Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 49,335
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34656 Mar 22, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>None of the above, there's never been an experimental test of any of HSL's proposals. Climate change mitigation is a hoax.
Is that sort of like when JFK suggested we go to the Moon, it was a hoax because it had never been done before?

I have proposed we continue to improve energy efficiency. Are you actually trying to claim that energy efficiency hasn't been deliberately improved in the past? Really??? Because it's been done repeatedly.

I've proposed we use different (newer) types of nuclear reactors. It's true that they haven't been built commercially, but do you think that's impossible?

I've proposed a stiff carbon tax to free the energy market & FINALLY make it more reflective of reality instead of our delusional, hallucinatory fantasies. In case you don't realize it, carbon taxes have been instituted in many countries around the world without significant adverse economic consequences.

Would such a tax be popular in the US? Obviously not. Getting a root canal in every tooth in your mouth would probably be more popular.

But if it's truly revenue-neutral, more people would benefit from it than would be harmed by it. It may be possible to institute it if people understand the necessity for it.

Of course, the oil industry, the richest in the world by far, owns a significant part of the US government. When Cheneybush were in office, they virtually owned all of it; now they own less.

The oil industry owns considerably more of the US government than they own of the EU government or the Chinese government. This does not bode well for our future.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34657 Mar 22, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Is that sort of like when JFK suggested we go to the Moon, it was a hoax because it had never been done before?
It would have been a hoax if rocketry had never previously been tested but at that time, rocketry had almost a thousand years of experimental testing and refinement.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
I have proposed we continue to improve energy efficiency. Are you actually trying to claim that energy efficiency hasn't been deliberately improved in the past? Really??? Because it's been done repeatedly.
I oppose energy efficiency for climate change mitigation; if you want it to save money, that's fine. There's been no demonstration of energy efficiency having any effect on climate.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
I've proposed we use different (newer) types of nuclear reactors. It's true that they haven't been built commercially, but do you think that's impossible?
Are you trying to evade the point, climate change mitigation has never been experimentally tested? We've had almost 100 years of practical applications of nuclear power. During all that time, the greenhouse gas theory was known but never tested.

The difference is, nuclear power has been demonstrated but climate change mitigation hasn't; that's why it's a hoax.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
I've proposed a stiff carbon tax to free the energy market & FINALLY make it more reflective of reality instead of our delusional, hallucinatory fantasies. In case you don't realize it, carbon taxes have been instituted in many countries around the world without significant adverse economic consequences. Would such a tax be popular in the US? Obviously not. Getting a root canal in every tooth in your mouth would probably be more popular.
In all that time, carbon taxes haven't been demonstrated to do even one whit of good at demonstrating ANY change in climate.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
But if it's truly revenue-neutral, more people would benefit from it than would be harmed by it.
The left likes taxes because they redistribute wealth, conservatives accept taxes as a necessity to fund government; this is where we differ.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
It may be possible to institute it if people understand the necessity for it. Of course, the oil industry, the richest in the world by far, owns a significant part of the US government. When Cheneybush were in office, they virtually owned all of it; now they own less.
Why not just cite an experimental test to show the necessity? Ooops, almost forgot; there are no experimental tests that show either man made climate change or climate change mitigation.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
The oil industry owns considerably more of the US government than they own of the EU government or the Chinese government. This does not bode well for our future.
How many votes does the oil industry get?

Every user, producer, speculator, employee and manager is part of the oil industry; they bring billions in taxes to our governments. The difference between fossil fuel power and climate change mitigation is there's plenty of working demonstrations of practical and useful oil, coal and gas powered machinery but not one single practical and useful climate change mitigation test.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34658 Mar 22, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>It would have been a hoax if rocketry had never previously been tested but at that time, rocketry had almost a thousand years of experimental testing and refinement.
.
<quoted text>I oppose energy efficiency for climate change mitigation; if you want it to save money, that's fine. There's been no demonstration of energy efficiency having any effect on climate.
.
<quoted text>Are you trying to evade the point, climate change mitigation has never been experimentally tested? We've had almost 100 years of practical applications of nuclear power. During all that time, the greenhouse gas theory was known but never tested.
The difference is, nuclear power has been demonstrated but climate change mitigation hasn't; that's why it's a hoax.
.
<quoted text>In all that time, carbon taxes haven't been demonstrated to do even one whit of good at demonstrating ANY change in climate.
.
<quoted text>The left likes taxes because they redistribute wealth, conservatives accept taxes as a necessity to fund government; this is where we differ.
.
<quoted text>Why not just cite an experimental test to show the necessity? Ooops, almost forgot; there are no experimental tests that show either man made climate change or climate change mitigation.
.
<quoted text>How many votes does the oil industry get?
Every user, producer, speculator, employee and manager is part of the oil industry; they bring billions in taxes to our governments. The difference between fossil fuel power and climate change mitigation is there's plenty of working demonstrations of practical and useful oil, coal and gas powered machinery but not one single practical and useful climate change mitigation test.
So, AFAICT, to satisfy you that climate change mitigation is not a hoax, it's pretty simple. All we have to do is find a planet like the earth, add CO2 to it, see if it warms up, then remove the CO2 & see if it cools back down. SIMPLE!!

When you do controlled experiments, there are multiple inputs. Energy efficiency is one of these. Our experimental system is our entire planet. We can't have a control group - unless we can find that other earth & manipulate CO2 levels.

Energy efficiency is the most important single thing we can do to mitigate AGW/CC. I'm sorry that you can't be convinced. Why don't you become an astronomer & look for that 2nd earth, the one we can do controlled experiments on?

The oil industry gets way, way, WAY more votes than ordinary people. You claim the oil industry brings in billions of dollars to government, but you're forgetting the enormous amounts of money it takes out of government.

Direct subsidies amount to billions of dollars annually. No doubt this is less than the taxes they pay.

We fight trillion-dollar wars in the Middle East, paid for by everyone, in blood & treasure. Don't even TRY to say that our 2 Iraq wars weren't directly because of oil. You'll be the laughingstock of the whole forum.

Of course the biggest giveaway of all is the lack of a carbon tax. Many millions of us suffer from the psychotic, hallucinatory delusion that it is "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere without restraint. It most assuredly is NOT free.

It will be almost unimaginably expensive in the future, but those costs are not paid by the producers or users of fossil fuels now. They WILL be paid by people in the future. It's a bit like the national debt, but probably much, MUCH larger.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34659 Mar 23, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
So, AFAICT, to satisfy you that climate change mitigation is not a hoax, it's pretty simple. All we have to do is find a planet like the earth, add CO2 to it, see if it warms up, then remove the CO2 & see if it cools back down. SIMPLE!!
We don't need another planet to experimentally test climate change mitigation just as we didn't need another planet to test nuclear weapons. There were dozens of atmospheric tests during the Cold War, experimenters found a temporary and local cooling effect from particulates created by those blasts, but no effect on global climate.

Also, there are more powerful greenhouse gasses than CO2, but none of them have had an experimentally demonstrated effect on climate.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
When you do controlled experiments, there are multiple inputs. Energy efficiency is one of these. Our experimental system is our entire planet. We can't have a control group - unless we can find that other earth & manipulate CO2 levels.
We can use time and treatment reversals for the experiments; single subject paradigms are well understood and tested. We don't need a new planet, we need better science.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Energy efficiency is the most important single thing we can do to mitigate AGW/CC. I'm sorry that you can't be convinced. Why don't you become an astronomer & look for that 2nd earth, the one we can do controlled experiments on?
Energy efficiency is a fine private value but our government should encourage the production and use of energy and fuel; not conservation.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
The oil industry gets way, way, WAY more votes than ordinary people.
How many votes does an oil company have? Can you cite a voter registration list that includes the name BP or any other oil company?

When you buy oil or use energy created by oil, you're part of the oil industry. People like oil because it works. If you could show climate change mitigation works, maybe people would like that too.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
You claim the oil industry brings in billions of dollars to government, but you're forgetting the enormous amounts of money it takes out of government. Direct subsidies amount to billions of dollars annually. No doubt this is less than the taxes they pay.
Name one direct subsidy to the oil industry. I'm happy you admit, oil brings more taxes to the government than your supposed subsidies.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
We fight trillion-dollar wars in the Middle East, paid for by everyone, in blood & treasure. Don't even TRY to say that our 2 Iraq wars weren't directly because of oil. You'll be the laughingstock of the whole forum.
I'm a veteran of the first Iraq war; we fought that because they invaded Kuwait and threatened more of our regional allies. The second war was fought because of the threat of weapons of mass destruction; our Senate voted for that war too.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Of course the biggest giveaway of all is the lack of a carbon tax. Many millions of us suffer from the psychotic, hallucinatory delusion that it is "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere without restraint. It most assuredly is NOT free.
We exhale CO2, that's not a giveaway, that's life. We have the right to life, that includes the right to emit carbon dioxide.

If you want to tax carbon, experimentally prove its effect on climate. Until then, we'll never know what our carbon emissions 'cost'.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34660 Mar 23, 2013
.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
It will be almost unimaginably expensive in the future, but those costs are not paid by the producers or users of fossil fuels now. They WILL be paid by people in the future. It's a bit like the national debt, but probably much, MUCH larger.
"It will be almost unimaginably expensive" because we have no experimental data to show the expense. Don't blame voters for bad science, blame the hype.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34661 Mar 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
We can use time and treatment reversals for the experiments; single subject paradigms are well understood and tested. We don't need a new planet, we need better science.
Agreed.

We've done the treatment and seen the result; time for the reversal part of the experiment.
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evi...
PHD

Overton, TX

#34662 Mar 23, 2013
dekajed wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know where to even start. Syntax is not a tax on syn. Sentence structure? You make absolutely no sense. Do you even read back what you typed? However, u r representitive of the ilk that you follow and worship. I bet Ronny Reagan year one of his presidency was lapsing into....wait. Do you have Alzheimer's? One can only hope. PHD MY ASS.
You really really need to seek some mental help. Well one thing for sure I am functioning more than anyone could say for you. Have you always been a less-on or did you mutate into one? You lost the battle and the war before you made an attempt to show your useless babble.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34663 Mar 23, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Agreed. We've done the treatment and seen the result; time for the reversal part of the experiment.[]
Disagreed, we've done no 'treatment' by exhaling and burning fossil fuel. Agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and forest mismanagement wasn't part of a post hoc experiment. History wasn't made to complete a demonstration of climate change mitigation. Wars are carbon intensive but they hold no part of any planned experimental test.

Time for the ad hoc, freedom stage where government encourages the production and use of energy and fuel. Time for the peace phase where you use the energy and fuel you please while allowing your neighbors that same right. Time to make your fortune producing and using Earth's bounty, making the world a better place for your children.

Technology and industry are good; conservation, taxes and restricted development dooms our future to poverty.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34664 Mar 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Disagreed, we've done no 'treatment'
Yes we have. We increased CO2 concentration 30ppm during the course of the experiment.

http://static.wikidoc.org/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carb...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34665 Mar 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
.
<quoted text>"It will be almost unimaginably expensive" because we have no experimental data to show the expense. Don't blame voters for bad science, blame the hype.
There's no bad science but there are deniers of science like you. Science takes care of its own house.

Your opinion holds no significance to anybody.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34666 Mar 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We don't need another planet to experimentally test climate change mitigation just as we didn't need another planet to test nuclear weapons. There were dozens of atmospheric tests during the Cold War, experimenters found a temporary and local cooling effect from particulates created by those blasts, but no effect on global climate.
Also, there are more powerful greenhouse gasses than CO2, but none of them have had an experimentally demonstrated effect on climate.
.
<quoted text>We can use time and treatment reversals for the experiments; single subject paradigms are well understood and tested. We don't need a new planet, we need better science.
.
<quoted text>Energy efficiency is a fine private value but our government should encourage the production and use of energy and fuel; not conservation.
.
<quoted text>How many votes does an oil company have? Can you cite a voter registration list that includes the name BP or any other oil company?
When you buy oil or use energy created by oil, you're part of the oil industry. People like oil because it works. If you could show climate change mitigation works, maybe people would like that too.
.
<quoted text>Name one direct subsidy to the oil industry. I'm happy you admit, oil brings more taxes to the government than your supposed subsidies.
.
<quoted text>I'm a veteran of the first Iraq war; we fought that because they invaded Kuwait and threatened more of our regional allies. The second war was fought because of the threat of weapons of mass destruction; our Senate voted for that war too.
.
<quoted text>We exhale CO2, that's not a giveaway, that's life. We have the right to life, that includes the right to emit carbon dioxide.
If you want to tax carbon, experimentally prove its effect on climate. Until then, we'll never know what our carbon emissions 'cost'.
OK, we don't need another planet. So enlighten us, what EXACTLY would be an experiment to test climate change mitigation. You insist it hasn't been done, therefore AGW/CC is a hoax. So tell us - how could it be done?

Other GHGs most assuredly HAVE been proven to affect climate. You're just ignorant.

In recommending that government promote energy use, you have officially become a murderer of children in the future. Like all deniers, you are a murderer.

EVERY IDI0T knows money has taken over the political system in the US. The oil industry is the richest in the world. For persistently posting the arrant cra*p you post, they should be paying you well. I hope it's enough to offset the PROFOUND hatred & derision your progeny (should you have any) will have for you.

Oil takes way, way, way, way, way, WAY more money FROM the people than it gives them.

The Iraq wars weren't fought for oil, eh? LSHMSFOAIDMT!!!!!!!

Oh, if we keep pursuing the utter idiocy of a policy that you recommend, we certainly WILL find out how expensive it is to emit carbon into the atmosphere. You see, droughts are expensive. Argicultural collapse is expensive. Floods are expensive. Heat waves are expensive. Storms are expensive. Sea level rise is expensive. Killing off life in oceans is expensive.

It's already costing us ~1.6% of worldwide GDP. It'll cost WAY more in the future. If you live long enough, you'll see it with your own eyes. Your progeny, should you have any, will certainly see it.

If you're buried within 75 meters of sea level, perhaps they'll move your remains to higher ground. Or not. Maybe they'll just let them wash out to sea like everything else.
gcaveman1

Ellisville, MS

#34667 Mar 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's never been an experimental test of climate change mitigation so man made global warming theory isn't very testable. That's why I believe climate change mitigation is a hoax, you're not proposing an otiose theory, you want a technology that improves climate and that's just not possible.
VERIFIED THROUGH EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION.
litesong

Everett, WA

#34669 Mar 23, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Your opinion holds no significance to anybody.
You are right.
'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' has no upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for it poorly earned hi skule DEE-ploomaa.'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' has no other science or mathematics training. To proof its lack,'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' made errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES & 73 million TIMES.

To prove its lack of a soul,'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' is a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND 4-time alleged & 3-time proud threatener.
gcaveman1

Ellisville, MS

#34670 Mar 23, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
So, AFAICT, to satisfy you that climate change mitigation is not a hoax, it's pretty simple. All we have to do is find a planet like the earth, add CO2 to it, see if it warms up, then remove the CO2 & see if it cools back down. SIMPLE!!
When you do controlled experiments, there are multiple inputs. Energy efficiency is one of these. Our experimental system is our entire planet. We can't have a control group - unless we can find that other earth & manipulate CO2 levels.
Energy efficiency is the most important single thing we can do to mitigate AGW/CC. I'm sorry that you can't be convinced. Why don't you become an astronomer & look for that 2nd earth, the one we can do controlled experiments on?
The oil industry gets way, way, WAY more votes than ordinary people. You claim the oil industry brings in billions of dollars to government, but you're forgetting the enormous amounts of money it takes out of government.
Direct subsidies amount to billions of dollars annually. No doubt this is less than the taxes they pay.
We fight trillion-dollar wars in the Middle East, paid for by everyone, in blood & treasure. Don't even TRY to say that our 2 Iraq wars weren't directly because of oil. You'll be the laughingstock of the whole forum.
Of course the biggest giveaway of all is the lack of a carbon tax. Many millions of us suffer from the psychotic, hallucinatory delusion that it is "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere without restraint. It most assuredly is NOT free.
It will be almost unimaginably expensive in the future, but those costs are not paid by the producers or users of fossil fuels now. They WILL be paid by people in the future. It's a bit like the national debt, but probably much, MUCH larger.
I think I have to disagree. Few experiments are conducted with only one control and one subject. We probably need about a thousand Earths so you could add and subtract carbon from 500 while leaving the other 500 to follow a natural course. Or you might want to have 333 as controls, 333 as part of the carbon test, and 334 as subjects for the addition and subtraction of methane, or water vapor, or chlorofluorocarbons, or soot, or solar irradiance.

Then there's the duration of the experiment. Unless you could add or subtract 100 times more stuff to these planets than we are already doing with the one we have, this experiment will take a long, long time; probably a minimum of 100 years, ranging up to a thousand.

So anyone can see how totally ridiculous is this experimentation fetish of Brain's.

And a carbon tax has already been instituted, just not by our government. Not in ink on paper. The carbon tax we are paying now is made up of the illnesses pollution causes, the floods and the droughts, the heat waves, and the tornadoes and hurricanes growing in number and severity. The cost will ultimately be more than any government could hope to raise. But the tax is already in effect, and has been for a while.

I'd imagine Brain dips out his commode after he uses it and has it for supper. Goes along with his "CO2 is good" philosophy.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34671 Mar 23, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I have to disagree...
So anyone can see how totally ridiculous is this experimentation fetish of Brain's.
And a carbon tax has already been instituted, just not by our government. Not in ink on paper. The carbon tax we are paying now is made up of the illnesses pollution causes, the floods and the droughts, the heat waves, and the tornadoes and hurricanes growing in number and severity. The cost will ultimately be more than any government could hope to raise. But the tax is already in effect, and has been for a while.
I'd imagine Brain dips out his commode after he uses it and has it for supper. Goes along with his "CO2 is good" philosophy.
Actually, I don't think we disagree. I was trying to make a reductio ad absurdum argument to show how ridiculous Brain's experimentation fetish is. You just said it more succinctly, that's all.

I've heard estimates that ~1.6% of worldwide GDP is already going to AGW/CC consequences. As you point out, this will rise to nearly incalculable levels.

Unfortunately, at this time these costs are being borne by the public, not by the producers or consumers of fossil fuels. Until we get these very, very large costs into the prices of FFs, we can't have a correctly functioning energy market. At the present time, the horrendous government policy of the lack of a stiff carbon tax is a terrible distortion of the market.
gcaveman1

Ellisville, MS

#34672 Mar 23, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I don't think we disagree. I was trying to make a reductio ad absurdum argument to show how ridiculous Brain's experimentation fetish is. You just said it more succinctly, that's all.
I've heard estimates that ~1.6% of worldwide GDP is already going to AGW/CC consequences. As you point out, this will rise to nearly incalculable levels.
Unfortunately, at this time these costs are being borne by the public, not by the producers or consumers of fossil fuels. Until we get these very, very large costs into the prices of FFs, we can't have a correctly functioning energy market. At the present time, the horrendous government policy of the lack of a stiff carbon tax is a terrible distortion of the market.
The only disagreement was the number of subjects needed for the experiment, and to go hypothetically and ridiculously further, even a thousand Earths would be too small a sample if there are 50 billion Earth-like exo-planets.

But Brain has a job to do. There' no thinking required, fortunately for him, just the pushing of oil-company propaganda. Doesn't matter how ridiculous it is.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34673 Mar 23, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The only disagreement was the number of subjects needed for the experiment, and to go hypothetically and ridiculously further, even a thousand Earths would be too small a sample if there are 50 billion Earth-like exo-planets.
But Brain has a job to do. There' no thinking required, fortunately for him, just the pushing of oil-company propaganda. Doesn't matter how ridiculous it is.
Of course you make a good general point about sample size. One additional earth wouldn't be nearly enough. But Brain can't even describe ONE experiment that could convince him. He "can't design" them. Sure, Brain, sure.

On another thread I begged him to be honest JUST ONCE & tell us how much they pay him. It'd enhance his credibility.
gcaveman1

Ellisville, MS

#34674 Mar 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Disagreed, we've done no 'treatment' by exhaling and burning fossil fuel. Agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and forest mismanagement wasn't part of a post hoc experiment. History wasn't made to complete a demonstration of climate change mitigation. Wars are carbon intensive but they hold no part of any planned experimental test.
Time for the ad hoc, freedom stage where government encourages the production and use of energy and fuel. Time for the peace phase where you use the energy and fuel you please while allowing your neighbors that same right. Time to make your fortune producing and using Earth's bounty, making the world a better place for your children.
Technology and industry are good; conservation, taxes and restricted development dooms our future to poverty.
You know the experiment is ongoing, whether accidental or not.

But you deny it's happening while you're willing to start it, with the idea, "let's see what happens and then see if we can fix it."

Otherwise known as genocide and eco-cide.
Wickedguy

Gardner, MA

#34675 Mar 23, 2013
I agree

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34676 Mar 23, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You know the experiment is ongoing, whether accidental or not.
But you deny it's happening while you're willing to start it, with the idea, "let's see what happens and then see if we can fix it."
Otherwise known as genocide and eco-cide.
AFAICT, he thinks that fixing it is a hoax. He can't describe mitigating experiments, so he won't even TRY to fix it.

Perhaps like Rex Tillerson (CEO, ExxonMobil), he figures it'll be EASY to move all those Iowa farms to northern Saskatchewan. Never mind that the glaciers already scraped a bunch of the topsoil from Saskatchewan & deposited it in Iowa; maybe they figure it'll be easy to move back. Just fire up a million diesel trucks.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 13 min Learn to Read 182,126
For a meat-centric dinner, meet at Skrine Chops (Jan '08) 4 hr Reddog 6
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 hr UnderstandPeople 1,156,051
delhi female 7 hr yatharth 1
Fight at Navy Pier 7 hr joey 1
abby 12-26 7 hr Mister Tonka 4
amy 12-26 8 hr Mister Tonka 4
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 4:00AM
Colts' Complete Week 17 Preview vs. Titans
Bleacher Report 6:00 AM
Bears vs. Vikings: What Experts Are Saying About Chicago
NBC Sports 6:03 AM
Jim Caldwell: No concerns about starting a rookie center
Bleacher Report 8:46 AM
What Are Experts Saying About Vikings?
NBC Sports11:28 AM
Bears extend Roberto Garza through 2015