Over the past few years there has been a huge amount published in
medical journals regarding climate change. Recent articles in the BMJ
(1,2) and the series in the Lancet (3) have once again called on doctors
to take a lead in takling climate change and once again data demstrating
that global temperatures are rising or that greehouse gases are primarily
responsible are not presented. I presume that this is because such data
are felt to be beyond scrutiny but this is a dangerous approach in such a
politically and economically charged topic.
The University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit was forced to
admit this week that its raw data showing a rise of global temperatures of
0.8 oC over the past 157 years was destroyed in the 1980s. This was
admitted only after a Freedom of Information Act request that bears a
similarity to the recent forced revalations regarding the origional trials
on selective seratonin re-uptake inhibitors. The significance of this is
that the Climate Research Unit’s processed data are one of the main pieces
of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. If
these data were in relation to drug trials then there would be uproar in
the medical press, but I suspect that this news will pass with little more
than a whimper.
Heavily processed climate change data is presented without a hint of
discent and due to the continual bombardment we receive from the
mainstream media we swallow the editorial conclusions unquestioning. I am
not trying to deny that climate change may be a real phenomonen or that it
may contribute to significant morbidity and mortality on a global scale,
but I would like to see the fundamental climate change data presented in
medical journals and examined with appropriate acaedemic rigor.
Through out the history of medicine there have been many treatements
and medications that anacdotally have been thought to work but have only
been found to be seriously flawed on detailed analysis of raw data. This
is behind the impitus to have all clinical trials registered and have raw
data stored in real time.
As I strive to practice evidence based clinical medicine I would like
to know that I am equally informed on public health matters. We would not
accept such a paucity of data from a clinical trial so we should resist
doing so from other sources; no matter how powerful the organisation, how
well meaning their stated intentions and how much we would like to
believe.
1. Griffiths J, Rao M,. Public heath benefits of strategies to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. What’s good for climate is good for health.
BMJ 2009; 339: b4952
2. Roberts I. Climate Change: Is public health up to the job?
BMJ 2009; 339: b4947
3. Public heath benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
Lancet 2009; published online 25 November; doi:10.1016/S0140-6736
Rapid Response:
Climate Change Data Deserves Rigorous Analysis
Over the past few years there has been a huge amount published in medical journals regarding climate change. Recent articles in the BMJ (1,2) and the series in the Lancet (3) have once again called on doctors to take a lead in takling climate change and once again data demstrating that global temperatures are rising or that greehouse gases are primarily responsible are not presented. I presume that this is because such data are felt to be beyond scrutiny but this is a dangerous approach in such a politically and economically charged topic.
The University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit was forced to admit this week that its raw data showing a rise of global temperatures of 0.8 oC over the past 157 years was destroyed in the 1980s. This was admitted only after a Freedom of Information Act request that bears a similarity to the recent forced revalations regarding the origional trials on selective seratonin re-uptake inhibitors. The significance of this is that the Climate Research Unit’s processed data are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. If these data were in relation to drug trials then there would be uproar in the medical press, but I suspect that this news will pass with little more than a whimper.
Heavily processed climate change data is presented without a hint of discent and due to the continual bombardment we receive from the mainstream media we swallow the editorial conclusions unquestioning. I am not trying to deny that climate change may be a real phenomonen or that it may contribute to significant morbidity and mortality on a global scale, but I would like to see the fundamental climate change data presented in medical journals and examined with appropriate acaedemic rigor.
Through out the history of medicine there have been many treatements and medications that anacdotally have been thought to work but have only been found to be seriously flawed on detailed analysis of raw data. This is behind the impitus to have all clinical trials registered and have raw data stored in real time.
As I strive to practice evidence based clinical medicine I would like to know that I am equally informed on public health matters. We would not accept such a paucity of data from a clinical trial so we should resist doing so from other sources; no matter how powerful the organisation, how well meaning their stated intentions and how much we would like to believe.
1. Griffiths J, Rao M,. Public heath benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What’s good for climate is good for health. BMJ 2009; 339: b4952
2. Roberts I. Climate Change: Is public health up to the job? BMJ 2009; 339: b4947
3. Public heath benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Lancet 2009; published online 25 November; doi:10.1016/S0140-6736
Competing interests: None declared
Competing interests: