[bena]

That's an entirely different metaphor though.

That's the point.

He's not talking about the causes of climate change or anything like that. He's explaining a specific phenomenon using an analogy. Whether or not you believe climate change is anthropocentric is immaterial to how this phenomenon manifests. And to help people understand how this phenomenon works, he used the metaphor of the shattered glass.

It actually does not matter what shattered the glass. He said hammer because a hammer would work. It could have been smashed with a frozen, medium-sized cat for all it mattered.

The point is, once the glass is shattered, you cannot predict where each piece is going to fall.

[shockeychap]

The original post that started this thread was:

> Isn't this more akin to saying, the window broke before the hammer hit it, so the hammer couldn't have been the cause?

Agree or disagree, it's an interesting thought exercise that took the original analogy in an interesting direction. Whether or not you agree about it being interesting or useful, it certainly wasn't "arguing the metaphor", just adding to it in a way that you may or may not appreciate.

[bena]

That's what arguing the metaphor is. It's adding to it to change or subvert the meaning and change the direction of the conversation.

We don't appreciate it when politicians twist questions to give the canned responses they've prepared, why should we accept a similar tactic amongst ourselves?