Look, there's nothing stopping anyone from studying the evidence from which the consensus arose.
Them saying there's a consensus so believe it is just their way of saying "I don't have time to explain all the myriad details to you until such time as you indicate sufficient interest and cognitive capability of grokking the general area of scientific inquiry, say, by getting an M.Sc. in it, then we'll talk about/debate the finer points."

Ok, I lied. There's scientific journal paywalls stopping you from studying the evidence in detail, but that's a whole other egregiously unacceptable story.

Just creating links to your image is not copying it.
Deep linking is legal or the entire WWW is illegal. Can't have it both ways.

Just organizing links to your images with my own text surrounding the links is not copying it.
Creating a program to programmatically present a sequence of links to your images over time to a web-browser-image-copying-program is not copying it.

Some else's web browser may indeed copy your image onto their computer, but you were definitely allowing that anyway by publishing the image on the open worldwide web.

"temps have stayed the same and maybe even have gone down"

Good luck with that.

People are innately wired for a tendency to social agreement, it's true. So all groups of people who share commonalities may tend to come to general consensus on many issues. But scientists, of any group, are likely to diverge from the group consensus if they can prove their case, because they will become leaders of a new consensus group. And their reasons for daring to promote a divergent theory or scientific conclusion, by and large, would be rational and because of strong evidence, because otherwise, they'd be shot down rapidly.
Scientists are more likely than other types of groups to be individually convinced to switch teams if the evidence starts leaning strongly the other way. They are governed by a process (scientific method, use of logic and mathematics, and peer review) which facilitates that.

So the presence of a PERSISTENT near total scientific consensus on an issue does tend to suggest that no strong opposing evidence has made it through the ringer of scientific peer scrutiny.

Talk about setting up a straw man to knock it down.

If you prefer, we can do it this way:

1. Set limit on total carbon budget into the atmosphere. Humans can net-emit 1 trillion tonnes and have a 50/50 chance of staying under 2 degrees Celsius global temperature rise . We are a little over half way through the trillion tonnes now, but our pace of emitting is still increasing.
http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/0...

2. Set a function for carbon pricing (carbon tax, taxed at source) so that the price will increase exponentially so as to keep the emissions under the budget.
If you prefer, the revenue from the tax can be redistributed as corporate and personal income tax reductions. Some would advocate devoting a good portion of it to transition funding, split between job transitioning funding and alternative energy and transportation technology R&D acceleration.

3. Under those conditions, let the market take hold and determine the best solutions.

On the first and second points, to which you will object, remember that physics does not negotiate. It's the most extremist of them all. It's not just gravity. It's the law. It's not just differential absorption/reflection/transmission of EM radiation energy by the atmosphere with different chemical composition. It's the law.

Could you give some specifics of things Bill Gates has been revisionist about? Just curious.

No. The computer display should be blanked (from interaction screens - maybe a map screen with no controls is ok) when the car is in any gear other than P.

I'd say security failure is partly due to incentive alignment failure for developers.

Bad security design is a problem that's going to bite, but usually a little later, after version 1 is out the door and everyone's paid.

Not meeting the pretty much arbitrary and insanely optimistic delivery schedule is going to bite developers right now.

Corners will be cut, even if some of the developers know what SHOULD be done.

In general, almost every architectural aspect of software, including security, (well-factoredness, maintainabilty, scalability, extensiblity, low-coupling, you name it) is hidden, except to a few experts who aren't usually those in decision-making roles. That's why so much software delivered is a Potemkin village.

I don't know about you, but I'd say that someone who is creating architecture, is, oh, I don't know, an architect.
Who cares about the title. "Chief codemonkey with a clue" will do just fine.
There seems to be some mythology out there about software architects who don't come from coding.
Sort of like MBA managers.
Never seen one of those. If they're not still coding, they don't love the craft enough to be good architects.

To me, it's just someone who can model a complex system in different cross-cutting aspects, can understand big-picture and long-term concerns with the goals and evolution of the software, know and use many appropriate tried and true patterns, and pragmatically marry that with project realities.

I suspect that most programmers who don't see the need for software architecture work within the confines of already heavily architected frameworks, platforms, and network stacks.

Thus their comments are akin to saying "I don't think we need an architect to help us rearrange the furniture and paint on the walls".

This plus facetime (and the lunchcart robot) now completely eliminates the need to get any exercise whatsoever during the work day (except finger jumpingjacks and stretches on the keyboard, of course).

Was this invented by a cabal of cardiologists?

"Only 42% able to understand ... scientific findings"

Ok, maybe that explains why Canadians keep electing a Prime Minister whose main policy is to pump all of the carbon from the tar sands into the sky.

In the immortal words of Pris: "Then we're stupid and we'll die."

because there are too many marxists on them who will run you down and kill you (and also it's just the principle of the thing. Have you ever noticed that stop signs and stop lights are RED?

They use private helicopters almost exclusively, and as an extra defense of their property rights, they never let their pilot inform the marxist totalitarian air traffic controllers about where they will be flying next.

Wouldn't the rating system help hide the cheap knock-offs, or is the sad fact that people can't tell the difference?

Maybe the rating system should be like rottentomatoes, where there is the "audience rating" and "somehow accredited professional critics ratings", and the app's position in the store searches/listings could be a weighted sum of both of those, and the app store user could adjust their weighting toward more audience score or more critics score. (Before you patent that obvious concept, consider this post prior art)

Prohibited: "political activities, including organizing or participating in any political meeting, rally, demonstration, soliciting contributions or votes, distributing material, surveying or polling for information connected to a political campaign, completing political surveys or polling information"

Let's face it, this is fascist bullshit.

Screams to be ignored, and, of course subverted by surreptitiously using the accounts of university administrators to send out the political information.

And of course, there's always the good old pasting notices on lampposts and walls. Back in the day, we used a subversive communication system called a "phone tree" for organizing protest rallies.