Update 27/5/2010: Authors of the Nature paper debunking the link between climate change and increased Malaria incidence provide commentary on New York Times Dot Earth blog "On the whole, the academic publications about climate and malaria are a perfect example of hype. Peer reviewed publications on warming and malaraia [sic] have almost universally argued that warming will increase the burden and extend future range of malaria."
COMMENT: ABC Science takes our advice and finally gets around to providing some coverage of week old revelations that future incidence of Malaria will not be as severe as suggested by alarming IPCC reports.
Note the "balanced" reporting in this piece titled 'Climate change impact on malaria questioned' that actually provides readers with an indication there are dissenting views. However ABC's reporter Dani Cooper can only muster 236 words to cover the good news about Malaria as published in a peer reviewed journal, then gives almost 300 (298) to cover un-peer reviewed comments from a member of the team (Tony McMichael) that got it all so wrong! That's balance for ya.
Roger Pielke Jnr's comments on McMichael's work on Malaria makes for interesting reading, strangely not covered by Dani Cooper: "It is not science. It might charitably be called educated guesswork or less charitably by a few other terms." Next time ABC strives for "balance" perhaps they'' find someone who's opinions don't amount to "educated guesswork".
Pity that pro-alarmist climate stories are not given the same treatment. For example where are the dissenting voices for these stories?
The Mammoth poop scoop,
Recent Climate Institute report
Warmer planet to stress humans: study
Climate works report
Sea ice loss key to Arctic warming, study
ABC reply received 28/5/2010: