and things seem to be fine so it's all a hoax, right? Here's the problem with that. Every climate scientist knows CO2 was higher in the past. Do you see where I'm going? All the experts who say climate change is a problem, they know what you know. That CO2 was much higher in the past. That's not a reason to argue against them. What that proves is you don't know why they have, you don't understand their argument basically.

Now I believe that I read once that CO2 was higher in sort of the distant history of the earth but it was the same time that I believe the sun was less strong. So there was some countering force that is easy to demonstrate and well known. So in general if you're disagreeing with experts but you're using as your basis for disagreement a fact that every one of those experts knows, you're almost certainly not making a good argument. You could be right because experts sometimes are wrong and you don't know why so you can be right by accident. But you should check yourself and say wait a minute. My argument is based on one fact that the other people already know. There's got to be some other argument or that's nothing.

All right, look at me. Here's another example. When I predicted that Trump would win in 2016 I was going against all the experts and all the pollsters. Was that smart? Was it smart for me to disagree with the experts when I was using their same data? Because they knew what the polls were. We're all looking at the same data, right? So I should not have disagreed with the experts, wouldn't you say? If all I were using was the same data they were using because they would know more than I do plus they know the same data I know. Except here's what's different. I was not using their same data. I was using my expertise which is different from theirs. My expertise was persuasion. And as a trained persuader and other trained persuaders saw at the same time I did, they said this isn't like the past. We've never had this skill set running for president and you guys don't see it coming. But I'm kind of an expert in this persuasion stuff and I do see it coming just like a train. Like I can see it. I can see it coming, right?

So if you disagree with the experts because you're bringing knowledge that they don't have or expertise that they don't have that might be a reasonable disagreement. Again doesn't mean you're right and they're wrong. Could go either way. But at least you'd be reasonable. That would be a reasonable way to disagree with an expert because you're bringing something new that they don't have. But if you're only bringing the stuff they already know I think I'd lean toward the experts not you in that case.

I had one other expertise in the case of calling Trump's 2016 victory which is that I know a lot about white males. As a white male of a certain age I kind of have a little more insight into white males of a certain age and I know what they're willing to say out loud in public and I know what they privately think. It's a little bit different. So I'm not sure that all the experts had maybe the same experience with this group of people who ended up being influential in the final outcome.

So whenever you think you have some extra insight or expertise or data then maybe disagreeing with an expert makes some sense. Here's another one. I've disagreed with climate change experts about their projections of how bad things will be in 50 to 80 years. Does that make sense? I'm not a climate change expert, right? So if I'm disagreeing with the experts aren't I being irrational? Because there's no fact that I know about climate change and this is true. There's no fact I know about climate change that they don't know. So they know all the facts that I have plus lots more. Would it be reasonable for me to disagree with them when they know everything I know plus the scientific method has backed them up they say plus the majority of experts are on the same side plus they know way more than I do? Is that reaso