by Judith Curry
Do you consult with your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a number of the proposed operations.
So writes Kevin Trenberth et al. in a WSJ op-ed entitled Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate, which was written in response to the op-ed written by a different group of scientists entitled “No need to panic about global warming.”
What’s wrong with the statement by Trenberth et al. is this. The big issue is deciding whether or not you need the heart surgery.
Dotearth
Andy Revkin has a very interesting post today “In Climate Fight, Tracking the Line Between Diagnosis and Treatment.” He addresses this issue in the following way:
The rebuttal began with a much-used metaphor for paying attention to the right expert: “Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition?”
The reality for most of the signatories of the rebuttal letter is that they are more akin to medical technicians — making sure the thermometers gauging a fever are reliable — and radiologists — interpreting a CT scan — than diagnosticians prescribing the appropriate treatment.
You don’t consult a radiologist about how to proceed when a scan identifies a tumor. And even with oncologists, you absolutely pursue multiple opinions.
I had a relevant experience yesterday when I went to my general practitioner to discuss various issues. My stroke neurologist (background here) has prescribed a full aspirin a day for the rest of my life — a wise course from her standpoint. My doctor said that guarantees a bleeding ulcer.
We’re figuring out a reasonable path navigating how to balance those very different risks.
Revkin then goes on to query a number of economists (presumably the experts on ‘treatment’) for their opinion on this.
JC comments: I’ve received a number of emails asking why I didn’t sign the first WSJ op-ed. Two obvious reasons: I wasn’t asked, and I don’t sign group petitions or letters (with one exception back in 2006). Which statement do I support? Neither. I generally agree with Revkin’s analysis, but his choice of economists to highlight was too narrow IMO, and I think the treatment requires input not just from economists (although in terms of treatment, I would listen to economists more than to climate scientists).