Bishop Hill Obama and the abusive analogy
Jun 15, 2014 Climate: Parliament Chapter One of How to Win Every Argument, Madsen Pirie's systematic survey of the use and abuse of logical fallacies, is on the abusive analogy. This is a wonderful book for those seeking to enhance their rhetorical skills through underhand means, but I sense that President Obama is one man who could have written the book himself. This conclusion is based on his speech to an audience of college graduates in California during which he discussed dissenting views on climate change:
"It's pretty rare that you'll encounter somebody who says the problem you're trying to solve simply doesn't exist. When President Kennedy set us on a course to the moon, there were a number of people who made a serious case that it wouldn't be worth it," he continued.
"But nobody ignored the science. I don't remember anybody saying the moon wasn't there or that it was made of cheese," Obama said.
I would have thought that someone who was trying to deal with an existential crisis would have been moving heaven and earth to unite people rather than divide them. Using fallacy - and abusive fallacy to boot - makes him look more like someone who sees global warming as a useful wedge issue than someone who really thinks he is trying to save the planet.
Reader Comments (93)
A major flaw in Barry O’Barmy’s argument is that the existence of the Moon cannot be denied; there is also the very real argument of was it really worth all the fuss getting there?
Of course, there is also the point of whether or not there truly is a problem to solve... But – hey! – that has never stopped snake-oil salesmen in the past; why should it do, now? Though quite how the snake-oil salesmen came to gain such power is a mystery – and a problem. How can we solve that?
Obama was born August 4 1961. Kennedy's moon speech was made September 12 1962.
" I don't remember anybody saying the moon wasn't there or that it was made of cheese"
I doubt that Obama remembers *anything* that anybody said when he was one year old.
Having been growing up during the years of the space race, I seem to recall that A LOT of the people who are running the country today, thought going to the moon was a waste of time, when there were people going hungry in the streets..... funny how he ignores that reality.
"makes him look more like someone who sees global warming as a useful wedge issue than someone who really thinks he is trying to save the planet." I thought exactly the same thing. I'm endlessly bemused over what the warmists think their goal is supposed to be. I’m beginning to wonder if CO2 makes people thick - well it can do just about everything else.
I have to say I’m relishing the prospect of being online tackled by a few students, though as a the most energy profligate generation yet, I doubt they’ll be bothered to turn off Grand Theft Auto, their iPhone and their TV long enough to form a coherent attack.
Unthreaded: Ross on Jun 15, 2014 at 1:21 AM
"This could be BIG news. Dr David Evans is no fool.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-i-historic-development-new-solar-climate-model-coming/"
This may clarify whether BHO is correct, or not!
We live in interesting times.
How does the saying go ?
"Getting to the Moon always struck me as an expensive way to develop the non-stick frying pan."
At the risk of another analogy abuse, I wonder if Mr Obama's shrillness on climate change is an attempt to drown out in his own mind the shouts to take action on Russia's hegemony in Ukraine, the civil wars and unrest in the Arab world and the assertiveness of China in the Pacific. He's saving the world from AGW while it's political underpinnings are going to hell in a hand basket. Nero fiddles while Rome burns.
[Snip - raise the tone please]
Obama is preaching to the choir. He could put rhythm to his lines by means of carefully timed flatulence and the acolytes would still break their metacarpals clapping.
[Snip , raise the tone please]
Why all the cynical arguments about the Moon Race. I still remember how thrilled I was as a boy when I heard the news of the first manned space flight by Yuri Gagarin. The Space Race was a very exciting time and it inspired lots of young people to study science. People say that the money could be better spent on other things but what effect would that have had? Does anyone think that we would have had a cure for cancer now? Would poverty have been eliminated? Racism? Would we be living in a more peaceful world? I suspect that the Space Race helped to divert some money away from purely military purposes.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that American women spent more on make-up than the US did on space research. If so, it was the former that was wasted. If a woman is beautiful she doesn't need cosmetics. If she is not beautiful then make-up will make no difference.
I hope I live to see a successful manned mission to Mars. There is something wrong with anyone who would not be inspired by such an achievement. It would be expensive but it would be a more productive use of resources than a new arms race between the United States and China, or than trying to prevent global warming. In any case, nature seems to be doing a good job in tackling the latter problem.
You just need to realise that Obama appears to be the kind of person who believes anyone who doesn't agree with him must be evil.
Also this President appears to be the kind of person who is purely driven by what is political (ie. let's do it because the Republicans oppose it AND they are also evil because they don't support Barry and therefore must be destroyed!!) instead of being driven by what is the right thing to do.
Also for a guy with the largest brain in the world he seems increasingly ignorant AND worse still, thin skinned.
Mailman
Why is it "abusive"? He is faced by a Congress that contains people who claim AGW is a hoax. here's another thing he is reported to have said:
So we may expect any time soon President Obama giving NASA the green light for a manned landing on Earth's second Moon... now no denying Earth's second Moon isn't there.
Re: La Buena
So your argument is that if any arbitrary grouping of people contains a couple of idiots it is okay to be abusive to the entire group.
More and more of us in the USA are questioning the implied premise of your essay, that Mr. Obama is intelligent enough to deliberately do much of anything that actually works.
The endless excuse making for his failures. It borders on rejection of responsibility for anything that does not turn out as he likes. His lack of foresight in policy. His inability to sell his ideas truthfully. His choosing to ignore laws and procedures that do not suit him. His inability to reach out to people who disagree with him and negotiate in good faith.
These are looking more and more like the angry defensive actions of someone who does not understand what is giong on but too prideful to seek help or common ground.
Mr. Obama is lying (which is one of his standard maneuvers) when he claims that those in Congress who disagree with him are doing it out of fear of a small fringe group. Another of his standard manipulations is to dehumanize those who disagree with him. A frequent way he does this is by making up untrue things about his opponents, and then condemning the things he falsely claims they said.
He is well practiced at this.
...I sense that President Obama is one man who could have written the book himself...
Let's not get too party political. I know of NO politician of any shade of opinion - from the US, UK, Germany, or Cape Verde Islands who isn't completely proficient in the use of lies and logical fallacies to justify a self-serving course of action which will benefit themselves and their supporters.
That's a basic skill of the job....
[O/T]
"makes him look more like someone who sees global warming as a useful wedge issue than someone who really thinks he is trying to save the planet."
But that's just what he is - he's politician and politicians don't save planets.
[O/T]
Dodgy Geezer,
First, I disagree that all politicians lie as a matter of course. Politicians are people and not all people lie.
Second, dismissing what someone does that is egregious extreme and destructive because others might do something similar in a minor way simply gives cover for the extremist. Mr. Obama's pattern of behavior is chronic, extreme and destructive. He is far different the Clinton model of doing a pretty good job with the occasional personal detour. Mr. Obama seems to define success as misrepresenting the issue, avoiding discussing the issue honestly, and silencing those who dare to disagree or resist. And then when his policies fail, as they do, to blame those who he cut out of the process and denigrated.
Remember all those deniers who said the Space Shuttle was too expensive per flight and wasn't well designed?
They were right.
Obama can talk Climate Change and save the planet but he can,t save Iraq.
As Spartacus says, Obama is getting bad advice on climate change.
But it is also from political necessity an attempt to rally the Democratic base for the upcoming congressional elections. The speech, and others that will be coming, are not intended to get people together on a policy issue, but rather a call to the tribe to work hard to defeat the enemy.
The speeches and the EPA initiative serve the administration's need to say: We're doing all that we can, don't let the nonbelievers gain power.
[Snip - the thread is about Obama's speech]
NASA has a list of spinoffs from the Apollo programme here.
Apollo spinoffs
I'm not sure that they have paid for the whole programme yet though, slanted so ecomentalists approve..
Chandra morphs into La Buena?
jamspid,
Mr. Obama can't get a few months of steady economic stats without cooking the books. He could not sell his so-called healthcare reform without deliberately lying. He could not implement Obamacare at all and it is still not working and never will. He could not run guns in Libya, have a legitimate Arab spring, leave Iraq capable of defending itself, do the math on Taliban mass murdering generals and one deserter.
What is creeping more and more Americans out is how we no longer have a government which he leads. He has a government that serves him. He consistently speaks of government organs and apparatus as "his". His language choice is distinctive and consistent and insightful.
La Buena,
What is abusive about a fact based criticism of Greenpeace and IPS?
"Obama the president that killed Bin Laden but saved Detroit" slogan nope or save the US coal industry nope.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/02/obama-to-announce-rule-to-limit-emissions-from-fossil-burning-plants-part-his/
I'm in America at the moment and the biggest stories out here is Iraq the 20 year anniversary since the OJ car chase and the world cup.Obama,s on the way out anyway.
Watching their TV news political shows seem a lot of Tea Party Candidates are taking Senate,Congress and State governorships from old guard established republican grandees.
Said the man with the world's largest carbon footprint.
Seems to me Obama is just trolling, avoiding the science (assuming he knows or understands any of it) and looking for reactions to use as proof that people up who disagree with him are abusive and must therefore be silenced.
Responses to O/T comments removed.
Americans are by now used to this man's penchant for limp, transparent, moth-eaten strawmen, but this one's so weak, so patently silly, that it was an insult to his audience.
Note that AP/ABC see fit to describe the people Obama is abusing as deniers but, as far as I can see, the President didn't use that term in the speech. The article is headlined Obama Says Climate Change Deniers Ignoring Science and begins:
One quite profound irony being that intelligent critics of the kind of climate policies being pushed by Obama believe that the moon was made from a major interplanetary collision and that the Earth’s climate is made, to a very large degree, by the resulting two-planet system, which may be unique in the known universe.
Well at least some intelligent policy sceptics think that, like Matt Ridley.
(Partly cross-posted from WUWT. But I think we should discuss that Ridley piece on BH some time.)
If and when the US EPA rules Obama is relying on go final, they will be subject to court challenge and very likely in whole or impart be struck down as express violations of the Clean Air Act section 111 being relied upon. Between his war on coal and the KXL pipeline delay, plus the flawed and now extra legal rollout of Obamacare, plus the evident failures in Syria and Iraq, plus...his party will likely lose the Senate while the Republicans will hold the House in November. It could even turn out to be an Australia like election. He is increasingly isolated. This speech was more unwise 'self destruction ' politically. Does not appear calculated. A worrisome trend.
He needs to get out more.
A Frenchman would likely say that the moon is made of cheese: American cheese. Though I might say that American cheese is mostly made of vulcanized rubber, not rock.
The honourable exception is, of course, Philadelphia cheese, which also happens to be where I was born.
It is now undeniable that "climate science" has entirely morphed into "climate politics." It was long obvious that the science had been corrupted by politics, but now there is no science left. It has been reduced to a badge of goodness to pin on yourself and members of your tribe, and a badge of evil to pin on the "others." Kinda like a red "D" (in previous times a red "A", or a yellow star.)
This is the toxic state of American political discourse. Obama is no longer listening to his better angels, but is joining in the mudslinging that started with his first election.
As a former community organizer, Obama's playbook is extremely limited: Obama's speech is unadulterated Alinsky. It is extremely doubtful that he has spent any time actually considering the case for global warming let alone against it. He is as shallow as he sounds and will go down as one of our most ideological and inept Presidents.
I need to correct what I wrote earlier:
Roger Sowell has provided a full transcript of the speech on WUWT and it includes this:
So there it is. We are climate change deniers to the United States Commander-in-Chief. Ron C's comment seems fair:
And I say again we refuse to accept this hate speech, whoever is using it.
Let this episode be the one that sweeps away the last straw anyone is clinging to that AGW was ever anything but politics.
Andrew
I wonder if a community organizer's job is to unite, to divide, or to blackmail.
joking aside, I often thought the hypothesis that the moon was made of green cheese was superior to the theory that CO2 was going to lead to catasrophe.
With the cheesy moon, we can check with lunar tides, orbits and in the final analysis - we can build a rocket and go there.
Which we did. and the theory was falsified. In that sense, it was a GOOD theory
Carbon dioxide ? Hot, Cold, Flood , Drought, High winds, No winds. Totally unfalsifiable and there fore a BAD theory.
@Buena
Go away. Talk about pollution!
The comparison with the moon landing is very illustrative but not in the way BHO intended. Kennedy set a difficult target that required the application of real science to solve real problems and, whatever your view of the utility of spaceflight, genuinely advanced the human race. Contrast that with climate science and the battle against climate change; science and the scientific method being abused and warped to prop up utter nonsense. We will regress thanks to this idiocy and it will take many years to repair the damage done to the reputation of real science by these charlatans. The minds of our young are being filled with nothing but green propaganda which is unforgiveable.
@Buena
Oh, BTW, you never answered my (very) simple query at Jun 11, 2014 at 3:57 PM.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/6/11/polar-bears-and-the-media.html
Afraid? Unsure of creditable sources?
The Bishop’s post stated: When President Kennedy set us on a course to the moon, there were a number of people who made a serious case that it wouldn't be worth it," he continued.
History shows that this was actually true with respect to its long-term effects on space exploration.
Apollo was effectively a national security programme to show capitalism trumps communism. The way it was executed entrenched the idea that big expendable rockets were the only way to enable big space activities and this ‘meme’ still ham-strings NASA to this day in the form of SLS.
Moreover, the historic records (audio tapes and memos) also show that Kennedy had no real interest in space exploration and regarded it as simply a means of achieving his political goals… the similarities with Obama’s actions on climate are striking.
Hamish, done.
[Snip - no discussion of birth certificates please]
[o/T]