The Useful Idiot is a term widely believed (perhaps inaccurately) to be attributable to Lenin, to describe a character who acts unwittingly to the advantage of another group, often one which they believe they are opposing, or acting to the disadvantage of the group they appear to support.
It is only fitting that the advancement of civilisation has provided us with an upgrade on the useful idiot, the “Useful Genius”.
The Useful Genius is finding fertile pastures in the debate on Climate Change, a debate which should be relatively simple – planet warming = big problem – but instead is barely over the “it is happening” stage.
If the science is overwhelming, then why is this?
The lack of scientific understanding amongst politicians has already been discussed here.
This post looks at the Useful Genius and how in the process of advancing the call for action, they set it back.
When People Say that Scientists Disagree, They are Right
Scientists disagree on climate change. This is a simple fact. Whether they disagree about whether it is real or not, or whether they disagree about the extent of sea levels rising, they disagree. While disagreement is healthy in scientific discussion, it is not healthy when conveying a message to the public. Imagine a public health campaign under the slogan “eat 5-a-day, with a lower bound of 3 and an upper bound of 7 in extreme circumstances.”
The disagreement on the magnitude of sea level rise may not be a surprise, if one takes time to understand the different methodologies, but this example illuminates a couple of important issues that aren’t about melting. The first is that the “experts” are casting doubt on the IPCC which is supposed to be full of “experts” and therefore discredits them. This undermines any future report that the IPCC may issue.
Secondly the figure in the article shows a range of prediction from ~0.2m to 2.0m by 2100. This is a big range and add to that the latest 3m from James Hansen which also “isn’t supported by the mainstream scientific community”, and you have what can look like a shambles of guesses.
Scientists are not team players, they are used to criticising each other’s work through peer review. If they are to stop inadvertently silencing the call for action, they will have to learn to be team players, stop discrediting each others work and work on a common message. Sea levels are going to rise and it will be a problem.
Scientists Are Narrow Minded
The average expert is usually absorbed in their field of study, and likely NOTHING ELSE. This is why they keep discussing climate issues in a way which has no resonance with lay people.
Michael Mann provides us with a classic example.
Whilst the above tweet may be useful from a schoolboy “I told you so” perspective, there is no mention either in the tweet or the link about what the “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” is, or why it is important.
Scientists are constantly talking about the Greenland ice cap. Why would I be interested in it, if I don’t ever plan to go to Greenland? And if I did, there might be more to do if the ice was not there.
Scientist’s narrow focus on their particular studies means that too much of the climate debate takes place discussing ice caps and oscillations, when they are merely the systems of the disaster that will unfold as the much more relevant issues of food shortages and mass migration. But a scientist who measures algae in a pond in Canada for a living won’t talk about the secondary implications of their work, because that would be outside their field of expertise.
Scientists need Certainty
In the field of science people making predictions outside the mainstream are usually heavily scrutinised by the rest of the scientific community. This behaviour encourages groupthink and leads to unnecessary desire for evidence for the obvious.
A study on the climate contribution for the drought in Somalia talks extensively about the contribution of El Nina and El Nino to the rainfall in Somalia and the effect on the drought, It does not make a strong case either way for the contribution of Climate Change. This is because as with the previous point the focus is narrow, almost exclusively about rainfall. Anyone else can tell you that rain stays on the ground for a shorter period of time when it is hotter (which the article does show), so the amount of rainfall is only half the story. Not to mention, whether it comes down steadily over a period of time, or all at once in a downpour.
Whilst Scientists hunt for specific evidence for specific answers, and miss the big picture, the risk is that connections will never be made.
Scientists over complicate everything
With an obsession for unnecessary accuracy scientists continually suggest that their own science is rubbish. Take this quote from Gavin Schmidt
“We don’t know the absolute temperature of the planet that well”, Schmidt says. “If you take one number that is not very well known and you add it to another number that is well known, it doesn’t suddenly become more accurate”.
This sort of pondering about accuracy may be technically correct, but it is fuel for those who wish to carry on oil and coal business as usual, when they can quote and say that scientists can’t measure temperature.
The planet is getting warmer and doesn’t show any immediate sign of slowing down. If your house has been blown away in a typhoon, it doesn’t matter if the wind speed was 112.8 mph or 107.6 mph.
When thinking about how best to summarise this article, an article about why climate scientists are failing us all by being incapable of telling a clear and simple, coherent story, I thought for a bit, then decided to let a climate scientist sum it up for me.
With arguments like this, the Climate Deniers are not running scared.