain of salt until there's a good reason to take it more seriously.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Way to miss my point.

Your point was that you didn't read the article and commented anyway.

It's a pretty small target. Wouldn't anything be counted as a miss?

I'm no longer contesting that it discusses malaria, and I never claimed The Conversation to be a dubious source.

And you think you made this point with the line: "I only skimmed it because it was posted by you, and 99% of what you share is utter bullshit from propaganda outlets."

Because you didn't.

I'm saying I feel inclined to dismiss your sources by default now because you post too much junk, and oftentimes a wall of them.

Just not in this case. But you claim other sources are junk.

Our previous interaction ended with you posting this link barrage, which contains The Guardian, Snopes, Time, and CBS News.

All independent sources. No fake news sources like veritas who you were claiming was correct against all the reported evidence. The Guardian and Snopes in particular are reliable.

These are all propaganda sources.

What the fuck are you talking about?

You'll need to back that up.

Time has been controlled by 'former' CIA agents since the beginning.

Citation needed.

There's a CIA memo that referred to getting help from "friends in the media" in order to squash skepticism about the murder of JFK

Citation needed. And proof that this isn't at the journalist level.

CBS news is likewise controlled by the CIA.

Citation needed.

You show yourself to have bad judgment by taking those seriously

You need to prove that. And you left out the stronger of the two sources that you mention. To disprove an argument you need to take it's strongest pillars down too. Most people would start with those if they want to be taken seriously.

... And you believe vertias for fuck's sake. This is the dumb fuck calling the medium IQ normal person a dumb fuck while not being able to speak and copulating.