Neverending Audit

[Herewith is shown that reading requires discipline:]

> Figure 6 is output from Nordhaus (DICE model).

Good. Now, let’s recall Lomborg’s quote:

Many people argue that global warming is so urgent that we need to cut carbon emissions now. However, the problem is that almost no matter what we do now, it will only have a measurable impact in the second half of this century, as is evident in Figure 6. This matters because many of the cuts that have been proposed are hard to sustain. Thus, what matters is not necessarily to cut a lot now, but to make sure we can cut a lot in the long run.

Read More

(Source: judithcurry.com)

> If you have a point to make, then make it. No adult wants to play your childish games.

No, problem, Gatekeeper.

So here you go. This sentence:

> It was quite a bit more than a casual mention.

is an understatement of something that amounts to a serious accusation.

This accusation is subsumed by the word “trick”. The word “trick” refers to an action, an action that only intentional beings do. O’Donnell’s accusation is irreductibly stuck inside a loop of intentions.

The only way out would be to argue that Steig used a trick unintentionally, i.e. it looks like a trick Steig pulled, but he did not willingly pulled it. It would be surprising that this way out is available anymore.

This is not the first time this is done hereunder. Adults can assume what they are doing, can’t they?

[PS. Just a variation on Brentano’s thesis, which my character accepts. If we follow through this thesis, CA’s blog policy avowed policy might not be possible to maintain.]

(Source: climateaudit.org)

The rational (or scientific) skeptic insists on empirical evidence (see Feynman) before accepting the validity of a hypothesis.

Let MM be a rational skeptic as defined by the above quote.

MM crosses the street.

MM sees a car converging on him.

Onlookers hypothesize that it will hit him in three seconds.

MM keeps walking, confident that it won’t hit him.

Why?

Lack of empirical evidence.

(Source: judithcurry.com)

My takeaway from MMarler’s comment is that the question as originally posed is unintelligible.

Please, bluesea, channel your inner Chewbacca and say that the question makes no sense.

Channeling our inner Chewbacca might always be possible: we could conjecture that with enough parsomatics, any speech act can become unintelligible.

Let’s call this the Chewbacca Conjecture.

This conjecture is inspired by Searle’s Principle of Expressibility [i.e. one can always say what he means].

A obvious lemma is that conversation space where both the conjecture and principle hold makes for a NeverEndingAudit.

(Source: judithcurry.com)

[Michael P. Lynch offers an incredible thought experiment:]

Suppose I offer, at no charge, to drop a drug in the water supply that would cause almost everyone in the country to vote like you this November. You would probably feel at least a little bit tempted to take the deal. Presidential politics is a matter of grave import, after all. Still — many of us would hesitate, and rightly so. There seems to be something really wrong with manipulating people to believe things even when the stakes are high. We want to convince our opponents, yes, but we want them to be convinced by our reasons.

(Source: The New York Times)