Not myth. In fact proven by your link. http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/stronger-weed.htm

The charts show show an increase in THC content from 1-2% to 5-6% in marijuana sold with seeds (low quality) and an increase from around 6% to around 11% for marijuana seized without seeds (higher quality). At the same time the percentage of the higher quality seedless mj seized increased from almost a negligible amount to about half. So if in the past you smoked the typically available low quality weed from the 1970s and now you smoke the typically available higher quality available today you have gone from 1-2% to about 11% THC content. That's like going from lite beer that's been watered down by half to wine. That's a big jump. The charts show hashish as going from around 2-3% to the high 20s. That's an order of magnitude.

Many, and each has been progressively better at predicting results. Each has been progressively better at fitting the available data. None have been spectacularly wrong. They were each the best approximation of reality that science was able to make at the time. Even the pre-quantum mechanical models weren't spectacularly wrong. Atomic nuclei are made of of protons and neutrons, this is where most of the mass is, and electrons orbit at varying distances. The number of electrons in the "outer orbit" is a big determiner of the chemistry of an atom. This is all still correct, we just have a much better understanding of what "orbit" means and what protons etc. are. You test a scientific theory by how well it helps us predict things. Even the very early atomic models were very good at helping us further our understanding of chemistry.

No I am under the impression that you are swayed by propaganda because you are spouting big oil's propaganda talking points.

Hmm. It sounds to me like you really aren't that open. In fact you sound like you've made up your mind based on a bunch of propaganda. If you really were open to the science then you would be willing to do the minimal effort needed to realize that climate change is happening and we are causing it. I'm assuming, because you are on /. that you have a technical degree of some sort and you have a basic understanding of the scientific method and how science works. Spend and afternoon and actually look at the science.

Okay look at some of these.
google images of global temperature charts

Funny, the article states how important forests are to absorbing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and then goes on to suggest that the deforestation we are causing is responsible for adding to the atmosphere 12 to 20% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide per year. So instead of using forests as carbon sinks and perhaps planting many more, instead we are slashing and burning them and dumping those carbon sinks into our atmosphere. Then the article describes how a very bad drought in the South American rainforest caused a significant reduction of the tropics to absorb carbon, and how an even worse drought happened in 2010.
Did you actually read the article? I do not think it means what you think it means.

M

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the word "Theory" when used in a scientific context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
a quote from the linked article, "Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative."

Wow, so many things wrong here.

This is patently untrue. Sure investment banks to make counter party deals that they believe will insure them against losses on other investments, and people refer to this as "insurance." But it is nothing like insurance. The insurance business is based on statistics and actuarial data. The data are used to make rational decisions about how much to charge a particular group for insuring a particular risk. The risks are well known and thoroughly accounted for. In fact insurance is lots like the casino business. Sure the individual transactions are gambles but in the aggregate the house wins a certain percentage. Investment banking is more like the customer at a casino, where entire stakes are bet in single transactions based on a hunch.

Personally I want my banker to be boring and conservative because I want my money to be there when I need it. I also want my banker to ethically handle my money in a way that benefits me, not him.

I'm astonished. Did you actually say that? Being "socially conscious" is nothing more than being aware of consequences and making ethical decisions. Being ethical shouldn't be a requirement of employment, it is a requirement of participation in society at all.

That's the whole point, it doesn't make them better bankers. It makes them more likely to cheat, steal, and lie. Is that really what you look for in a banker?

Magical thinking at its worst. If you look at the evidence, god forbid, you'll find that there many examples of opposite happening. For instance warming is causing an accelerated release of methane from permafrost and since methane is a strong greenhouse gas... Sea warming is starting to cause release of methane hydrate deposits from the sea floor, which will also accelerate warming. Reduction of ice cover on the Arctic Ocean is reducing albedo (the amount of solar radiation (heat) reflected back into space). All of these are factors that are causing an acceleration of global warming.

Asshole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II#France.27s_effort_in_WWI
I apologize for my rudeness, but this idea of the French being cowards is a pile of horseshit, and a genuinely offensive bit of bigotry. It seems to me that this stupid meme started during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. During this period the French government proved itself to be America's most courageous friend by stating a hard truth, invasion of Iraq was unlawful, unjustified, and stupid. I wish my government had listened.

Then you were lucky. I was terrorized at private school. Once I switched to public school, the bullying didn't actually stop, but it got down to a level I could deal with and eventually learn to defend myself against. As someone further up the thread noted, it's a whole lot harder to get the administration to deal with problem students when their parents are writing the checks. There's a class issue at work here too--my parents were sending me to schools they really couldn't afford in the (mistaken) belief that I'd get a better education that way, and being a middle-class nerd surrounded by rich juvenile delinquents is really a special kind of hell.

On the other hand there are private schools that are oriented to academics instead of day care for rich shits who got expelled from other schools. I was lucky enough to go to such a school, Rowland Hall-St. Marks in Salt Lake. I was never bullied there. In the public schools bullying was a frequent problem. I felt perfectly comfortable being as good as I could be, which was really good in physics, and terrible in German. In fact my ability in physics lead to me helping others with the homework, and not a single person said a derogatory word when I took Calculus for the second time. If you can find a school like that, find a way to get your kids into it.

That's not the real problem with "investment." The real problem is that "investment" usually takes the form of buying already issued stock in already existing companies and buying derivatives. The change of hands of a share of stock does nothing-zip-zilch for the economy of people, and then the money just stays in the stock market and it doesn't buy anything or cause anything to be made or done. Derivatives do even less since they are essentially gambling and have no intrinsic value. If you include derivatives the amount of money that is tied up in the global casino, doing nothing real except extracting ever more money from the real economy into the the casino economy, is actually far greater than the amount of money left in the real economy of making things and providing services. http://xkcd.com/980/ (look down in the trillions corner and compare the global GDP to the size of the annual derivatives market)

That's the reason that tax breaks for the rich do nothing. The last 30 years of US history are clear cut proof that trickle down economics do exactly the opposite of what they claim.

fracking liberal

You don't understand it because it doesn't make sense. But you are getting the explanation for the twisted internal logic a bit wrong. The idea of trickle down economics is that the wealthy already have what they need so they won't spend the extra money, they will invest it. That is supposed to be good for the economy. It could be if the investments were new investment in new economic activity. But we all know that when they invest money they buy already issued stock in already existing companies. That does almost nothing for the economy. The money stops moving in the real economy, it circulates in the stock market/casino for years and contributes virtually nothing. If anyone remembers their macroeconomics 101 class from freshman year you'll recall that speed of money is a key factor in the health of an economy. You want each dollar out there to change hands lots of times. And you want it changing hands in a way that makes things or activity. Each time it changes hands a dollar worth of activity takes place. So like all conservative ideology these days they are almost exactly wrong. Giving tax breaks to the poor will trickle up because the poor will have no choice but to spend most every dollar they get their hands on and they spend it on stuff or services. Unfortunately we can't give more tax breaks to many of the poor since they currently pay little or no income taxes. There are lots of hungry people in the US so we could spend more on food stamps. We could also start big infrastructure projects and hire the unemployed to do them. This also gets money into the economy in an effective way. The stimulus package worked. The bailout of detroit worked. The bailout of the banks was a tremendous failure in terms of helping the economy. We missed a big opportunity to massively reconfigure the banking business into a form that would benefit the people of the US.

So it seems to me that the more money that is in the hands of the already rich, the worse it is for the economy since money just stops when it gets there. I believe that this was a factor in the steady economic growth during the post-war period, our tax structure prevented money from becoming stagnant in the pockets of the rich.

So lets tax the hell out of the rich, and lets tax the derivatives markets and get some of those dollars back into the real economy via big infrastructure projects where they will be spent on real things likes cars, computers, apps, movies, toys, appliances, houses, and food. Lets build fiber to the curb for every house. Let's build mass transit for every major city. Let's build massive solar power plants. That's the way to make the win-win scenario.

Minecraft login is down too!

Or if you espouse left wing political ideas, or own anarchist literature or participate in protests against authority. http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/fbi-raid-anarchist-literature-portland-seattle/6267/