We may not understand it, but that may not be necessary to recreate it. Brain scanning / imaging technology is vastly improving year after year. At the point at which we can scan every neuron (or even smaller scale) in real time, and record a year/two years of real life activity, we can probably upload that and run it in a virtual machine. We may still not know how it is working precisely, but it may very well take input and give output in such a way that it acts like real AI.
The difference between then and now, that many authors have pointed out, is that our current rates of tech advances are entering a steeper part of an exponential.
50,00-25,000 - not much. Some better stone tools. 25,000-15,000 - Early beginnings of Agriculture. Early beginnings of large'ish cities. 15,000-0AD - Formation of city states, agriculture with complex irrigation. State warfare. Development of writing. Animal Husbandry. Trade routes, currency.
Just play the game civilization:) Starts off slow.... speeds up towards the end hehe.
Blame the non-so-rich people for being lazy and ignorant.
And if around the world poorer, uneducated people, show less interest in politics, and don't turn out to the polls in high numbers, do we continue to blame them? Or perhaps we start wondering why and get at the root causes? Or go the route of Australia and make voting mandatory.
Or maybe we don't actively make it harder to vote, like the majority of states controlled by Republicans has done in recent years? Or maybe we don't gerrymander the living hell out of districts, so races are won before anyone even casts a vote?
Or maybe we do things that we know work, like here in Oregon:
Oregon is one of two states that employ a vote-by-mail only system. Voters receive an information pamphlet three weeks before the election, followed a few days later by their ballots. With an average voter turnout of 60.13 – 8.5 percentage points above the national average – the system is working for Oregonians.
Vote by mail. Easy. You don't have to take off work (which is hard for those 'lazy' 'ignorant' poor). You don't have to stand in line for hours like many urban voting centers.
There are lots of solutions proven around the world, and here in the states that we could try. But I have a very well informed opinion that at least one political party in the US would really, really, not want higher turn outs.
$15/hr minimum wage means McDonalds can afford that burger robot to replace half their employees.
Show me a city where 50% of any chain restaurant's employees were laid off. I can point to many cities that raised their minimum wage, and employment increased, not decreased.
Ideology is all well and good, just make sure it conforms to what has actually happened in reality.
If they're going to continue growing the metro area, they need some kind of mass transit that makes it possible to get around without adding even more cars to the highway.
two University of Toronto professors have added to the body of evidence showing that highway and road expansion increases traffic by increasing demand. On the flip side, they show that transit expansion doesn't help cure congestion either.
(emphasis added)
Look at the comments in the article you listed. They correctly point out that while mass transit doesn't help congestion (roads will always fill up with the maximum amount of cars they can handle, and that drivers can put up with), it does increase the movement of masses of people, meaning urban centers can form because people can get in/out of the city easily.
Think of it this way. Say there were no roads at all. None. Would you rather have a city with mass transit zipping people in and out of the downtown area, or each suburb creating its own mini 'downtown' since people can only ride bikes or walk and the real city center is too far away?
Yes, the roads will always fill up unless they move so slow people won't use them, or they cost so much that people look for alternatives, if they exist. In the meantime, if you want people moving in/out of areas quickly, mass transit helps with that. It allows you to better plan neighborhoods and business areas.
I don't why so many in the Linux community are so hooked on ZFS. BTRFS has a feature set that is rapidly getting there...
I don't know about others, but for me it is because ZFS has been enterprise ready for a long time. I've been using it for years at work. So a mixture of trust, familiarity, maturity, etc.
I have not used BTRFS yet, mainly because I haven't encountered a situation that needed anything more than ZFS is currently providing.
Do you have another study / article you could provide? I'm curious, because I come from an ag background, family in ag consulting, etc.. and still to this day believe ddt is bad for birds.
So out of curiosity how do you think we should develop GMO crops without patents?
Expecting only profit driven companies to do research and development will end with us having products and advances that only benefit those companies' profits.
You know there existed a time before patents and we managed along just fine. That said, I'd rather see us adequately fund research and development in Universities, government labs, and grants to private firms to research things that benefit the public. That is a very good use of public money.
Researching how to develop a seed that produces a sterile plant, just so someone has to buy seeds from you every year, only benefits a company's profits. It doesn't benefit the farmers or public.
That Washington post stories is a series of anecdotes. Anyone could just as easily list the hundreds of shootings that were not prevented by armed civilians, or even made worse.
I'm not saying your wrong, just that link proves nothing.
And any perceived benefit of arming more civilians has to be weighted against the known statistics about increased suicide rates, accidental kid/home shootings, etc..
The right to keep and bear arms is a right, not a privilege.
Note: I like guns. Own several. But the constitution does not specify 'arms' very specifically. People, generally, cannot own weapons of mass destruction (nukes, cannons, explosives, etc.. ). The people that are allowed to own weapons with huge destructive capabilities have to go through a much more restrictive process of checks, licenses, fees, etc..
There is nothing in our constitution that would block our ability to regulate the level of "destructiveness" a person is able to own. We do it already to several classes of weapons. We could choose to apply stricter regulations, background checks, etc.. to lower levels of weapons.
Also... rights can change. Not often, but a right isn't set in stone.
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816[10]
If we get sick and tired of school shootings every month, we could remove the right to keep arms if we wanted to as a society.
The constitution has been amended before, and it will be again. It isn't a religious scripture from god:)
I don't want people to walk into Walmart and buy a 50 caliber machine gun without some serious background inspections, licenses, mental health checks, etc..? Do you? If not, then what is the issue with applying stricter control to handguns? It isn't taking away your right to own the gun.
And I know fully well that 9/10 mass shooters in this country would pass background checks. And that is precisely the reason why I think we need stricter regulations than even the proposed increases in background checks. But we can't even pass minor increases in the background check laws.
Most of the conservatives in congress think that any increase in gun regulations is a slippery slope, which is quite literally allowing thousands of innocent people to die each year. When we have absolute proof from other countries that there are common sense laws that would help to save lives.
Well, the goal for the last 50 years has been to wreck the US healthcare system to the point that single payer would become politically viable.
There wasn't any sort of coordinated 'attack' or strategy. It is just naturally what happens when you have a system with profit motives, but the consumer is unable to make an informed choice of product.
You can't shop around when you have a heart attack. So they can basically charge you whatever the heck they want. That is a problem.
The solution is not banning guns, the solution is a proper public health system and a respect for mental health, and being willing to lock up the mentally ill for treatment.
I agree we need to address a bunch of factors: safety nets, mental help. universal healthcare in general, income inequality, social mobility, etc.. we rank poorly in all those areas compared to other modern countries.
However, look at Australia. They didn't ban guns, but they did make it more restrictive to get and own them. Like requiring by law locked storage, etc.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/port-arthur-massacre-shooting-spree-changed-australia-gun-laws-n396476
It is either luck, or the gun laws worked. Because they have had zero mass shootings since the laws changed. Which I think was about 20 years ago.
But that is likely changing soon. After they get this built: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigafactory_1
Batteries will be 30% cheaper (so they say). That might make their lower end cars (35K and 50K, drop to 25k? and 35k?, respectively.) drop enough to start competing with cars like the Toyota Camry.
subtract $7500 for the Federal subsidy (which is given at time of purchase.)
So does that mean your loan payments are based on the sales price - 7500, or based on the price before the 7500 is taken off? That makes a big difference in the monthly, and I've always been curious which way it goes.
I didn't read the article, of course, but did he really say obsolete? My impression is that the new 100,000 dollar car from Tesla would be the 1000 km range in two years, so I automatically assumed the Model S and others would get a heck of a lot cheaper.
I'd be perfectly happy with the Car of Year awarded model S if it was priced like a Camry:)
I agree in general, talking about if it looked like a bomb or not is silly.
What I think is stupid, is to assume the worst when you see something odd (better chance of being hit by lightning than killed by a bomb). But teachers are under intense pressure by administrators to assume the worst at all times in today's world.
In a saner world, even if the thing looked exactly like a hand grenade, the teacher wouldn't have jumped to the conclusion that the kid was bad and was going to do harm. They would have started with the assumption that it was a toy, the kid was good, and just told the kid "don't bring that to school again", or told the kid "hey neat looking grenade clock? How'd you make it? Lets talk about it next share and tell".
I don't think any of them got invited to the White House.
Likely because they were not as good at social media as this kid/family appear to be, and also because this kid is a tinkerer/maker/geek/nerd/-type person, all the like-minded folks "on the internets" re-tweeted, re-blogged, spread the story wide and far, etc..
I miss the days when people shared thoughts and information with each others not out of financial gains but out of sincere interest into a subject. Collaboration, code sharing, tutorials -- all for free and for the mere expectation that if I share this, I know othera will share too and we all get something out of it. Respect was the currency back then.
It still happens. It is just extremely hard to search for, thanks to how Google search results work, and how much big/corporate sites work on seo.
I wish Google had an "amateur" category, similar to how...other sites...categorize certain comments. It would be nice to just search personal web sites who do not have a profit motive.
1. global warming is real and a serious threat. 2. You have 100% undeniable proof that certain corporations, media groups, think tanks, and political organizations are conspiring to knowingly spread lies about scientific research in order to maximize profit at the cost of human lives and property?
If those two things were true, and you were an expert on at least one of those items, what would you do? Just say, "oh well"?
Crap, sorry. Somehow I lost the text in a quote mishap. My text that should have been above that community engagement sentence was basically:
Why question it? Many schools take public money, and feel obliged to give back to the community in various ways. One of those ways is educating the public. And lots of schools have mission statements that specifically mention community engagement.
I'm seriously questioning why a university feels the need to have a Director of Climate Change Communication.
The University's identity is distinguished by its public affairs mission, which entails a campus-wide commitment to foster expertise and responsibility in ethical leadership, cultural competence and community engagement.
So, you opposed the RICO investigation (1999-2006) of the so-called "science" which said that cigarettes are safe?
Yes. The way to counter speech that you disagree with, is not censorship, but MORE SPEECH. It is especially effective if you can back up your speech with data.
Extreme example: I stand up in a sports arena a start yelling "OMG he's got a gun, OMG there's a bomb!", etc.., people get trampled to death in the panic. I should not be charged with a crime for that 'speech'? Someone should have yelled back "he is lying folks! believe me!"?
The number who agree on human causes and extent is nowhere near that high, though.
Are you intentionally spreading lies, or just happen to be unwillingly or willingly ignorant about the matter?
"Of these papers, 97.2 percent endorsed the "consensus" that global warming is human caused. Once results were in, Cook put together a publicity strategy. "There's no point in doing scientific research if you are not looking to publicize it," he said.Jul 24, 2014" https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Of course, the above is a high percentage of studies, not a percentage of scientists themselves. So, see below.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ - every major science group. All of them agree it is a serious problem and man made. Natural cycles alone cannot explain it.
Or go to google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=scientific+consensus+global+warming&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0CBwQgQMwAGoVChMI7Mr7j6yOyAIVkFWICh3ojwOh
Or, lighter reading if you don't want to read scholar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Is a survey of 3,000+ earth scientists enough for you?
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."
Doran surveyed 10,257 Earth scientists. Thirty percent responded to the survey which asked: 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? and 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Go shout "omg Bomb! There's a bomb!" in a sports arena. Watch dozens of people get trampled to death. Expect to be arrested for your 'speech'. Words can cause damage.
Slashdot Mirror
We may not understand it, but that may not be necessary to recreate it. Brain scanning / imaging technology is vastly improving year after year. At the point at which we can scan every neuron (or even smaller scale) in real time, and record a year/two years of real life activity, we can probably upload that and run it in a virtual machine. We may still not know how it is working precisely, but it may very well take input and give output in such a way that it acts like real AI.
The difference between then and now, that many authors have pointed out, is that our current rates of tech advances are entering a steeper part of an exponential.
50,00-25,000 - not much. Some better stone tools.
25,000-15,000 - Early beginnings of Agriculture. Early beginnings of large'ish cities.
15,000-0AD - Formation of city states, agriculture with complex irrigation. State warfare. Development of writing. Animal Husbandry. Trade routes, currency.
Just play the game civilization:) Starts off slow.... speeds up towards the end hehe.
Blame the non-so-rich people for being lazy and ignorant.
And if around the world poorer, uneducated people, show less interest in politics, and don't turn out to the polls in high numbers, do we continue to blame them? Or perhaps we start wondering why and get at the root causes? Or go the route of Australia and make voting mandatory.
Or maybe we don't actively make it harder to vote, like the majority of states controlled by Republicans has done in recent years? Or maybe we don't gerrymander the living hell out of districts, so races are won before anyone even casts a vote?
Or maybe we do things that we know work, like here in Oregon:
Oregon is one of two states that employ a vote-by-mail only system. Voters receive an information pamphlet three weeks before the election, followed a few days later by their ballots. With an average voter turnout of 60.13 – 8.5 percentage points above the national average – the system is working for Oregonians.
Vote by mail. Easy. You don't have to take off work (which is hard for those 'lazy' 'ignorant' poor). You don't have to stand in line for hours like many urban voting centers.
There are lots of solutions proven around the world, and here in the states that we could try. But I have a very well informed opinion that at least one political party in the US would really, really, not want higher turn outs.
$15/hr minimum wage means McDonalds can afford that burger robot to replace half their employees.
Show me a city where 50% of any chain restaurant's employees were laid off. I can point to many cities that raised their minimum wage, and employment increased, not decreased.
Ideology is all well and good, just make sure it conforms to what has actually happened in reality.
Except it doesn't work that way in real life:
(emphasis added)
Look at the comments in the article you listed. They correctly point out that while mass transit doesn't help congestion (roads will always fill up with the maximum amount of cars they can handle, and that drivers can put up with), it does increase the movement of masses of people, meaning urban centers can form because people can get in/out of the city easily.
Think of it this way. Say there were no roads at all. None. Would you rather have a city with mass transit zipping people in and out of the downtown area, or each suburb creating its own mini 'downtown' since people can only ride bikes or walk and the real city center is too far away?
Yes, the roads will always fill up unless they move so slow people won't use them, or they cost so much that people look for alternatives, if they exist. In the meantime, if you want people moving in/out of areas quickly, mass transit helps with that. It allows you to better plan neighborhoods and business areas.
I don't why so many in the Linux community are so hooked on ZFS. BTRFS has a feature set that is rapidly getting there...
I don't know about others, but for me it is because ZFS has been enterprise ready for a long time. I've been using it for years at work. So a mixture of trust, familiarity, maturity, etc.
I have not used BTRFS yet, mainly because I haven't encountered a situation that needed anything more than ZFS is currently providing.
Google scholar also has a bunch of old and new studies saying ddt thins eggshells.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1897/05-619R.1/abstract;jsessionid=FCE001FCC8095B53C7BE497B474DA122.f02t02?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=
Or
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ddt+eggshell+thinning+mechanism&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0CBwQgQMwAGoVChMI656mn762yAIVipqICh3rqQjz
whole egg shell thing was crap
I never heard anyone in the news bring up a study that says the thinning was "crap". Wikipedia still lists it as fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Effects_on_wildlife_and_eggshell_thinning
Do you have another study / article you could provide? I'm curious, because I come from an ag background, family in ag consulting, etc.. and still to this day believe ddt is bad for birds.
So out of curiosity how do you think we should develop GMO crops without patents?
Expecting only profit driven companies to do research and development will end with us having products and advances that only benefit those companies' profits.
You know there existed a time before patents and we managed along just fine. That said, I'd rather see us adequately fund research and development in Universities, government labs, and grants to private firms to research things that benefit the public. That is a very good use of public money.
Researching how to develop a seed that produces a sterile plant, just so someone has to buy seeds from you every year, only benefits a company's profits. It doesn't benefit the farmers or public.
That Washington post stories is a series of anecdotes. Anyone could just as easily list the hundreds of shootings that were not prevented by armed civilians, or even made worse.
I'm not saying your wrong, just that link proves nothing.
And any perceived benefit of arming more civilians has to be weighted against the known statistics about increased suicide rates, accidental kid/home shootings, etc..
The right to keep and bear arms is a right, not a privilege.
Note: I like guns. Own several. But the constitution does not specify 'arms' very specifically. People, generally, cannot own weapons of mass destruction (nukes, cannons, explosives, etc.. ). The people that are allowed to own weapons with huge destructive capabilities have to go through a much more restrictive process of checks, licenses, fees, etc..
There is nothing in our constitution that would block our ability to regulate the level of "destructiveness" a person is able to own. We do it already to several classes of weapons. We could choose to apply stricter regulations, background checks, etc.. to lower levels of weapons.
Also... rights can change. Not often, but a right isn't set in stone.
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816[10]
If we get sick and tired of school shootings every month, we could remove the right to keep arms if we wanted to as a society.
The constitution has been amended before, and it will be again. It isn't a religious scripture from god:)
I don't want people to walk into Walmart and buy a 50 caliber machine gun without some serious background inspections, licenses, mental health checks, etc..? Do you? If not, then what is the issue with applying stricter control to handguns? It isn't taking away your right to own the gun.
And I know fully well that 9/10 mass shooters in this country would pass background checks. And that is precisely the reason why I think we need stricter regulations than even the proposed increases in background checks. But we can't even pass minor increases in the background check laws.
Most of the conservatives in congress think that any increase in gun regulations is a slippery slope, which is quite literally allowing thousands of innocent people to die each year. When we have absolute proof from other countries that there are common sense laws that would help to save lives.
Well, the goal for the last 50 years has been to wreck the US healthcare system to the point that single payer would become politically viable.
There wasn't any sort of coordinated 'attack' or strategy. It is just naturally what happens when you have a system with profit motives, but the consumer is unable to make an informed choice of product.
You can't shop around when you have a heart attack. So they can basically charge you whatever the heck they want. That is a problem.
The solution is not banning guns, the solution is a proper public health system and a respect for mental health, and being willing to lock up the mentally ill for treatment.
I agree we need to address a bunch of factors: safety nets, mental help. universal healthcare in general, income inequality, social mobility, etc.. we rank poorly in all those areas compared to other modern countries.
However, look at Australia. They didn't ban guns, but they did make it more restrictive to get and own them. Like requiring by law locked storage, etc..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/port-arthur-massacre-shooting-spree-changed-australia-gun-laws-n396476
It is either luck, or the gun laws worked. Because they have had zero mass shootings since the laws changed. Which I think was about 20 years ago.
But that is likely changing soon. After they get this built: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigafactory_1
Batteries will be 30% cheaper (so they say). That might make their lower end cars (35K and 50K, drop to 25k? and 35k?, respectively.) drop enough to start competing with cars like the Toyota Camry.
subtract $7500 for the Federal subsidy (which is given at time of purchase.)
So does that mean your loan payments are based on the sales price - 7500, or based on the price before the 7500 is taken off? That makes a big difference in the monthly, and I've always been curious which way it goes.
I didn't read the article, of course, but did he really say obsolete? My impression is that the new 100,000 dollar car from Tesla would be the 1000 km range in two years, so I automatically assumed the Model S and others would get a heck of a lot cheaper.
I'd be perfectly happy with the Car of Year awarded model S if it was priced like a Camry:)
I agree in general, talking about if it looked like a bomb or not is silly.
What I think is stupid, is to assume the worst when you see something odd (better chance of being hit by lightning than killed by a bomb). But teachers are under intense pressure by administrators to assume the worst at all times in today's world.
In a saner world, even if the thing looked exactly like a hand grenade, the teacher wouldn't have jumped to the conclusion that the kid was bad and was going to do harm. They would have started with the assumption that it was a toy, the kid was good, and just told the kid "don't bring that to school again", or told the kid "hey neat looking grenade clock? How'd you make it? Lets talk about it next share and tell".
I don't think any of them got invited to the White House.
Likely because they were not as good at social media as this kid/family appear to be, and also because this kid is a tinkerer/maker/geek/nerd/-type person, all the like-minded folks "on the internets" re-tweeted, re-blogged, spread the story wide and far, etc..
I miss the days when people shared thoughts and information with each others not out of financial gains but out of sincere interest into a subject. Collaboration, code sharing, tutorials -- all for free and for the mere expectation that if I share this, I know othera will share too and we all get something out of it. Respect was the currency back then.
It still happens. It is just extremely hard to search for, thanks to how Google search results work, and how much big/corporate sites work on seo.
I wish Google had an "amateur" category, similar to how...other sites...categorize certain comments. It would be nice to just search personal web sites who do not have a profit motive.
What would you do if the below items were true:
1. global warming is real and a serious threat.
2. You have 100% undeniable proof that certain corporations, media groups, think tanks, and political organizations are conspiring to knowingly spread lies about scientific research in order to maximize profit at the cost of human lives and property?
If those two things were true, and you were an expert on at least one of those items, what would you do? Just say, "oh well"?
Crap, sorry. Somehow I lost the text in a quote mishap. My text that should have been above that community engagement sentence was basically:
Why question it? Many schools take public money, and feel obliged to give back to the community in various ways. One of those ways is educating the public. And lots of schools have mission statements that specifically mention community engagement.
is the Director of Climate Change Communication,
I'm seriously questioning why a university feels the need to have a Director of Climate Change Communication.
The University's identity is distinguished by its public affairs mission, which entails a campus-wide commitment to foster expertise and responsibility in ethical leadership, cultural competence and community engagement.
So, you opposed the RICO investigation (1999-2006) of the so-called "science" which said that cigarettes are safe?
Yes. The way to counter speech that you disagree with, is not censorship, but MORE SPEECH. It is especially effective if you can back up your speech with data.
Extreme example: I stand up in a sports arena a start yelling "OMG he's got a gun, OMG there's a bomb!", etc.., people get trampled to death in the panic. I should not be charged with a crime for that 'speech'? Someone should have yelled back "he is lying folks! believe me!"?
The number who agree on human causes and extent is nowhere near that high, though.
Are you intentionally spreading lies, or just happen to be unwillingly or willingly ignorant about the matter?
"Of these papers, 97.2 percent endorsed the "consensus" that global warming is human caused. Once results were in, Cook put together a publicity strategy. "There's no point in doing scientific research if you are not looking to publicize it," he said.Jul 24, 2014"
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Of course, the above is a high percentage of studies, not a percentage of scientists themselves. So, see below.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ - every major science group. All of them agree it is a serious problem and man made. Natural cycles alone cannot explain it.
Or go to google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=scientific+consensus+global+warming&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0CBwQgQMwAGoVChMI7Mr7j6yOyAIVkFWICh3ojwOh
Or, lighter reading if you don't want to read scholar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Is a survey of 3,000+ earth scientists enough for you?
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."
Doran surveyed 10,257 Earth scientists. Thirty percent responded to the survey which asked: 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? and 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
source: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html#.VgM7f5Zw1lw
Go shout "omg Bomb! There's a bomb!" in a sports arena. Watch dozens of people get trampled to death. Expect to be arrested for your 'speech'. Words can cause damage.