You should give some thought to pragmatist. Both sides of the political spectrum - actually far left and fr right are almost identical in aim if not the details - have some concepts that work, and some that are dopey.
This is a false equivalence. The far right is given a voice on mainstream outlets like FoxNews and encouraged by mainstream Republican congressman and the administration. The "far left" SJW types are a bunch of college kids who are loud in social media forums and seem to be a big part of internet conversation, but aren't actually given much of a place in mainstream media outlets or the Democratic party. The Democratic party is for the most part where all the pragmatist are these days. The false equivalence idea you are pushing is something the far right promotes.
Long before the people you claim formed my false equivalence, it was clear that communists and Fascists shared much more than they differed. Old Adolph and Papa Joe were a lot more alike than different (and please let's not try toclaim that the Nasties were actually left wing - they weren't.
Both far right and far left crush the power of the individual, and prefer dictatorial power (simple government?) over any sort of democracy. As I noted, the rhetoric is different, but the action is not. And when words and actions differ, always trust the actions.
Actually no. That is one of those things that can be used by either far left or right to spread FUD. It also paints CLinton as far right while right wingers painted her as socialist.
Even that article surmised that Old Bernie - Is he right wing? - would have done better than Clinton against Dear Leader. And Trump's actions since taking office include some left wing tactics of protectionism and tariffs .
The point is that if you're really rich and you have to give half your wealth to your ex-wife/husband, you're still fairly rich. If you're just coping financially and have to give half your wealth to your ex-wife/husband, you're then suddenly poor.
Exactly. When one person has to give up the house, the car, and the Kids, then their future earnings, and gets to see their children growing in time lapse, well, they might be excused for thinking the system is out to get them, and that suicide is a fine way to opt out of it. That was exactly the case in these societal self-removals.
If you have 50 million sitting around the house and have to give up 25 million of it, you're still a millionaire. If you are making 100K a year, lose all your investments, And can look forward to paying half of your paycheck to your ex - suddenly you can be looking at not all that much more than minimum wage. That's why it is getting difficult to find people saying "Sign me up!" for that these days.
I'm not talking about the poor, I'm talking about those who were middle and upper middle or the chidlren of middle / upper middle, seeing "oh fuck, shit I'm going to be poorer than my parents"
Offspring that are poorer than their parents is not a new phenomenon. Drive and success are not a lock between generations, in some cases, the opposite is true. I came from poor stock, but blessed or cursed with drive, I far outpaced them.
As well, in many cases, these parents only looked more wealthy. The children of the 80's and 90's were often living in families that had pretend wealth - maxed out credit cards, refinanced homes to buy that Escalade, flat or no savings.
It was the middle class playing rich, and it all blew up around them.
But experiencing being poor as well as being wealthy, I wasn't unhappy at all being poor.I had no intention to stay poor, but I wasn't even upset, much less suicidal. If young people today are committing suicide because of their financial situation not being that of their parents - we have failed them by teaching them that money is the only source of happiness, and without it, life is nt worth living.
As for my theory, I lay a lot of blame on the self esteem movement. I saw a lot of Millennials crashing and burning when they found out the world links self esteem with actual achievements, not something inculcated in a person for no other reason than thinking that they are the most important person in the whole wide world.
That very clearly and unambiguously says that suicide rates are lower among areas that are less poor and/or experiencing less strife.
No need to read between the lines, it is a simple statement that leaves little room for interpretation.
The numbers speak for themselves 42 percent are attributed to a relationship problem. Only 16 percent were financially based - although I wonder how they differentiate. In my neck of the woods, there have been several suicides that were both relationship based as well as financially based. This was in nasty divorce cases where one of the ex-partners was financially decimated.
I can't believe stupid people are actually thinking my post is political. I'm literally no longer what would be classed as a leftist and I'm regularly moderated on this very site by the extreme left here
One enjoyable thing I often see is when I get email notices on some of my posts that get yo-yo'd up and down between Insightful and Troll.
When that happens, you know you are on to something real.
Read my post history, I no longer identify as a leftie. I'm a centrist.
The far right (climate deniers, most hard religious folk) are fucking idiots.
Very true.
SJW's are censoring dipshits
You forgot to add Racist, Sexist, and soft fascist. But otherwise, yeah.
No, I'm just a realist, with a dose of common sense and the simple ability to understand mathematics, sustainability, very very basic economics.
You should give some thought to pragmatist. Both sides of the political spectrum - actually far left and fr right are almost identical in aim if not the details - have some concepts that work, and some that are dopey.
You're most of the way there. Becoming a pragmatist means you'll piss most everyone off. Far right will call you a socialist, far left a fascist, but they'll be really confused because you pick positions that make sense, not party/ideology dictated.
If you don't see how fucked we are, you're in denial. This ain't about politics, it's about logic.
Things have been fucked up before, they will be fucked up again. The best thing about pragmatism is that once you accept it, the rage eventually goes away.
Although it is fun to troll the far right and far left. You must do this because they deserve it.
No fucking shit suicides are up 30%, I have to wonder what % of the suicide people are actually mentally broken or just strong enough to say "you know what, fuck all this"
Well, I suppose it is true that things have never ever been this bad, amirite?
Never ever. This is the absolute worst time in history.
Sarcasm aside, I can't help thinking that economic conditions don't have much to do with this. The overwhelming "cause" at 42 percent is relationship issues. Interestingly in the article, other than noting that cause, nothing was done to address it, only things like housing and programs to make people feel like they belong.
We've had several around here that were people checking out after a divorce. I suppose there is a certain financial aspect to that - in all cases the suicidee had been financially destroyed, but no one around here has killed themselves because of not having a place to live.
I'm pretty convinced that at times, suicide is just the simpler and more effective option.
Corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to do whatever makes them the most money. As Marx said, the capitalists will sell you the rope with which to hang them!
Wasn't that Kruschev? Or maybe both of them said it.
And what is it that put America in the forefront of the nuclear nations? And what is it that will make it possible to spend twenty billion dollars of your money to put some clown on the moon? Well, it was good old American know how, that's what, as provided by good old Americans like Dr. Wernher von Braun!
Dood! U having a reaction to some medicine or sumpin?
This movie is going down as one of the most underrated. Rian Johnson hurt it tremendously. As soon as I heard a non-Abrams was directing VIII I predicted volatility and fail.
Yeah, Ron Howard is a terrible director.
I heard that the official narrative is that the world is tired of white male star characters.
The part that seems weird to me is that apparently a character that wants to have sex with anything is now considered a good thing. How would I take my grandkids to a movie and explain that Lando would like to fuck them?
Nobody goes to movies to have identity politics shoved down their throats, and this is the result of a policy of shoving identity politics into the faces of a populace that is already over saturated.
Exactly. The people who Lucasfilm has tried to court are far left feminists and those who identify with them - hence the original fan's derisive name for the movie - "Soylo".
Ms Kennedy et al made the terrible mistake of believing that they could alientate the core audience - who were both male and female, and replace them with people who demand everything fit their Social Justice narrative. Apparently SJW's don't go to movies nor buy the toys.
And when Kennedy said she has no need to cater to male fans - well aside from the fact that she proves herself a sexist and a first class bigot, and has no problems with broadcasting that sexism to the world like a badge of honor for her sycophants - she had it wrong. Her and her merry band of SJW's were pissing off all fans, both male and female.
A lot of fans boycotted Solo, calling it Soylo, after Kennedy et al decided that the Star Wars franchise needed Identity politics, as well as the weird plot holes, like a Mary Sue Character killing the greatest Jedi ever.
The fans concerns and complaints after The Last Jedi was met with derision by Kennedy and her crew, who dismissed the long time fans in favor of what they believed was a brave new world of political activism, that even though set in a Universe far far away, and long long ago, this universe emulates far left Social Justice warrior identity politics of the US and GB today. Weird. So fans en masse neglected to go.
Soylo even had a few tricks up it's sleeves such as a droid with a sexual identity, social Justice warrior mindset, and with a terrible attitude. This character was so annoying that apparently audiences cheered when it was destroyed.
Then in a creepshow to end all creep shows, one of the Writers smugly bragged that one of the Characters, Lando was pansexual. https://www.usatoday.com/story...
Let that sink in a moment. A Star Wars Character that enjoys dipping his wick in little boys, little girls, dead people, Car exhausts, cows, sheeps, dogs, chickens.
Now I'm pretty liberal about this wick dipping business, but I'm old fashioned enough that I kinda think that humans should stick with other humans, and of an age where consent can be given. Just sayin'.
The problem you see, is that Social Justice Warriors are happy to complain about Start Wars - and everthing else it would appear - but if they even go to the movies, they don't do what has made LucasFilms and the Star Wars Franchise a mint in the past. And they don't buy the promotional items. Old School Star Wars fans, male and female, go to the movies often several times. They buy the promotional paraphernalia. They write the fanfics.
And what they do not want is 21st century far left identity politics. Star Wars is a couple hour escape from reality, not a couple hours of virtue signaling and destruction of the canon narrative. So they stayed away. All around the world.
Meanwhile,the people who made it flop apparently believe that the reason it flopped was because audiences are tired of White male characters. Apparently both racism and sexism is the new rule.
It's their money. But smart people trying to sell things should make things others want to buy. If Disney wants to make a movie called Queen of the Femniverse, shouwing white men being skewered and flayed alive, and women cheering and screaming in pleasure at the sight - well they can. It probably won't work. But its their money.
But it takes a willful act of stupidity to destroy a golden goose franchise in order to get rid of it's core audience.
No, just a clever idiot who thinks he's smarter than everyone else and also believes that he's winning arguments when he exhausts his opponents with endless inane questions. He doesn't understand the difference between winning and being shunned.
Yeah, I've given up. Its difficult to argue with a person whose posts read like those postmodern thesis generators http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
P.S.=> Your DIM brains are blatantly inferior evidenced by your FAKE NAMES online for FAKE lives of being "ne'er-do-well" scum having the AUDACITY to even TRY "F" w/ me & ones like you you INFERIOR swine as I cast PEARLS before SWINE like you... apk
Seems like a little Geo-Blocking by YoueTube is in order. Then the good citizens of Austria can take this matter up with their legal system.
Truth is, if they are themselves liable for any copyrighted content, it would seem like every video uploaded would have to be vetted by every country in the world.
The takedown notices used now are not perfect, but they allow YouTube to exist. And is a county decides that is not acceptable, then that country needs to be denied access.
So anyhow, thanks for the terms and fancy words - but you aren't even replying to anything I wrote.
I think we're on even ground if that's your criteria for judgement:)
What I'm asking for is pretty well defined in the literature by Karl Popper on falsifiability, specifically regarding the demarcation problem.
You need to show the falseness. So far you criticize anything I write. Falsification? Show me how what you write proves that there is no AGW? You obviously think you are on a higher plane of existence, smarter and know more, but I challenge you to falsify the greenhouse effect, or falsify the thesis that it fails on a global level. You know how it starts. What is your hypothesis? Show me some science. Use my challenge to show me and the world. Challenge accepted?
And no, I'm not going to do your work for you - look at it as expecting your professors and advisors to do your thesis for you. If you've ever had to do that, you might be surprised at your success or lack thereof.
So give me the current work that invalidates the Greenhouse effect on a planetart scale.
I'm happy to stipulate to the "greenhouse effect". That may very well be a necessary component of any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW.
Explain how humans releasing sequestered Carbon Dioxide does not act as present day Carbon dioxide does. Is it a different Carbon dioxide? The CO2 that humans and much of natural sources like volcanos is merely re-relasing of sequestered CO2. Explain how it is different.
Here's your problem. If you were sitting before me in a thesis defense, I would ask questions like this.
Your answers all of which imply I am wrong and not following your rules, would earn you a quick failure.
I present some simple questions.
Does Carbon Dioxide retain energy to a greater or lesser extent than other gases as they are present in an atmosphere? Yeah - there's a bit of a trick her. But if you understand the trick you would answer me with a question - by percentage or by energy retention by the molecule? Preferably expound on both, because there are other gases that retain more energy.
If you answer in the negative, I would ask you to reconcile the discrepancy. You would then need to prove that either the energy retention does not exist, or how something eliminates the effect.
If your thesis is that it doesn't exist, you would be asked to reconcile how there is the appearance of the effect, when given the amount of insolation that the earth receives. How the combination of all of the other greenhouse gases - and do not forget that water vapor and Sulfur dioxide aerosols figure into the mix - then show how if CO2 has no effect, then how either all of the other gases eithr have more of an effect than expected, and why the average temperature is above freezing, which it should be.
And on an on and on. You are making a claim that does not match up with science. You are very much encouraged to prove the current knowledge wrong, but the uncertainty at this point is pretty small. But all you have to do is defend it successfully, and science will change, and you will be the most famous scientist in the world, mentioned along with names like Crick - the scientist who proved that there is no such thing as AGW, and re-wrote Physics at the same time.
Gives me goose bumps. Now get to work.
Give me the data, not insult me like I have no idea what I'm talking about - The data please, I know the big words, and so far you've given me only shit - not a bit of data. Sheesh at least the fundies just say it is God's will that the climate is as it is. "While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease. Genesis 8:22
Slashdot Mirror
You should give some thought to pragmatist. Both sides of the political spectrum - actually far left and fr right are almost identical in aim if not the details - have some concepts that work, and some that are dopey.
This is a false equivalence. The far right is given a voice on mainstream outlets like FoxNews and encouraged by mainstream Republican congressman and the administration. The "far left" SJW types are a bunch of college kids who are loud in social media forums and seem to be a big part of internet conversation, but aren't actually given much of a place in mainstream media outlets or the Democratic party. The Democratic party is for the most part where all the pragmatist are these days. The false equivalence idea you are pushing is something the far right promotes.
Long before the people you claim formed my false equivalence, it was clear that communists and Fascists shared much more than they differed. Old Adolph and Papa Joe were a lot more alike than different (and please let's not try toclaim that the Nasties were actually left wing - they weren't.
Both far right and far left crush the power of the individual, and prefer dictatorial power (simple government?) over any sort of democracy. As I noted, the rhetoric is different, but the action is not. And when words and actions differ, always trust the actions.
There is no real "left" in the US. your choices are right and far right. with varying degrees of authoritarian.
https://politicalcompass.org/u...
Actually no. That is one of those things that can be used by either far left or right to spread FUD. It also paints CLinton as far right while right wingers painted her as socialist.
Even that article surmised that Old Bernie - Is he right wing? - would have done better than Clinton against Dear Leader. And Trump's actions since taking office include some left wing tactics of protectionism and tariffs .
So its a nasty hodgepodge of randomicity.
I'm also seeing a lot of that lately too, quite a bit.
I've been hoping to achieve the goal of -1 Insightful. I don't know if that is possible, but I've reached 0 Insightful IIRC.
Or was that Inciteful?? 8^)
The point is that if you're really rich and you have to give half your wealth to your ex-wife/husband, you're still fairly rich. If you're just coping financially and have to give half your wealth to your ex-wife/husband, you're then suddenly poor.
Exactly. When one person has to give up the house, the car, and the Kids, then their future earnings, and gets to see their children growing in time lapse, well, they might be excused for thinking the system is out to get them, and that suicide is a fine way to opt out of it. That was exactly the case in these societal self-removals.
If you have 50 million sitting around the house and have to give up 25 million of it, you're still a millionaire. If you are making 100K a year, lose all your investments, And can look forward to paying half of your paycheck to your ex - suddenly you can be looking at not all that much more than minimum wage. That's why it is getting difficult to find people saying "Sign me up!" for that these days.
I'm not talking about the poor, I'm talking about those who were middle and upper middle or the chidlren of middle / upper middle, seeing "oh fuck, shit I'm going to be poorer than my parents"
Offspring that are poorer than their parents is not a new phenomenon. Drive and success are not a lock between generations, in some cases, the opposite is true. I came from poor stock, but blessed or cursed with drive, I far outpaced them.
As well, in many cases, these parents only looked more wealthy. The children of the 80's and 90's were often living in families that had pretend wealth - maxed out credit cards, refinanced homes to buy that Escalade, flat or no savings.
It was the middle class playing rich, and it all blew up around them.
But experiencing being poor as well as being wealthy, I wasn't unhappy at all being poor.I had no intention to stay poor, but I wasn't even upset, much less suicidal. If young people today are committing suicide because of their financial situation not being that of their parents - we have failed them by teaching them that money is the only source of happiness, and without it, life is nt worth living.
As for my theory, I lay a lot of blame on the self esteem movement. I saw a lot of Millennials crashing and burning when they found out the world links self esteem with actual achievements, not something inculcated in a person for no other reason than thinking that they are the most important person in the whole wide world.
That very clearly and unambiguously says that suicide rates are lower among areas that are less poor and/or experiencing less strife.
No need to read between the lines, it is a simple statement that leaves little room for interpretation.
The numbers speak for themselves 42 percent are attributed to a relationship problem. Only 16 percent were financially based - although I wonder how they differentiate. In my neck of the woods, there have been several suicides that were both relationship based as well as financially based. This was in nasty divorce cases where one of the ex-partners was financially decimated.
I can't believe stupid people are actually thinking my post is political. I'm literally no longer what would be classed as a leftist and I'm regularly moderated on this very site by the extreme left here
One enjoyable thing I often see is when I get email notices on some of my posts that get yo-yo'd up and down between Insightful and Troll.
When that happens, you know you are on to something real.
Read my post history, I no longer identify as a leftie. I'm a centrist. The far right (climate deniers, most hard religious folk) are fucking idiots.
Very true.
SJW's are censoring dipshits
You forgot to add Racist, Sexist, and soft fascist. But otherwise, yeah.
No, I'm just a realist, with a dose of common sense and the simple ability to understand mathematics, sustainability, very very basic economics.
You should give some thought to pragmatist. Both sides of the political spectrum - actually far left and fr right are almost identical in aim if not the details - have some concepts that work, and some that are dopey.
You're most of the way there. Becoming a pragmatist means you'll piss most everyone off. Far right will call you a socialist, far left a fascist, but they'll be really confused because you pick positions that make sense, not party/ideology dictated.
If you don't see how fucked we are, you're in denial. This ain't about politics, it's about logic.
Things have been fucked up before, they will be fucked up again. The best thing about pragmatism is that once you accept it, the rage eventually goes away.
Although it is fun to troll the far right and far left. You must do this because they deserve it.
No fucking shit suicides are up 30%, I have to wonder what % of the suicide people are actually mentally broken or just strong enough to say "you know what, fuck all this"
Well, I suppose it is true that things have never ever been this bad, amirite?
Never ever. This is the absolute worst time in history.
Sarcasm aside, I can't help thinking that economic conditions don't have much to do with this. The overwhelming "cause" at 42 percent is relationship issues. Interestingly in the article, other than noting that cause, nothing was done to address it, only things like housing and programs to make people feel like they belong.
We've had several around here that were people checking out after a divorce. I suppose there is a certain financial aspect to that - in all cases the suicidee had been financially destroyed, but no one around here has killed themselves because of not having a place to live.
I'm pretty convinced that at times, suicide is just the simpler and more effective option.
Corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to do whatever makes them the most money. As Marx said, the capitalists will sell you the rope with which to hang them!
Wasn't that Kruschev? Or maybe both of them said it.
And what is it that put America in the forefront of the nuclear nations? And what is it that will make it possible to spend twenty billion dollars of your money to put some clown on the moon? Well, it was good old American know how, that's what, as provided by good old Americans like Dr. Wernher von Braun!
Dood! U having a reaction to some medicine or sumpin?
Just tell them, "Lando Calrissian is a steely-eyed missile man!"
Beware his heat seeking moisture missile!
This movie is going down as one of the most underrated. Rian Johnson hurt it tremendously. As soon as I heard a non-Abrams was directing VIII I predicted volatility and fail.
Yeah, Ron Howard is a terrible director.
I heard that the official narrative is that the world is tired of white male star characters.
The part that seems weird to me is that apparently a character that wants to have sex with anything is now considered a good thing. How would I take my grandkids to a movie and explain that Lando would like to fuck them?
Kind of a shame. I think "Rogue One" and "Solo" are the best Star Wars movies since "Return of the Jedi."
Out of curiosity, did the last two films fit your social narrative?. Yours is definitely a minority opinion here.
Nobody goes to movies to have identity politics shoved down their throats, and this is the result of a policy of shoving identity politics into the faces of a populace that is already over saturated.
Exactly. The people who Lucasfilm has tried to court are far left feminists and those who identify with them - hence the original fan's derisive name for the movie - "Soylo".
Ms Kennedy et al made the terrible mistake of believing that they could alientate the core audience - who were both male and female, and replace them with people who demand everything fit their Social Justice narrative. Apparently SJW's don't go to movies nor buy the toys.
And when Kennedy said she has no need to cater to male fans - well aside from the fact that she proves herself a sexist and a first class bigot, and has no problems with broadcasting that sexism to the world like a badge of honor for her sycophants - she had it wrong. Her and her merry band of SJW's were pissing off all fans, both male and female.
The fans concerns and complaints after The Last Jedi was met with derision by Kennedy and her crew, who dismissed the long time fans in favor of what they believed was a brave new world of political activism, that even though set in a Universe far far away, and long long ago, this universe emulates far left Social Justice warrior identity politics of the US and GB today. Weird. So fans en masse neglected to go.
Soylo even had a few tricks up it's sleeves such as a droid with a sexual identity, social Justice warrior mindset, and with a terrible attitude. This character was so annoying that apparently audiences cheered when it was destroyed.
Then in a creepshow to end all creep shows, one of the Writers smugly bragged that one of the Characters, Lando was pansexual. https://www.usatoday.com/story...
Let that sink in a moment. A Star Wars Character that enjoys dipping his wick in little boys, little girls, dead people, Car exhausts, cows, sheeps, dogs, chickens.
Now I'm pretty liberal about this wick dipping business, but I'm old fashioned enough that I kinda think that humans should stick with other humans, and of an age where consent can be given. Just sayin'.
The problem you see, is that Social Justice Warriors are happy to complain about Start Wars - and everthing else it would appear - but if they even go to the movies, they don't do what has made LucasFilms and the Star Wars Franchise a mint in the past. And they don't buy the promotional items. Old School Star Wars fans, male and female, go to the movies often several times. They buy the promotional paraphernalia. They write the fanfics.
And what they do not want is 21st century far left identity politics. Star Wars is a couple hour escape from reality, not a couple hours of virtue signaling and destruction of the canon narrative. So they stayed away. All around the world.
Meanwhile,the people who made it flop apparently believe that the reason it flopped was because audiences are tired of White male characters. Apparently both racism and sexism is the new rule.
It's their money. But smart people trying to sell things should make things others want to buy. If Disney wants to make a movie called Queen of the Femniverse, shouwing white men being skewered and flayed alive, and women cheering and screaming in pleasure at the sight - well they can. It probably won't work. But its their money.
But it takes a willful act of stupidity to destroy a golden goose franchise in order to get rid of it's core audience.
No, just a clever idiot who thinks he's smarter than everyone else and also believes that he's winning arguments when he exhausts his opponents with endless inane questions. He doesn't understand the difference between winning and being shunned.
Yeah, I've given up. Its difficult to argue with a person whose posts read like those postmodern thesis generators http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
P.S.=> Your DIM brains are blatantly inferior evidenced by your FAKE NAMES online for FAKE lives of being "ne'er-do-well" scum having the AUDACITY to even TRY "F" w/ me & ones like you you INFERIOR swine as I cast PEARLS before SWINE like you... apk
Whatever happened to moocow man?
Truth is, if they are themselves liable for any copyrighted content, it would seem like every video uploaded would have to be vetted by every country in the world.
The takedown notices used now are not perfect, but they allow YouTube to exist. And is a county decides that is not acceptable, then that country needs to be denied access.
See subject SOYBoy (rotflmao) in your UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous "courageous" trolling you "not man" - LMAO!
There ya go! And translated from the original Sanskrit as well! You are a true jewel and a Slashdot treasure.
Hi Sweetie! Where ya been? We get a little concerned when we don't hear from ya every so often.
So again, if you want to play the science game:
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
I'm arguing with a bot.
I think we're on even ground if that's your criteria for judgement :)
What I'm asking for is pretty well defined in the literature by Karl Popper on falsifiability, specifically regarding the demarcation problem.
You need to show the falseness. So far you criticize anything I write. Falsification? Show me how what you write proves that there is no AGW? You obviously think you are on a higher plane of existence, smarter and know more, but I challenge you to falsify the greenhouse effect, or falsify the thesis that it fails on a global level. You know how it starts. What is your hypothesis? Show me some science. Use my challenge to show me and the world. Challenge accepted?
And no, I'm not going to do your work for you - look at it as expecting your professors and advisors to do your thesis for you. If you've ever had to do that, you might be surprised at your success or lack thereof.
I'm happy to stipulate to the "greenhouse effect". That may very well be a necessary component of any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW.
Explain how humans releasing sequestered Carbon Dioxide does not act as present day Carbon dioxide does. Is it a different Carbon dioxide? The CO2 that humans and much of natural sources like volcanos is merely re-relasing of sequestered CO2. Explain how it is different.
Here's your problem. If you were sitting before me in a thesis defense, I would ask questions like this.
Your answers all of which imply I am wrong and not following your rules, would earn you a quick failure.
I present some simple questions.
Does Carbon Dioxide retain energy to a greater or lesser extent than other gases as they are present in an atmosphere? Yeah - there's a bit of a trick her. But if you understand the trick you would answer me with a question - by percentage or by energy retention by the molecule? Preferably expound on both, because there are other gases that retain more energy.
If you answer in the negative, I would ask you to reconcile the discrepancy. You would then need to prove that either the energy retention does not exist, or how something eliminates the effect.
If your thesis is that it doesn't exist, you would be asked to reconcile how there is the appearance of the effect, when given the amount of insolation that the earth receives. How the combination of all of the other greenhouse gases - and do not forget that water vapor and Sulfur dioxide aerosols figure into the mix - then show how if CO2 has no effect, then how either all of the other gases eithr have more of an effect than expected, and why the average temperature is above freezing, which it should be.
And on an on and on. You are making a claim that does not match up with science. You are very much encouraged to prove the current knowledge wrong, but the uncertainty at this point is pretty small. But all you have to do is defend it successfully, and science will change, and you will be the most famous scientist in the world, mentioned along with names like Crick - the scientist who proved that there is no such thing as AGW, and re-wrote Physics at the same time.
Gives me goose bumps. Now get to work. Give me the data, not insult me like I have no idea what I'm talking about - The data please, I know the big words, and so far you've given me only shit - not a bit of data. Sheesh at least the fundies just say it is God's will that the climate is as it is. "While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease. Genesis 8:22
Do you even believe in your own existence at this point?
I dunno about that, but for all the falsifiable words in here, none have falsified anything.