Malaria is able to spread because of the warming climate; the mosquitoes that act as the vectors the virus depends on, thrive in warmer conditions. Therefore, if you really want to tackle malaria, you have to tackle it at its root. Malnutrition and starvation are becoming worse and worse because of regional changes in climate, the unpredictability of what used to be clear wheather patterns puts farmers in incredible difficulty.
So, I believe it is very cynical to use those examples as "bigger problems than climate change" because they are so obviously related to eachother, in a pretty straight cause-and-effect link.
Ofcourse, it is easy to look upon global change as the 90-year old we could invest our resources/money into for a heart transplant: everybody would agree it is "not worth it". However, this is just an image used to sell an idea and at the same time give those who contribute to global change (each and everyone of us, but the average American much much more than the average African, an oil company more than any other company) an excuse to not change their habits. In short: it is wrong. Factually, as well as morally. For there are clear causes and impacts known to science: denying those is just a useless sort of depriving oneself from basic knowledge. Yes, we have to think for ourselves and try our best to act accordingly, but please don't mistake this as an excuse to reject scientific facts that one feels uncomfortable with.