Hans von Storch’s talk last Friday, titled “Hockey sticks and the sustainability of climate science,” was divided into two parts. The second part of the talk dealt with the politicization of climate science and the possibility of negative effects stemming from this, while the first half focused almost entirely on technical details related to climate reconstruction and the algorithms of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes (MBH) that led to the hockey stick. More than a few people in the audience had no more than a passing interest in climate modeling or climate reconstruction. Their presence, and the presence of a crowd large enough to be standing room only, was indicative of one of von Storch’s major points. This point can be paraphrased as, “The political stakes for climate science are quite high, and thus we must be assiduous in presenting our science accurately and truthfully in order to ensure the science’s credibility and long-term sustainability.” von Storch was able to point to the crowded room as evidence for the amount of controversy and emotional investment surrounding the debate on the hockey stick. This made it easier for him to support one of his major points; overselling scientific results can have large consequences for public perceptions of science.

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.