The Power of a Good Argument

Too much of our lives are lived in a fog of ignorance. That is the price of living in a complex modern society. I happily admit my ignorance. I can't repair a car. I refuse to electrocute myself trying to do a home wiring repair. I know my limits, but I don't simply roll over and let experts run my life. I use them, they don't use me. I refuse to swallow "expert" testimony unless I can understand the basis of the statement and judge for myself how credible the expertise actually is.

The bane of our times are the experts who "know" and then push their "knowledge" on us. Here's an excellent example discussed by Arnold Kling on the Econoblog website:

Are My Days of Freedom Numbered?

Arnold Kling

The Guardian reports

James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Thus, the sainted "whistle-blower" wants those of us who disagree with him put in prison. If the oil executives belong there, then so do I.

Remember the lawyer's maxim that if the facts are with you, then argue the facts. If the law is with you, then argue the law. If neither is with you, pound the table.

Hansen sounds to me like a table-pounder. Instead, he should be trying to explain how a scientifically literate person can form a confidence interval for the feedback parameters in climate models.

Arnold has the same problem I have. Some experts claim expertise and want us to dictate actions to us. If a physicist explained a physical phenomenon, I would have about 99% confidence in his explanation. If a civil engineer told me a bridge will fail I would have about 90% confidence in his judgement. If a doctor gave me a diagnosis, I would have roughly 70% confidence. If a weatherman predicted next week's weather, I would have about 40% confidence. And if a climatologist tells me global warming is going to destroy civilization as we know it with 50 years I would have about 10% confidence. Expertise is qualified by the field. Some areas of knowledge are more easily modeled and understood. Others not. Hanson wants to be seen as a physicist. But I only see him as a climatologist.

As for Hanson's rant, I keep thinking of things like this year's prediction of the hurricane season. This is the 3rd year in a row post-Katrina that a "higher than normal" of hurricanes has been predicted. I'll eat my shorts if we in fact have a higher than normal number of hurricanes this year. How do I know that? I don't. So why do I say it? Because I have low confidence in weather & climate modelers.

Example: Ever since Hurricane Katrina the global warming crowd has been making dire predictions about severe hurricane seasons. Sure enough, the predictions jumped. Notice the pattern:

	Trop Storm		Hurri- canes		Cat 3 & Up Hurri- canes
	Predicted	Actual	Predicted	Actual	Predicted	Actual
2005	13	27	7	9	3	6
2006	17	10	9	3	5	2
2007	17	15	9	6	5	2
2008	15		8		4
Hist Avg		10.6		5.9		2.0

The bold items are the anomalies. You can see that the modelers got caught with their pants down in 2005, so over the next 3 years they've upped their estimates and cited "global warming" for the reason to expect more storms and more intense storms. This year they've backed off a bit. They are still well above the historical average and they are terribly wrong for the 2006 and 2007 seasons. And I'm betting they are wrong for 2008 because I don't think the models are that solid.

You can check the above:

• Predictions here.
• Historical data here.