I agree with von Storch’s statement that how we present science can be important. Both von Storch and Roger Pielke Jr. point out that the prominent use of the hockey stick by the IPCC was the impetus for it’s manifestation as a symbol, which opened the door for the current debate. However, I do think that von Storch’s fear that this is damaging to the enterprise of climate science may be overblown.

Instead, I would assert that the politicization and controversy surrounding the hockey stick and other climate-related questions creates risk, but is beneficial to climate science, provided that your chief concern is the continuation of the scientific venture and the pursuit of knowledge. In his remarks, Warren Washington said that he believes controversy is good for science. He also noted that in the face of controversy, one response from Washington D.C. program managers is to continue funding science. So, controversy and the political heft of the scientific undertaking do create the risks of exaggeration and overstatement, but they also ensure the continuation of the research, and increase the chances of coming closer to an accurate understanding of climate. Whether or not the MBH hockey stick is the result of good science, it would probably not have deserved publication in Nature if it did not concern a topic people care about, and it would probably not have elicited as much scrutiny from both scientists and policy makers if it was not put forth so prominently by the IPCC. This scrutiny has led to enhanced understanding of the hockey stick, other methods for climate reconstruction, and our climatic past. While the political values attached to climate science do raise the stakes and do create risk, they also create opportunities for a more rigorous, iterative scientific process.

Of course, while this increased focus on the science behind the hockey stick may lead to a more nuanced understanding of our climatic past and future, and thus could be healthy for the science, it does not bring us any closer to political resolution. In the discussion that followed the formal session, Roger made the point that one of the reasons that more work had to be done on options for action on climate change is because no politically palatable option has been found to date. Beyond inaction, there is no politically acceptable alternative at this juncture, and thus scientific questions can undergo endless debate without any real consequence for policy. During the panel discussion, Roger made the recommendation that we find strategies to “defuse the hockey stick debate”. There’s a pessimistic part of me that says, “What’s the point?” If this debate and every other debate on the validity of the science in the IPCC were resolved, you could be left with a debate on whether warming would fall closer to 1.4 degrees C or 5.8 degrees C. Even if we had one firm temperature estimate and accurate regional resolution, we could then bring in some economists and infinitely debate the costs and benefits of action. Science is a venture that always leads to more questions, and there is always some uncertainty, so it appears that debate can continue until reasonable options are found. This pessimistic side asks, “Until we do have options that are politically and technically feasible, why worry about moving on from this debate?” However, moving on, or defusing the hockey stick debate would at least make some free time for Representative Barton and his staff to work on legislating, would allow Mann and his colleagues to move on to new scientific questions instead of dealing with old ones, and might bring us marginally closer to discussing something constructive. I’m hoping that I’m underestimating the value of these benefits, or that there are other, larger benefits I’m missing.

Additionally, the authors of the report write in their recommendations for a healthy workforce, “Beyond all these, the most important requirement is probably a truly exciting national vision, laid out by the leaders of this country, that offers young people the opportunity for adventure that first inspired Americans to build a great nation. Space should play a large role in this national vision, just as it did during the Apollo days. If young people see exciting careers ahead in science and engineering, they are likely to pursue them with passion.”

This reasoning seems somewhat circular. The quoted paragraph posits the excitement of space science as a means for motivating young people to pursue careers in science and engineering. So, one barrier to healthy space science is the projected shortage of scientists, and the most significant means of increasing the number of scientists is to promote space science. In other words, we need more scientists and engineers for the future of our space enterprise, and we need an enhanced space enterprise for the future of our scientists and engineers. Apparently, this is a case of positive feedback gone awry.

Many of those who refuse to participate argue that the debate is not won over scientific content, but instead pits the science-based theory of evolution versus the faith-based idea of intelligent design, which stipulates that the only way to explain the complexity we see on Earth lies in the existence of an intelligent agent. Although the advocates of intelligent design might disagree, I would find the arguments of evolution’s backers, which deny classification of intelligent design as a science, quite convincing. One example can be found in an article by Dr. Kenneth Miller, here.

What is laudable in this case is the recognition by scientists that the arena of debate in Kansas is not a scientific one, and the conclusion this leads to, which is that there is less reason for scientists to participate. While the outcome of the Kansas State Board of Education hearings will unfortunately play out in science classrooms, which are locales that are ostentatiously devoted to science, those scientists who refuse to participate have done well in avoiding the debate since it does not involve a scientifically pertinent question. Instead, the argument is one of those who value scientific explanations versus those who value explanations based on other ideologies and values. Since the debate did not center on the validity of the science (as defined by most of the scientific community, but not those who want to teach intelligent design), and since many people thought the hearing was a “show trial” with a foregone conclusion of teaching intelligent design alongside evolution (which is how it ended), scientists planning on arguing the merits of evolutionary theory did well to stay home. As Eugenie Scott says of the issue, “We are never going to solve it by throwing science at it.”

The lesson to be taken from this might be that some debates, even some with considerable scientific content, may not be on issues where more scientific evidence or better explanation of the science will help policy formulation. Scientists in other fields might do well to recognize cases where scientific debate is not being used to move an issue forward.