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

Full story: Newsday

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

Comments (Page 1,799)

Showing posts 35,961 - 35,980 of45,437
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38273
Aug 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Our sun has been in very high activity. The last half of the 20th century is now being considered the Modern Solar Maximum. It was at the highest levels recorded in the last 400 years and in the top 10% of all activity reconstructed with proxy data during the Holocene.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/new...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thum...
Interesting that you say the last half of the 20th century is being considered the Modern Solar Maximum. It reminded me of something I read a few days ago. It was from the 2007 IPCC AR4 and stated this:

"Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years."
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38274
Aug 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not really sure what you are talking about here.
I'm sure of it. You never know what is plain to others.
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Mann hockey stick and all other reconstructions are based on NH data only, so hasn't the IPCC always been comparing apples to oranges?
Multi-proxy studies for the last 2000 years are indeed based on the NH because they have the most data (the SH has too much ocean) but the main influence here is air movement and teleconnections cannot pass the equator due to the Hadley cell circulation. That means that the NH air temperature is representative of the global picture, or at least the ANOMALY in it is similar between the global and NH.

But no IPCC or science paper has established that the MWP is a global phenomenon. It is clear that it doesn't have the mechanism (thermal energy input) to exist and there is no definition of the MWP that can be applied globally to all the separate regional climates. The MWP is known to have happened in western Europe only and the energy is clearly from the shift in the 'Rossby wave' that supplies much of the extra warmth to the region.
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Now they went from this: It is likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.
Still true.
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
To this: The 30 years from 1983-2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years.
Also true. They are NOT mutually contradictory. And the newer phrasing is probably more comprehensible to thinking readers. Even you should be able to understand it if you REALLY REALLY concentrate.
not bored

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38275
Aug 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting that you say the last half of the 20th century is being considered the Modern Solar Maximum. It reminded me of something I read a few days ago. It was from the 2007 IPCC AR4 and stated this:
"Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years."
oh 'kristy', if only we could figure out what melted all of that ice that used to cover north america over a mile thick we would be rich. after giving our fair share to al gore and all of the other shamsters we would be rolling in it. I love a solar anything, as long as we can make money off of it. just think what we could of made off of the so called noah's flood. thank allaha we don't have to worry about metorites or comets but we can still tell the people it's their fault, hope revenues don't drop. gotta love the weather, better than fish in a barrel. don't tell al but I'm trying a new angle on people being the cause of solar cycles. I love these government grants. oh, and if they mention anything about right to know, and funding, steer them away untill we can come up with another distraction. oh, and 'kristy', that wind and rain you were talking about the other day, dont worry about it. that was only weather, when we can make some money of of it, we will call it man made.
JBH

Delta, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38276
Aug 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

++++++++

UN Security Council holds emergency meeting on alleged chemical weapons use in Syria

By Associated Press, Updated: Wednesday, August 21, 12:59 PM
UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council held emergency consultations Wednesday on the latest alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria, and Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he is determined to ensure a “thorough investigation” of all reported incidents.

+++++++

Related to the above report, see the follows:

They try to make chemical weapons issue in Syria, yet they are not sure of what they talk about.

How can terrorist rebels fight Syria without Syria fighting back? They they use the numbers of people who die in the warfare (and how many tens to hundreds of thousands US slaughtered Iraq people as not using chemical weapons by talking Syria without looking what US had done?) to say something, but just who started that--obviously the rebel insurgent terrorists? What difference is that related to Iraq invasion? But just who started that Iraq war by forcing to it--obviously the US? And so those who started that terror would be terrorists then-and therefore US was the terror in Iraq.

Now in comparison to Syria, the ongoing bombings In Iraq are insurgent rebels fighting Iraq government , why then US says about the need to examine Iraq by not fulfilling rebel insurgents to do so many bombings then in Iraq, but Syria quelling those insurgent terrorists in Syria, by US getting into it?

What is the real substance of chemical weapons, as they had killed few people than bombs--just as those so many bombs dropped to Iraq (as US had used so many bombs to Iraq, it has killed 100 times of ratio more of people than any chemical weapons usage in Syria), in comparison if they ever used chemical weapons them there because the larger numbers of people dying is the view? Just how many people had been slaughtered by insurgent terror rebels in Syria? Why not look into so many people die then by being killed by US bombs if it is concerning the larger numbers of people perished? The substance of the chemical weapons is by the composition of chemical agents and mixtures, but BY THE SAME DOMAIN OF SUBJECT, that seems to be more a damaging criteria by using AGENT ORANGE IN VIETNAM. As US had used similar alike chemical weapons like Agent Orange, what is so now without asking itself what it had done first?

Then the substance of chemical mixtures is not well clear and defined, because virtually anything used in factories and households, from pesticides, flammable liquids, other corrosive fluids, can be labeled as chemical weapons and do kill quite so many people and make them contract serious illness and diseases, which could be dangerous as if they had used in Syria, for that makes no difference upon the criteria of what chemical agents and mixtures are.

That leads to a lot of issues in the standard of how many people had died. And who started it in comparison to ongoing Iraq, as who are the wrongdoers as if those who still think of Syria by chemical weapons subject are as like wrongdoers, when they also started creating the current crisis of Iraq by doing massacre of so many, without asking themselves as wrongdoers who are guilty by still posing as if they still have a case some more else--THE SYRIA--and isn't this a failure again to start with?

Is that also so backward thinking in the contradiction again, simply they are not capable of any matters about matters of Syria and Iraq?
JBH

Delta, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38277
Aug 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

To examine Syria, not Iraq now____Now in comparison to Syria, the ongoing bombings In Iraq are insurgent rebels fighting Iraq government , why then US says about the need to examine SYRIA by not fulfilling rebel insurgents to do so many bombings then in Iraq, but Syria quelling those insurgent terrorists in Syria, by US getting into it?
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38278
Aug 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

JBH wrote:
To examine Syria, not Iraq now____Now in comparison to Syria, the ongoing bombings In Iraq are insurgent rebels fighting Iraq government , why then US says about the need to examine SYRIA by not fulfilling rebel insurgents to do so many bombings then in Iraq, but Syria quelling those insurgent terrorists in Syria, by US getting into it?
Off topic, you way off.

I think, by your word-stringing and cloudy politics, that you need to find the Arab-language forums on bad shit in Iraq and Syria.

You're lost here.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38279
Aug 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the cosmic ray theory? How does that fit in, in your opinion?
The cosmic ray theory is directly related to the heliosphere. Higher solar activity creates a larger heliosphere. The heliosphere protects us from some cosmic ray activity. As solar energy decreases so does the heliosphere and more cosmic rays make it into our solar system and to earth.

Cosmic rays are thought to add to the production of cloud cover. More clouds more solar energy is deflected. The low solar energy generated by the sun is reduced further by deflection and reduces the amount of energy received by the oceans.

Cooler oceans, cooler temperatures.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38280
Aug 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fun Farts wrote:
<quoted text>
The cosmic ray theory is directly related to the heliosphere. Higher solar activity creates a larger heliosphere. The heliosphere protects us from some cosmic ray activity. As solar energy decreases so does the heliosphere and more cosmic rays make it into our solar system and to earth.
Cosmic rays are thought to add to the production of cloud cover. More clouds more solar energy is deflected. The low solar energy generated by the sun is reduced further by deflection and reduces the amount of energy received by the oceans.
Cooler oceans, cooler temperatures.
The facts:

- This theory has been considered and dismissed before. A 2010 report by the National Academies of Science was commissioned by Congress to examine all the evidence surrounding global warming including the theory that cosmic rays might influence Earth’s climate. It concluded that “a plausible physical mechanism… has not been demonstrated” and “cosmic rays are not regarded as an important climate forcing.”

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/05/31...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38281
Aug 21, 2013
 
Fun Facts wrote:
It is predicted by many solar scientists that our temperatures will decrease in the coming decades with a minima at about 2030.
Go on, name a few then.

Can't can you?

Liar.

Here, as usual, is what solar scientists really say:
Joanna Haigh, a solar physicist at Imperial College London, has spent a fair bit of research time investigating mechanisms that could potentially amplify solar changes into meaningful temperature variations on human timescales on Earth.

She summed up the importance of the latest research like this:

"In a future grand minimum, the Sun might perhaps again cool the planet by up to 1C.

"Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, are expected to raise global temperatures by 1.5-4.5C by 2100.

"So even if the predictions are correct, the effect of global warming will outstrip the Sun's ability to cool even in the coldest scenario.

"And in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
JBH

Delta, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38282
Aug 22, 2013
 
WHAT A FOOLISH JOKE IS IT ABOUT Syria?

Take Britain as it if it is Syria then. And if Japanese civilians but not Japanese government invade Britain linking with British rebels inside, to fight in Britain like the current Syria. Then they say as if any chemical weapons would be used (which could come from Japanese terrorist rebels bringing in with British insurgent rebels), yet whether British had also chemical weapons usage is unknown-- as the all these have not been substantially proven, to kill many people, other than the ammunition used on both sides.

As both sides kill people since it is a warfare in Britain, there are outsiders like Isreal and US, that would keep on pushing the issue of chemical weapons usage for getting into Britain for war there. So Isreal and US would rather think their deceit case again to push for another war like Iraq war, to build another biggest embassy and colonial setting ground for reconstruction like what Bush did to Iraq.
That is another example of US neo-Hitler Imperialistic colonialism for regime change to take other country from US public expenses, but would always fail in the case upon people saying, in US evil and bad attempt, besides US losing a lot of more soldiers.

US always has the villain stand of wrongdoing to take others', in this case Britain (as this gives the example of Japanese rebel terrorists--as if were like rebel insurgents to Syria, going to Britain to be with British insurgents) might have been even orchestrated by others to suit US wrongdoing interests with the inciting of Isreal keeping on yelling chemical weapons, so that US might try using war to get its despicable prey again. But its soldiers had never learned the lessons of loss before, beyond US being charged doing war crime in Iraq, that would add up some more war crimes, that US and Isreal would finally go nowhere sooner or later as time moves forward to a closer stand, that the explosion of people of this planet do their say, "Enough is enough with the evil and Bad US that war crime countries have to come to get done with by now."

This example demonstrates the appearance that US and Isreal by making use of Japanese rebels invasion with British renegade insurgent terrorists starting internal warfare, would give rise to US getting in to take Britain.

As an example, it indicates how evil and bad of US by engaging wrongdoings with Isreal in wrongfulness as usual, to attempt to snatch other countries by displaying its rotten Neo-Hitler dictator of fascist colonialism, by talking about the current Syria.

Maybe that is another proceeding of the Project New American Century again.

Isn't that awful and ridiculous that he is by the name of Obama who said he was no Bush, but demonstrates he is no different to, but worse than the other Bush that Obama was talking about, to repeat that Bush, as a Bush clone-follower shadow in doing more than snooping and hacking and abusing liberty rights already, and now with this Syria?
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38283
Aug 22, 2013
 
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>still waiting on your response about rfs2!!!!!
i can't believe you don't know what that is....and champion yourself on this thread in being "in the know"!
LOL!!!!!
Just so you'll know, I struck a blow for better fuel efficiency this morning. All because of you, lol.

Got a petition from Consumer's Union. I'm forwarding it to you for your signature.

"The clock is ticking on a clean-car plan that will dramatically slash pollution in our cities the equivalent of taking 33 million cars off our roads!

The Environmental Protection Agency has only four months to finalize a plan that would clean up our gasoline so it doesn't emit so much pollution when it's burned. And with a new EPA administrator now on board, we have a great opportunity to get it moving!

Of course, Big Oil is out in force trying to kill it. They don't want to make needed changes in their refineries, and they expect us to live with the consequences -- tens of thousands of more respiratory problems in our kids and adults, and the resulting environmental problems.

I just sent an email of support to the new EPA director to finalize this plan now. Will you do the same? You can learn more and send your email by going to Consumers Union's website.

http://bit.ly/Clearer_Air

Thank you!

Now then, see? I do care. And you should too.

lol
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38284
Aug 22, 2013
 
This is what we're up against. I think it's a combination of talk radio, Fox News, and gullible and prejudiced people.

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

A significant chunk of Louisiana Republicans evidently believe that President Barack Obama is to blame for the poor response to the hurricane that ravaged their state more than three years before he took office.

The latest survey from Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling, provided exclusively to TPM, showed an eye-popping divide among Republicans in the Bayou State when it comes to accountability for the government’s post-Katrina blunders.

Twenty-eight percent said they think former President George W. Bush, who was in office at the time, was more responsible for the poor federal response while 29 percent said Obama, who was still a freshman U.S. Senator when the storm battered the Gulf Coast in 2005, was more responsible. Nearly half of Louisiana Republicans — 44 percent — said they aren’t sure who to blame.

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

I've seen the same crap here; people believing what they want to believe in spite of the truth.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38285
Aug 22, 2013
 
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
The cosmic ray theory is directly related to the heliosphere. Higher solar activity creates a larger heliosphere. The heliosphere protects us from some cosmic ray activity. As solar energy decreases so does the heliosphere and more cosmic rays make it into our solar system and to earth.
A vanishingly small change given that the suns activity varies by no more than 0.3%(mostly just 0.1%). The vast majority of particle are deflected by the bow shock of the heliopause and magnetic field of the earth.

http://www.solarsystemcentral.com/heliosphere...
"The chart on the left, also from the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, depicts the flow of very "high energy cosmic rays" (greater than 100 million electron volts, 100 MeV) that flow from outer space. Cosmic rays consist of 90% hydrogen protons, 9% alpha paticles (two protons, two neutrons) and 1% other. The very red area represents 100% of the flow as it hits the Bow Shock, the outermost region of our Heliosphere. About 20% of the cosmic rays do not make it to the Heliopause. However, from the Heliopause to the Termination Shock, about 60% of the rays are neutralized by our sun's Solar Wind. Once inside the Termination Shock, another 10% are absorbed by the Solar Wind. Finally, about 10% of the cosmic rays make it into our Solar System, depicted by the color yellow in the chart. The rays that make it through the above are almost all blocked by the earth's magnetic field and the ozone layer of the atmosphere. This drop off process is depicted on the chart by the thick black line and the scale to the left."
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Cosmic rays are thought to add to the production of cloud cover. More clouds more solar energy is deflected.
<sarcasm>Oh, look people. It is getting dark out there. Must be more cosmic rays..</sarcasm>

Fact is that we cannot find ANY correlation between cosmic rays and cloud cover. While it works in a lab bench, there is NO evidence of the mechanism being a significant force in the world.

http://helios.izmiran.rssi.ru/cosray/months.h...
Here is a chart of the cosmic ray intensity since 1960. There is NO correlation with either cloud cover or global warming.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Cooler oceans, cooler temperatures.
Again, untruth. The oceans have been significantly WARMING which is consistent with the greenhouse effect of AGW and totally unconnected to this hand waving fantasy.
http://tinyurl.com/noozbjp

Any more BS you want to drop?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38286
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Go on, name a few then.
Can't can you?
Liar.
Here, as usual, is what solar scientists really say:
<quoted text>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
Fun Facts stated that many solar scientists predict that our temperatures will decrease in the coming decades with a minima at about 2030.

You then state Fun Facts is a liar and wouldn’t be able to name any and then you provide an example as to why Fun Facts is a liar. But yet your proof of Fun Facts lying actually is proof that his/her statement was true. Joanna Haigh stated the future grand minimum would perhaps cool the planet by 1 C. That’s quite a lot considering we have only warmed 0.8 C over the last 100 years.

Now let’s look at this through the AWG hypothesis. The AGW hypothesis is that as CO2 increases temperatures will increase. The climate scientists say that the sun has very little effect on temperatures and CO2 is the driving force. But yet, no climate model predicted a pause or decrease in temperatures for more than two, 10-year periods in a century. Yet now we are hearing these climate scientists say we will see a pause maybe up until 2030. THAT WAS NEVER PREDICTED. Fun Facts has stated that scientists just don’t understand how solar activity impacts the climate and that seems to be true. If you look at the past, we have 30-year cycles of warming periods and cooling periods. If go back to news articles since the late 1880s, every 30 years they wrote of alternating scenarios of warming scares and cooling scares and right on time, we are now hearing about cooling.

Bottom line, if the sun has little effect on temperatures and climate as the climate scientists say, their models would have been correct, so obviously they are underestimating the effects of the sun. So if the climate scientists couldn’t predict this 30-year period, what makes you think their predictions of temperature increases of 1.5 C to 4.5 C by 2100 are any better?
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38287
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Fun Facts stated that many solar scientists predict that our temperatures will decrease in the coming decades with a minima at about 2030.
Out of context. They are really stating that the SOLAR contribution will decrease with the 200 year cycle of solar cycle amplitude. This is valid. They do NOT state that this will be intense enough to counter AGW from GHGs.

Lies are all you have.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38288
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
You then state Fun Facts is a liar and wouldn’t be able to name any and then you provide an example as to why Fun Facts is a liar. But yet your proof of Fun Facts lying actually is proof that his/her statement was true. Joanna Haigh stated the future grand minimum would perhaps cool the planet by 1 C.
An interesting study of possible (but unproven) positive feedbacks to the 200 year solar cycle, yet it has no backing in the data as yet. Try to keep to the validated science, not speculative papers.

And she does not try to assert that this will do more than offset some of the WARMING from GHGs. So she is not denying the AGW theory or stating that the solar influence is dominant.

You are SOOOOOO pathetic.
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38289
Aug 22, 2013
 
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure of it. You never know what is plain to others.
<quoted text>
Multi-proxy studies for the last 2000 years are indeed based on the NH because they have the most data (the SH has too much ocean) but the main influence here is air movement and teleconnections cannot pass the equator due to the Hadley cell circulation. That means that the NH air temperature is representative of the global picture, or at least the ANOMALY in it is similar between the global and NH.
But no IPCC or science paper has established that the MWP is a global phenomenon. It is clear that it doesn't have the mechanism (thermal energy input) to exist and there is no definition of the MWP that can be applied globally to all the separate regional climates. The MWP is known to have happened in western Europe only and the energy is clearly from the shift in the 'Rossby wave' that supplies much of the extra warmth to the region.
<quoted text>
Still true.
<quoted text>
Also true. They are NOT mutually contradictory. And the newer phrasing is probably more comprehensible to thinking readers. Even you should be able to understand it if you REALLY REALLY concentrate.
As a "thinking reader" I am not clear as to why Mann's NH proxies are valid evidence of the LACK of a GLOBAL MWP but all the studies that represent a GLOBAL MWP based on NH proxies are not valid.

If you have already addressed this issue I apologize.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38290
Aug 22, 2013
 
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Again, untruth. The oceans have been significantly WARMING which is consistent with the greenhouse effect of AGW and totally unconnected to this hand waving fantasy.
http://tinyurl.com/noozbjp
Any more BS you want to drop?
There has been enough evidence presented on this forum to confirm that the ocean is a great reservoir of heat. These folks can deny but they cannot negate the facts. When they do not allow the works of the experts, they have no leg to stand on. They are simply deniers. It seems that we have a large segment of the population that has to be against. They have little to contribute.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38291
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just so you'll know, I struck a blow for better fuel efficiency this morning. All because of you, lol.
Got a petition from Consumer's Union. I'm forwarding it to you for your signature.
"The clock is ticking on a clean-car plan that will dramatically slash pollution in our cities the equivalent of taking 33 million cars off our roads!
The Environmental Protection Agency has only four months to finalize a plan that would clean up our gasoline so it doesn't emit so much pollution when it's burned. And with a new EPA administrator now on board, we have a great opportunity to get it moving!
Of course, Big Oil is out in force trying to kill it. They don't want to make needed changes in their refineries, and they expect us to live with the consequences -- tens of thousands of more respiratory problems in our kids and adults, and the resulting environmental problems.
I just sent an email of support to the new EPA director to finalize this plan now. Will you do the same? You can learn more and send your email by going to Consumers Union's website.
http://bit.ly/Clearer_Air
Thank you!
Now then, see? I do care. And you should too.
lol
you already said you had no interest in the environment. Back tracking now only makes you look like the bigot who claims to have an interest in race relations.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38292
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
An interesting study of possible (but unproven) positive feedbacks... Try to keep to the validated science, not speculative papers....

You are SOOOOOO pathetic.
Hummmm???
Really?
YES!
Why don't we just stick to science papers that are "not speculative"?
Just one problem: EVERY paper that science uses to show we are heading for a "Climate Crisis" "tipping point" due to "runaway Global Warming" caused by "Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide" is by definition "Speculative".

You sometimes make it hard not to LOL at such extreme demonstrations of classic cognitive dissonance.

You are SOOOOOO....... funny

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 35,961 - 35,980 of45,437
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

13 Users are viewing the California Forum right now

Search the California Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 11 min loose cannon 173,546
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 36 min Frankie Rizzo 50,323
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 38 min Frankie Rizzo 200,214
California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 1 hr sister mary magda 4,836
Riverside County:Tap Water Taste and Smell Unpl... 4 hr Chris 39
Blocking Californians' beach access will soon c... 20 hr Vika 1
How to be truly saved. 22 hr Donna Lee 1
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••