Log in with your email address username.

×

Important notice

doctorportal Learning is on the move as we will be launching a new website very shortly. If you would like to sign up to dp Learning now to register for CPD learning or to use our CPD tracker, please email support@doctorportal.com.au so we can assist you. If you are already signed up to doctorportal Learning, your login will work in the new site so you can continue to enrol for learning, complete an online module, or access your CPD tracker report.

To access and/or sign up for other resources such as Jobs Board, Bookshop or InSight+, please go to www.mja.com.au, or click the relevant menu item and you will be redirected.

All other doctorportal services, such as Find A Doctor, are no longer available.

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

- Featured Image

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…

email