The G20, human health and sustainability: an interview with Jeffrey D Sachs

To the Editor: Pitney has strongly rebutted the views of Sachs (on development) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (on climate science).1

While we agree that free speech is vital, we also assert that science, however flawed, is preferable to dogma and opinion, whether held and expressed by followers of Galen, any religion, or a master under whose tutelage someone studied long ago.

Medical science has seen anaesthesia trump physical restraint, hygiene defeat puerperal fever, and the smallpox virus isolated in secure laboratories. We consider that we have an obligation to regard the findings of climate scientists as serious and credible, just as, a priori, we should not dismiss (especially without deep knowledge) the central findings of any sphere of science, medical or otherwise. We accept the principal findings of climate science. While Pitney may have knowledge of the field, his conclusions do not appear to be based on published scientific literature, which is clear.2

We feel that it would be impossible to overturn a field that has a well established body of scientific evidence. Our ethical duty, based on our knowledge, is to consider the health implications of climate change, on the assumption that climate scientists are broadly correct.3 Were we agnostic or sceptical about climate science, we would leave consideration of its health aspects to others.

Pitney's interpretation seems to include the promotion of nuclear power, dams and the continuation of business-as-usual fossil fuel burning, which even the International Energy Agency cautions against.4 Besides climate protection, local effects such as dust, particulates and volatile organic compounds causing cardiorespiratory illness, and regional effects on farmland and water quality suggest that we should move away from fossil fuels.5

The publication of Pitney's letter raises two questions. First, did the editorial team decide that in this case free speech should trump science? Was the letter reviewed? If so, what is the position of the Journal on providing “balance” by publishing the views of vaccination opponents and those sceptical that AIDS is caused by HIV?