Over the weekend I read with mild amusement and increasing frustration the latest exchange in the “hockey stick” battle. Given that the “hockey stick” has occupied the attention of climate researchers in professional journals, been discussed on the pages of leading newspapers, and been the subject of a Congressional investigation, you might think that the latest exchange would be over something important. If you happen to be thinking along these lines, you’d be wrong.

Increasingly the back-and-forth over hockey sticks is beginning to look like a testosterone-fueled fight between different cliques of pimple-faced junior high school boys, egged on by a loud group of close observers who for various reasons want to see a brawl. And just like those boys on the playground, these guys are too wrapped up in their own vanity to see that they are making us all look bad, and are risking having our recess cancelled. From my perspective — that is, one focused on decisions about climate policies or climate science — the continuing pettiness of the debate on the “hockey stick” suggests that the time might be appropriate for the participants to explain to the rest of us why we should care about their continuing smarminess, else they should all be sent to detention where they can continue their bickering while the rest of us stay on the playground.


So what was the latest exchange about anyway? Given the attention devoted to this subject, perhaps it was about the future of world’s energy policies? Perhaps it was about policies for data archiving and peer review of climate research? Maybe even the technical details of using bristlecone pines in paleoclimate temperature reconstructions? The role of politics in climate science? Nope, none of these things. It was about who gets to post comments on whose website. To get a sense of this juvenile exchange, see this post and comments at ClimateAudit and this post and comments at RealClimate. You’ll see a lot of finger pointing, chest-thumping and pique over claims back-and-forth over issues like “dishonesty” and deeply wounded egos. And the folks chiming in from the sidelines are just having a ball.

I have written previously here that “I think that the debate over the so-called “hockey stick” temperature reconstruction is a distraction from the development and promulgation of climate policy.” But perhaps I am missing something. So I’d like to issue an invitation to both Steve McIntyre and Michael Mann (or another member of his team) to each prepare a short commentary (<1,500 words) which we will post here at Prometheus explaining why those of us not involved in the hockey stick fight should care about the continuing battles. Let me be clear, I am not asking why each of *you* are engaged in this battle. And we don’t want to hear about any of the technical issues involved, all of that stuff is readily available. I want to know why *others* should continue to care about it, from your perspective. Why is this fight important to the rest of us?

We will publish both pieces on November 14, 2005, which means we’ll need your pieces by November 11, 2005. If you would like to participate but would like more time, simply email me (pielke@colorado.edu) saying as much and we’ll extend the deadline. If you don’t respond (and so there is no doubt that you’ll each get this, as I’ll also email this invitation to each of you), we’ll take that as a clear indication that there is not in fact a compelling reason that you can offer for us outsiders to care about this debate. And given the way that you’ve been spending your collective time of late, a response of “too busy” or “over-committed” just won’t fly, particularly given our willingness to extend the deadline in a way that suits your schedules.

Please view this as an opportunity to clearly explain the significance of this debate that you’ve both invested so heavily in. And please apply prisoner’s dilemma logic to our request, and assume that the other has accepted our invitation. I am sure that there are others who are looking forward to each of you engaging on this issue – hockey sticks, so what?