There are adults on /. ??!??

Baby poop from healthy babies that are feeding exclusively on breast milk doesn't smell very much at all.

Actually one of the biggest problems about GMOs is that in the '90s the US government declared that GMO's are "generally recognized safe" foods. This means that Monsanto et. al. do not have to do any testing. We are the test.

I don't see how having access to your apps list matters much when the FB app already has access to:
Your personal info (read and write contact data) Your location (fine)
Network communication
Your accounts
Storage (modify/delete usb contents)
Hardware controls
Phone calls (state and identity)
System tools

Translated closed captions for foreign vacations!

Download. hehe hehe.

Really? Seriously? How about... hmmm... Tahrir Square, and the rest of the Arab Spring. Remember when people poured into the streets to stop the coup against Hugo Chavez? How about the protests in Iceland that lead to the government collapsing and the new government telling the debt holders to suck and egg while prosecuting evil bankers. That was a good one. There were massive protests in Bolivia against Bechtel's privatizing of the water supply. They chased Bechtel right out of there. There were the ongoing protests at the Nevada nuclear test site that were instrumental in ending US nuclear testing. The list is longer, but I think the point is made.

He didn't post any facts or references to the peer-reviewed main-line climate research because doing so would be a huge task. You see the evidence is overwhelming both in quantity and quality. But I see your problem. You say that you've checked the predictions of activists. Activists are not scientists. Activists are typically more adept at getting press attention that scientists but at best they may have a passing understanding of science. Under the heading of activist you could include an unwashed hippy, a doom and gloom end of the world author, TV bloviators, big-oil PR hacks, the Koch brothers, and this Donor's Trust.

The predictions of the peer-reviewed main line climate scientists over the last 30 years have been quite good, and in fact as time has gone by the data suggests that the predictions are typically on the cautious side. Please review the conclusions of the Hansen Paper from 1981. There is a link to the actual paper on this page:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

if you are too lazy to read the paper you can just skim the story linked above.

Let me get this strait, conservative billionaires are funding groups that are trying to discredit science and this is news?

There I fixed that for you.

A better question might be, "How many people aren't interested in using any e-reader?"

Sorry but this is simply incorrect. The social safety net helps the people in the middle. The safety net gives the safety needed to have reasonable wages. Without unemployment insurance, social security, unions, and the many regulations that protect workers we would be in a free for all labor market where the most desperate get the jobs.
In addition we all benefit from having basic laws enforced (police), having the environment protected (epa), worker rights (osha), infrastructure, public investment in science and so many other things the government does. I do agree that our foreign adventures do not benefit real people. I also believe that we are in grave danger on many fronts from the growing power of corporations and the decreasing democracy in most all nations, but to argue that you get no benefit from taxes is either ignorant or dishonest.

Actually this is the solution. A steep progressive tax rate and effective social support programs counter the imbalance of wealth and make the whole nation better off. During the post WW2 period the US had very high marginal taxes on the richest and the money was spent on great things like infrastructure and the space program, and the middle class grew like at no other period in history.

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.