False Analogy? You decide

The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says, ‘You have to intervene here,’ you don’t say, ‘Well, I read a science fiction novel that says this isn’t important.'” If the crib’s on fire you don’t speculate that the baby’s flame retardant”

From Al Gore’s Congressional testimony. Link to the video at TPMCAFE

5 thoughts on “False Analogy? You decide”

  1. i don’t think it’s a case of false/weak analogy. perhaps the baby with a fever is tad overly-emotive, but i think the analogy holds. something is demonstrably wrong with the planet, unless melting ice shelves are somehow a good thing, and humans are in large part to blame for it; to then sit down and claim “well, i just don’t believe it” flies in the face of the evidence. it really isn;t any different than someone telling you that you’re sick–or your baby is sick–and you refusing to beleive them becuase your friend says you’re not really sick.

  2. in terms of the world-at-large, it might be a straw man. the reticence to fully accept the warnings concerning global warming there might be more due to an ignorance of the facts than a stubborn denial of them. in this case, it might be the strawman, however, i think the former VP had a very specific audience in mind (read:james inhofe) and, in the case of inhofe and his ilk, it’s definitely not a straw man, because those are people who have the facts readily available to them and have chosen to deny the facts of global warming.

  3. I think the first analogy–there seem to be two–addresses the question of expertise. When you have a problem, such as a sick baby, you go to an expert, a doctor. You don’t go to a science fiction writer. It’s certainly inelegant, but it makes Gore’s point: He has presented evidence that the global climate is warming–and few deny that–so he concludes that we ask the experts what gives.

    The second analogy turns up the heat a bit, as it were. I suppose the claim here is that we should suppose we’re immune from changes in our environment. This would address the “do nothing” caucus led by people such as Will (it’s too expensive) and Samuelson (we can’t doing anything about it), inter alia.

    The first one I think could evade the straw man claim (most climate-change deniers have no relevant expertise), but the second one doesn’t seem to be anyone’s view. The analogy might be something like we can’t afford to save the baby or something along those lines.

  4. “The first one I think could evade the straw man claim (most climate-change deniers have no relevant expertise), but the second one doesn’t seem to be anyone’s view. The analogy might be something like we can’t afford to save the baby or something along those lines.”

    i’m not sure. i agree that it’s far too emotive, but i watched inhofe’s questioning (according to the Howler, it’s at about the 51 minute mark), and he really seems to be scoffing at the facts. moreover, there’s this underlying pretense to much of the criticism of global warming that this is simply part of the natural cycle of the earth, that it heats and cools from time to time and it’s really nothing to worry about.
    like this guy: http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-04/nothing.htm
    or these two: http://mediamatters.org/items/200605230011
    or this one: http://mediamatters.org/items/200603140005

Comments are closed.