Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 59437 comments on the Newsday story from Dec 14, 2008, titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

PHD

Cibolo, TX

#34767 Mar 27, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Of course, I know better. Teddy is WRONG again... I'm puzzled that Teddy is not ready to read:
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are part of a new generation of nuclear power plant designs being developed in several countries.[from Wikipedia, Teddy's link]
Read: "designs being developed"
So an SMR, even just one, is nonexistent. Of course I was RIGHT!
There goes Teddy's credibility move into the horsecrap pile...:-)
More and more that’s all the "spacedoutblues” has more and more diarrheas.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34768 Mar 27, 2013
Reuters

KANGERLUSSUAQ, Greenland — On the Arctic Circle, a chef is growing the kind of vegetables and herbs - potatoes, thyme, tomatoes, green peppers - more fitting for a suburban garden in a temperate zone than a land of Northern Lights, glaciers and musk oxen.

Some Inuit hunters are finding reindeer fatter than ever thanks to more grazing on this frozen tundra, and for some, there is no longer a need to trek hours to find wild herbs.

Welcome to climate change in Greenland, where locals say longer and warmer summers mean the country can grow the kind of crops unheard of years ago.

"Every year we try new things," said Ernst, who even managed to grow a handful of strawberries that he served to some surprised Scandinavian royals. "I first came here in 1999 and no-one would have dreamed of doing this. But now the summer days seem warmer, and longer."

Major commercial crop production is still in its infancy. But it is a sign of changes here that Greenland's government set up a commission this year to study how a changing climate may help farmers increase agricultural production and replace expensive imported foods.

<<<<<<< <<<<<<< <<<<<<< <<<<<<< <<

So, how come Greenland's government believes the hoax?

Maybe because it's not a hoax?
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#34769 Mar 27, 2013
Maybe it's the natural cycle of climate change. They really don't know.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34770 Mar 27, 2013
PHD wrote:
Maybe it's the natural cycle of climate change. They really don't know.
Maybe you're a donkey. We really don't know.
Reddy Kilowatt

San Francisco, CA

#34772 Mar 27, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Correction ... Teddy IS running a scam with Reddy.
Translation: "I STILL got nothing. DEFLECT!! DEFLECT!! DEFLECT!!"

Still waiting to hear your green, carbon-free, renewable, sustainable, economically viable technology solution for replacing this nation of 300 million's carbon-fired base load power generation capacity any faster than a crash program to replace fossil-fuel power generating stations with SMRs.

C'mon, Mr. "Scientist" - the planet is dying every day you sit by playing internet hero fake "scientist" pontificating and calling people "deniers." Show us how committed and clear-minded you are about actually DOING SOMETHING practical and effective about AGW on a scale and timeframe that matches your earnest AGW jihadi rhetoric.
Reddy Kilowatt

San Francisco, CA

#34773 Mar 27, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be better if we could do more mining & construction actvities with lower carbon energy. Hopefully it'll be possble in the future.
Certainly - with hydrogen fuel-cell-powered equipment.

Only practical on the scale required in a future powered by SMRs. Nuclear = the gateway to the hydrogen economy.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
There are some green(ish) technologies that are already price-competitive with fossil fuels: geothermal, hydropower, wind. And that's without a carbon tax or carbon sequestraion, which will certainly be necessary in the future.
Considerable research is still being done on other forms of hydropower (current, wave, tide, etc). Photovoltaic power is still a ways off, but passive solar heating systems work quite well.
Actually, lots of birds die in collisions with skyscrapers & motor vehicles; it isn't just windmills that kill them. And I HOPE you're not putting much trust in the journalistic standards of the telegraph.co.uk. They often don't "rise" to the level of the National Enquirer.
C'mon - you're just farting around with pie-in-the-sky toy technologies at the margins. Indulging in avoidance behavior. These are all perfectly valid "niche" technologies that will each always have their relatively small role to play in the overall energy supply scheme, sure.

But let's please stay focused on the much larger & immediate imperative of saving the planet from carbon heat-death. None of these "greenie" "renewable" technologies are capable of replacing the current 7.5 BILLION kWh per day currently being generated by carbon-fired plants for a power-hungry nation of 300 millions, and they never will be. All forms of non-hydro "renewable" generation, despite massive subsidies, currently produce less than 10% of the carbon-based generation we need to replace IMMEDIATELY to save the planet.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/elec...

Even if the massively large-scale energy storage technologies required to replace carbon-fueled generation with unreliable/unpredictable wind & solar existed (which they do not, not even in concept), the land areas required for implementation on the required scale makes these options completely infeasible economically and politically. Which 48 MILLION acres of land do you think it's ever going to be ok to permanently ravage, blight & pave over with solar collector arrays?

If your truly serious about saving the planet from death by AGW NOW, you will consign these pipe-dreams of 'green' energy to the side-show status they warrant.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Lastly, if we could ever mine the Helium-3 in the lunar mare & develop fusion that emitted few neutrons, we'd have barely conceivable amounts of energy available. The reactions without D2O run hotter, though.
Again - let's please try to stay real here. We have an immediate planetary emergency on our hands, and we need REAL solutions for large-scale crash implemenation NOW - not pie-in-the-sky science fiction.

1) Earth will have died a planetary death by AGW centuries before this will ever become a reality

2) Even IF a practical fusion reactor is ever developed, please re-read my previous explanation of the fundamental physics and geometric reasons why fusion reactors can NEVER be as thermally efficient as (& accordingly cost-competitive with) fission reactors for electric power generation via a working fluid, given they will have ALL the same radwaste issues and costs to deal with.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34774 Mar 27, 2013
Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
<quoted text>
Certainly - with hydrogen fuel-cell-powered equipment.
Only practical on the scale required in a future powered by SMRs. Nuclear = the gateway to the hydrogen economy.
<quoted text>
C'mon - you're just farting around with pie-in-the-sky toy technologies at the margins. Indulging in avoidance behavior. These are all perfectly valid "niche" technologies that will each always have their relatively small role to play in the overall energy supply scheme, sure.
But let's please stay focused on the much larger & immediate imperative of saving the planet from carbon heat-death. None of these "greenie" "renewable" technologies are capable of replacing the current 7.5 BILLION kWh per day currently being generated by carbon-fired plants for a power-hungry nation of 300 millions, and they never will be. All forms of non-hydro "renewable" generation, despite massive subsidies, currently produce less than 10% of the carbon-based generation we need to replace IMMEDIATELY to save the planet.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/elec...
Even if the massively large-scale energy storage technologies required to replace carbon-fueled generation with unreliable/unpredictable wind & solar existed (which they do not, not even in concept), the land areas required for implementation on the required scale makes these options completely infeasible economically and politically. Which 48 MILLION acres of land do you think it's ever going to be ok to permanently ravage, blight & pave over with solar collector arrays?
If your truly serious about saving the planet from death by AGW NOW, you will consign these pipe-dreams of 'green' energy to the side-show status they warrant.
<quoted text>
Again - let's please try to stay real here. We have an immediate planetary emergency on our hands, and we need REAL solutions for large-scale crash implemenation NOW - not pie-in-the-sky science fiction.
1) Earth will have died a planetary death by AGW centuries before this will ever become a reality
2) Even IF a practical fusion reactor is ever developed, please re-read my previous explanation of the fundamental physics and geometric reasons why fusion reactors can NEVER be as thermally efficient as (& accordingly cost-competitive with) fission reactors for electric power generation via a working fluid, given they will have ALL the same radwaste issues and costs to deal with.
In general, I'm not disagreeing with most of what you say. Still, by far the easiest thing to do is to continue to make major efforts in energy efficiency. Conservation can still yield huge improvements.

Just because green technologies now remain problematic doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying. I've read about underwater turbines in the East River that just need to be strengthened, but are capable of enormous power generation. If wave, current &/or tidal hydropower technologies could be perfected, there are tremendous amounts of energy available.

Solar (photovoltaic) power is reportedly on a "Moore's Law" type trajectory when it's rapidly getting cheaper & better. It may yet be an excellent option.

The other thing about nuclear is that we REALLY need modern types of reactors that do a much better job of limiting waste, but these also will take long lead-in times for research & construction. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

The Chinese want to get to the Moon by 2020. They have stated openly that one of their reasons is He-3. If we can get to low-neutron-flux reactions, they'll be easier to contain. I wouldn't be so confident that it'll be hundreds of years before controlled fusion can be a reality.
Reddy Kilowatt

San Francisco, CA

#34775 Mar 27, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
In general, I'm not disagreeing with most of what you say. Still, by far the easiest thing to do is to continue to make major efforts in energy efficiency. Conservation can still yield huge improvements.
Sure - and those efficiencies, driven as they already are by market forces, are already being exploited and realized to the max in all future worlds, whether AGW-afflicted or not.

The problem is, this is not a viable strategy for saving the planet - it's denial. We cannot "conserve" our way out of the need for a large-scale crash carbon-fueled generation replacement program.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because green technologies now remain problematic doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying. I've read about underwater turbines in the East River that just need to be strengthened, but are capable of enormous power generation. If wave, current &/or tidal hydropower technologies could be perfected, there are tremendous amounts of energy available.
Yep, of course - but you're still clutching at straws, diddling around with toys at the margins. These are 'local' special niche solutions that take small bites at best out of the problem, but that even in the most Pollyannish projections cannot even come close to replacing all carbon-fueled generation near-term. We don't have the time for "perfecting" all these blue-sky concepts. If you are truly committed to saving the planet from AGW heat death, you need to reach for the big iron, PROVEN means, and NOW.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Solar (photovoltaic) power is reportedly on a "Moore's Law" type trajectory when it's rapidly getting cheaper & better. It may yet be an excellent option.
But it clearly ISN'T NOW. TODAY. And it won't be in the short timeframe we have to ACT. It remains a niche solution, that can never replace more than a fraction of the 7.5 BILLION kWh per day currently being generated by carbon-fired plants for a power-hungry nation of 300 million.

Pinning hopes on solar and wind is fiddling while the planet burns.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
The other thing about nuclear is that we REALLY need modern types of reactors that do a much better job of limiting waste, but these also will take long lead-in times for research & construction. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
Already readily available & ready for large-scale commercial application. We've been running fast-neuron breeder reactors that recycle spent fuel & generate little waste for over 50 years. This part is mature technology.

What's needed is a firm kick in the ass of the federal gov't & bureacracy to get with the program, declare a national emergency, and start acting like the planet really is melting down. Get these standard SMR reactors licensed so they can be financed & built.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
The Chinese want to get to the Moon by 2020. They have stated openly that one of their reasons is He-3. If we can get to low-neutron-flux reactions, they'll be easier to contain. I wouldn't be so confident that it'll be hundreds of years before controlled fusion can be a reality.
Don't bet the ranch on it, amigo. You don't know the Chinese. They don't have anyone to steal the know-how from this time - they're on their own. Just like white men can't dance, the Chinese nation (under the dead hand of the CCP) can't innovate. Never. Gonna. Hoppen. Sorry.

Self-sustaining fusion? Sure - it'll happen eventually. In the lab. At very small scale, and GINORMOUS expense. Never as a commercially viable or competive source of power, however - fission reactors will always be FAR cheaper and more reliable. Let me know, to take just one example, when you figure out how they've EVER going to contain the radioactive tritium emissions from this imaginary commercial fusion reactor, when the stuff diffuses right through steel...
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34776 Mar 27, 2013
Neal Caffrey wrote:
Al gore is scumbag that loves gay muslim azz
You're tryin' to hurt my feelin's aren't you?

Bring the stretcher over here, another one's been GORED!
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34777 Mar 27, 2013
Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
<quoted text>
Certainly - with hydrogen fuel-cell-powered equipment.
Only practical on the scale required in a future powered by SMRs. Nuclear = the gateway to the hydrogen economy.
<quoted text>
C'mon - you're just farting around with pie-in-the-sky toy technologies at the margins. Indulging in avoidance behavior. These are all perfectly valid "niche" technologies that will each always have their relatively small role to play in the overall energy supply scheme, sure.
But let's please stay focused on the much larger & immediate imperative of saving the planet from carbon heat-death. None of these "greenie" "renewable" technologies are capable of replacing the current 7.5 BILLION kWh per day currently being generated by carbon-fired plants for a power-hungry nation of 300 millions, and they never will be. All forms of non-hydro "renewable" generation, despite massive subsidies, currently produce less than 10% of the carbon-based generation we need to replace IMMEDIATELY to save the planet.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/elec...
Even if the massively large-scale energy storage technologies required to replace carbon-fueled generation with unreliable/unpredictable wind & solar existed (which they do not, not even in concept), the land areas required for implementation on the required scale makes these options completely infeasible economically and politically. Which 48 MILLION acres of land do you think it's ever going to be ok to permanently ravage, blight & pave over with solar collector arrays?
If your truly serious about saving the planet from death by AGW NOW, you will consign these pipe-dreams of 'green' energy to the side-show status they warrant.
<quoted text>
Again - let's please try to stay real here. We have an immediate planetary emergency on our hands, and we need REAL solutions for large-scale crash implemenation NOW - not pie-in-the-sky science fiction.
1) Earth will have died a planetary death by AGW centuries before this will ever become a reality
2) Even IF a practical fusion reactor is ever developed, please re-read my previous explanation of the fundamental physics and geometric reasons why fusion reactors can NEVER be as thermally efficient as (& accordingly cost-competitive with) fission reactors for electric power generation via a working fluid, given they will have ALL the same radwaste issues and costs to deal with.
The first car didn't do 235 mph.

The first flight of an airplane was not transcontinental.

The first space mission did not go to Mars.

These things take time. When you grow up, you'll understand.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34778 Mar 27, 2013
John Roach, Contributing Writer, NBC News

When it's hot outside, people crank up air conditioners that usually suck electricity from coal- and natural gas-fired power plants at the root of human-caused global warming. This seems like a recipe for disaster, but it's more sustainable than living in a cold climate and cranking up the heat, a new paper suggests.

"The traditional view that living in hot desert areas is not sustainable should be re-examined," Michael Sivak, a research professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told NBC News. "Because my data suggest that from this point of view — mainly a climate control point of view — living in very cold areas is less sustainable than hot areas."

He compared the energy demands for indoor heating and cooling in Minneapolis, Minn., the coldest metropolitan area in the country, with those in Miami, Fla., the warmest big city. He found the demands are 3.5 times greater in Minnesota.

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><><>

So it seems that even civilization finds a way to balance with Nature.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#34779 Mar 28, 2013
Using fossil fuel helps free ancient carbon back into the atmosphere where it can do some good. Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps mitigate climate change against global cooling; the well known ice age climate scenario.

We've always adapted to climate change. Don't panic.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#34780 Mar 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>PAKAB almost has it right, man made catastrophic global warming alarmism is pseudoscience and climate change mitigation by restricting CO2 emissions or sequestering atmospheric CO2 is a hoax without field experiments. Due diligence, test a product before you buy. Be more careful how you spend your money.
.
<quoted text>But not things where they advise policy, if they tell you there's a way to mitigate a man made problem they better show you man made experimental results. There's a difference between purely observational and when you dear to breach a technology or policy to improve a man made or natural situation. Then you need to produce results instead of theory, get a product off the drawing board, through the lab and into the market.
Climate change mitigation is a big zero when it comes to demonstrations and results.
.
<quoted text>The tests of climate change mitigation are essential to the policy discussion. Don't buy a pig in a poke. Emitting CO2 is too important a freedom to give up for theory and models.
.
<quoted text>Or whether we should increase the effects, that's my plan. I stand for growth, using and producing fossil fuels and emitting carbon. That's to my best welfare and benefit. I really don't understand you, I'm sorry.
I hope carbon dioxide paranoia is a passing fad; I find it tiresome and ugly.
The technology is coming to make it moot. Dive it 5 years and it will be a non story. The trick is going to be to keep the warmers from doing significant damage to the economy till then. It is, after all, about control of the people. Patience and vigilance are the words.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#34781 Mar 28, 2013
Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
<quoted text>
Your bullshit strawman twisting of my post makes it clear you are the one with intentional reading comprehension deficit.
I posted: "Dozens of competing SMRs to choose from, AT VARIOUS STAGES OF THE LICENSING PROCESS."
"Certainly FAR, FAR closer to large-scale production reality than any competing green, renewable, carbon-free, sustainable, low-cost base load generation technology option out there."
NOWHERE did I say there was an SMR presently in commercial operation - that's YOUR bullshit invention - putting words in my mouth.
Where's YOUR green, carbon-free, renewable, sustainable, economically viable technology solution for replacing this nation of 300 million's carbon-fired base load power generation capacity any faster?
Oh - that's right - you don't have any solution. You're proudly part of perpetuating the problem, Mr. "Scientist."
Of course, if you DO have a superior green, carbon-free, renewable, sustainable, economically viable technology solution for replacing this nation of 300 million's carbon-fired base load power generation capacity any faster than a crash program to build SMRs, let's hear it. And please do hurry - we're cooking the planet while you pontificate and posture.
Otherwise, there goes SpaceCase's credibility right back into the horsecrap pile...
It's the way they are. They always have to change the question before they answer it to insure the answer is in line with their ideology.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#34782 Mar 28, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be better if we could do more mining & construction actvities with lower carbon energy. Hopefully it'll be possble in the future.
There are some green(ish) technologies that are already price-competitive with fossil fuels: geothermal, hydropower, wind. And that's without a carbon tax or carbon sequestraion, which will certainly be necessary in the future.
Considerable research is still being done on other forms of hydropower (current, wave, tide, etc). Photovoltaic power is still a ways off, but passive solar heating systems work quite well.
Actually, lots of birds die in collisions with skyscrapers & motor vehicles; it isn't just windmills that kill them. And I HOPE you're not putting much trust in the journalistic standards of the telegraph.co.uk. They often don't "rise" to the level of the National Enquirer.
Lastly, if we could ever mine the Helium-3 in the lunar mare & develop fusion that emitted few neutrons, we'd have barely conceivable amounts of energy available. The reactions without D2O run hotter, though.
That last paragraph will happen in the next twenty years.Eight countries and a couple of corporations are presently planning on moon bases by 2025 to study just that. Best part is everything can be built on the moon. The is enough water on the moon to fill all of the Great Lakes.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#34783 Mar 28, 2013
PHD wrote:
Maybe it's the natural cycle of climate change. They really don't know.
i remember reading somewhere about people moaning about a glacier melting. When lo and behold they found a mining camp and a whole town that was buried under the ice! Now I just wonder 'How did that get there?'
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#34784 Mar 28, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you're a donkey. We really don't know.
No maybe we already know your a Dumb ASSumption of your---self. Now big mouth post your peer reviewed published work and defends your Dumb ASSumption you make of your---self.
Reddy Kilowatt

San Francisco, CA

#34785 Mar 28, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The first car didn't do 235 mph.
The first flight of an airplane was not transcontinental.
The first space mission did not go to Mars.
These things take time. When you grow up, you'll understand.
BS rationalization of continuing to sit on the AGW waaaambulance, thinking well of yourself for spinning pie-in-the-sky pipedreams while doing NOTHING to promptly and effectively attack the root of the problem with the means we have readily available TODAY.

In modern nuclear, and ONLY in modern nuclear, we already have at hand the green, renewable, sustainable, fully-developed, commercial-scale, economically feasible, and fully mature technological means of COMPLETELY ELIMINATING carbon-fueled base-load electric power generation in the US within THIS GENERATION.

Wake up. Get real. Start acting like you believe this actually is the red-lights-and-siren planetary emergency you and your fellow internet hero fake "scientist" AGW jihadis are constantly hand-waving and screaming about.

Time to start walking the talk. You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#34787 Mar 28, 2013
Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
<quoted text>
BS rationalization of continuing to sit on the AGW waaaambulance, thinking well of yourself for spinning pie-in-the-sky pipedreams while doing NOTHING to promptly and effectively attack the root of the problem with the means we have readily available TODAY.
In modern nuclear, and ONLY in modern nuclear, we already have at hand the green, renewable, sustainable, fully-developed, commercial-scale, economically feasible, and fully mature technological means of COMPLETELY ELIMINATING carbon-fueled base-load electric power generation in the US within THIS GENERATION.
Wake up. Get real. Start acting like you believe this actually is the red-lights-and-siren planetary emergency you and your fellow internet hero fake "scientist" AGW jihadis are constantly hand-waving and screaming about.
Time to start walking the talk. You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem.
They are the problem no part of.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34788 Mar 28, 2013
Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
<quoted text>
BS rationalization of continuing to sit on the AGW waaaambulance, thinking well of yourself for spinning pie-in-the-sky pipedreams while doing NOTHING to promptly and effectively attack the root of the problem with the means we have readily available TODAY.
In modern nuclear, and ONLY in modern nuclear, we already have at hand the green, renewable, sustainable, fully-developed, commercial-scale, economically feasible, and fully mature technological means of COMPLETELY ELIMINATING carbon-fueled base-load electric power generation in the US within THIS GENERATION.
Wake up. Get real. Start acting like you believe this actually is the red-lights-and-siren planetary emergency you and your fellow internet hero fake "scientist" AGW jihadis are constantly hand-waving and screaming about.
Time to start walking the talk. You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem.
Reddy

As you know, in general I'm pro-nuclear, with some reservations. But in the real world, even today's reactors have lead times of 15-20 years counting the required bureacracy & construction. They cost a lot of money.

The newer reactors like the fast neutron "breeder" types have been operated for a long time, but they haven't been commercialized. Realistically, that'll mean another delay.

People just won't tolerate accidents - they are deathly, perhaps irrationally (coal kills thousands of people annually, after all, but doesn't scare people nearly as much), afraid of them. The extensive safety efforts that cause delays are not going to go away.

Realistically, new nuclear plants are simply not a panacea. Ongoing conservation efforts, & some green energy projects, are much faster & cheaper. New nukes might be a good way of making up for the energy we need when green energy isn't available, but they'll take a while.

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
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 hr Dr Guru 214,265
Word (Dec '08) 4 hr Raydot 6,132
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 hr USAsince1680 1,382,088
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 6 hr GEORGIA 8,362
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 6 hr GEORGIA 2,396
last post wins! (Dec '10) 7 hr They cannot kill ... 2,024
last post wins! (Apr '13) 8 hr They cannot kill ... 974
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages