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

Full story: Newsday 49,253
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#39012 Sep 9, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
They sound confused. They contradict each other and have different conclusions. What was the purpose of this? To show us how much they really don't know?
I guess it was to show you and others here that the science is NOT settled in certain areas; that rather than a monolithic conspiracy to "raise your taxes", the reality is that there are differences of opinion and differences in results across all of the research community.

To use a simile oft applied to Congress, it like seeing how sausages are made.

The science of global warming itself, the big picture, is settled. The mechanism, the chemistry, and the physics are basic and undeniable.

The Earth is warming.

We are causing it.

There are things we can do about it.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39013 Sep 9, 2013
Blast from the past (2009):
Fair Game wrote:
Really! I've been surprised at how many people just don't get the simplest of scientific ideas: that a wiggly line may wiggle up and down, but wiggle up more than it wiggles down.(A long term trend may be visible in noisy data.)
http://www.topix.com/forum/chicago/T1046AOH0D...
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39014 Sep 9, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Lie.
Lie.
Same lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
liars.
You waste so much bandwidth. How do you live with yourself knowing your increasing CO2?

LOL
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39015 Sep 9, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess it was to show you and others here that the science is NOT settled in certain areas; that rather than a monolithic conspiracy to "raise your taxes", the reality is that there are differences of opinion and differences in results across all of the research community.
To use a simile oft applied to Congress, it like seeing how sausages are made.
The science of global warming itself, the big picture, is settled. The mechanism, the chemistry, and the physics are basic and undeniable.
The Earth is warming.
We are causing it.
There are things we can do about it.
"There are things we can do about it."

Unless, of course, you're a leader of the movement, or a climate scientist.

Then you get a free pass for all your carbon usage.

Mottoes for the warmists:

Relative ethics are absolute.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39016 Sep 9, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Lie.
Scientist, not scientists.
<quoted text>
Lie. It was expected.
<quoted text>
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climat...
<quoted text>
Same lie.
One scientist.
<quoted text>
Lie.
There are shipping records going back more than a hundred years and proxy records going back thousands.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/HistSumm...
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/kin...
<quoted text>
Lie.
The melting of the ice was predicted by AGW theory, and the observation of it happening is strong evidence in support of that theory.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ic...
<quoted text>
Lie.
A melt of Arctic sea ice unprecedented for thousands of years is alarming.
<quoted text>
Lie.
Arctic amplification (ie rapid warming of the Artic) was predicted by AGW theory.
<quoted text>
Lie.
Both polar ice caps are losing mass, ie melting.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/...
<quoted text>
Lie.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-...
<quoted text>
Lie.
Temperatures have risen in the last 15 years. The last decade was the hottest in the record.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...
Deniers are liars.
You wrote: Lie. Scientist, not scientists.

No, there were scientists:

Maslowski, Professor Peter Wadhams, Warwich Vincent James Hansen personally and NASA.…In fact Wadhams stated this: The implication is that this is not a cycle, not just a fluctuation. The loss this year will precondition the ice for the same thing to happen again next year, only worse. There will be even more opening up, even more absorption and even more melting.

You wrote: Lie. The increase was expected.

Really? A 60% increase was expected? Can I ask you a question? How come the skeptics are getting a lecture from Skeptical Science now? Where was the lecture to all the alarmists telling everyone that we would have an ice-free Arctic by 2013? Where was Skeptical Science when ice experts were telling us that a loss the year before will precondition the ice for the same thing to happen again next year, only worse? How come Skeptical Science didn’t lecture them with their “regression toward the mean” theory? No one at the time was trying to downplay the news of an ice-free Arctic by 2013. In fact Joe Romm was taking on extra bets at the time and he was calling Maslowski a top ice expert and a non-alarmist.

From Think Progress:

Maybe Climate Progress isn’t alarmist after all. Maybe this future is nearer than everyone thinks: I was called “over-alarmist” by one of the people who took my bet that the Arctic would be ice free by 2020. But one of the country’s top ice experts, non-alarmist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School, told an American Geophysical Union audience this week: My claim is that the global climate models underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice…. Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007. So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.
No, I haven’t spent the $1000 yet, but I might take some more bets…

So it is a little hypocritical to come out and attack the messengers for something you all predicted and never downplayed at the time.

Continued next post.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39017 Sep 9, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
There are shipping records going back more than a hundred years and proxy records going back thousands.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/HistSumm...
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/kin...
<quoted text>
Lie.
The melting of the ice was predicted by AGW theory, and the observation of it happening is strong evidence in support of that theory.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ic...
<quoted text>
Lie.
A melt of Arctic sea ice unprecedented for thousands of years is alarming.
<quoted text>
Lie.
Arctic amplification (ie rapid warming of the Artic) was predicted by AGW theory.
<quoted text>
Lie.
Both polar ice caps are losing mass, ie melting.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/...
<quoted text>
Lie.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-...
<quoted text>
Lie.
Temperatures have risen in the last 15 years. The last decade was the hottest in the record.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...
Deniers are liars.
Continued post:

You wrote about Artic ice: Lie. There are shipping records going back more than a hundred years and proxy records going back thousands.

You can’t compare satellite records to incomplete records from the past, especially since so many records were lost during WWII.
Here is an interesting history on the Arctic during that timeframe:

“The warming of the arctic seas has caused a diminishing of the arctic drift ice, which again has improved shipping conditions. In the 1907-1917 period Norwegian coal mines in Spitsbergen were able to load and export coal an average of 94 days each season, while 20 years later this period has been extended to 192 days. In 1878-80 Nordenskjold in the Vega was the first to navigate the North East Passage, but to do this he had to winter twice. In 1936 a convoy of fourteen Russian ships mode the trip in one season without encountering serious ice difficulties and during the last war this northern Sea route was used extensively by Soviet shipping. During 1942-45 even war ships, which are especially vulnerable to ice, were able to reach Thule without difficulty.
The seas around Greenland have also been remarkably open in later years. The east coast, which frequently remained completely blocked by pack-ice, in 1931-33 was almost free from ice.”“In 1941-42 the low-powered, 80 ton R.C.M.P. schooner St. Roch made the North West Passage for the first time from the Pacific to the Atlantic and again in 1944 in the opposite direction in only 87 days.”

http://www.thearcticcircle.ca/pdf/Arctic%20Ci...

You said: Lie. Both polar ice caps are losing mass, ie melting.

Wrong:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.n...

You said I lied about the equator hot spot.

Wrong.

From your article: The hot spot is not a unique greenhouse signature and finding the hot spot doesn't prove that humans are causing global warming.

From the IPCC AR4: Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in the troposphere, cooling in the stratosphere, and, for transient simulations, somewhat more warming near the surface in the NH due to its larger land fraction, which has a shorter surface response time to the warming than do ocean regions (Figure 9.1c). The simulated responses to natural forcing are distinct from those due to the anthropogenic forcings described above. Solar forcing results in a general warming of the atmosphere (Figure 9.1a) with a pattern of surface warming that is similar to that expected from greenhouse gas warming, but in contrast to the response to greenhouse warming, the simulated solar-forced warming extends throughout the atmosphere (see, e.g., Cubasch et al., 1997).

There has been no hot spot as described by the IPCC.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39018 Sep 9, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
You wrote: Lie. Scientist, not scientists.
No, there were scientists:
Maslowski, Professor Peter Wadhams, Warwich Vincent James Hansen personally and NASA.…In fact Wadhams stated this: The implication is that this is not a cycle, not just a fluctuation. The loss this year will precondition the ice for the same thing to happen again next year, only worse. There will be even more opening up, even more absorption and even more melting.
Lie.

The 2013 prediction was not made by these scientists.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39019 Sep 9, 2013
kristy wrote:
You wrote: Lie. The increase was expected.
Really? A 60% increase was expected?
Yes- it's perfectly consistent with the downward trend.

Take a lesson from 2008.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39020 Sep 9, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Continued post:
You wrote about Artic ice: Lie. There are shipping records going back more than a hundred years and proxy records going back thousands.
You can’t compare satellite records to incomplete records from the past, especially since so many records were lost during WWII.
Here is an interesting history on the Arctic during that timeframe:
“The warming of the arctic seas has caused a diminishing of the arctic drift ice, which again has improved shipping conditions. In the 1907-1917 period Norwegian coal mines in Spitsbergen were able to load and export coal an average of 94 days each season, while 20 years later this period has been extended to 192 days. In 1878-80 Nordenskjold in the Vega was the first to navigate the North East Passage, but to do this he had to winter twice. In 1936 a convoy of fourteen Russian ships mode the trip in one season without encountering serious ice difficulties and during the last war this northern Sea route was used extensively by Soviet shipping. During 1942-45 even war ships, which are especially vulnerable to ice, were able to reach Thule without difficulty.
The seas around Greenland have also been remarkably open in later years. The east coast, which frequently remained completely blocked by pack-ice, in 1931-33 was almost free from ice.”“In 1941-42 the low-powered, 80 ton R.C.M.P. schooner St. Roch made the North West Passage for the first time from the Pacific to the Atlantic and again in 1944 in the opposite direction in only 87 days.”
http://www.thearcticcircle.ca/pdf/Arctic%20Ci...
Lie.

We have shipping maps from those period.

They show that the ice melt then was no comparable to the present.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39021 Sep 9, 2013
kristy wrote:
You said: Lie. Both polar ice caps are losing mass, ie melting.
Wrong:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.n...
Right, idiot.

My link is based on data up to 2011- yours only up to 2008.

Science moves on, denial doesn't.

You just copied and pasted from a denier blog as usual without thinking.

And did you actually read your link?

It says the Antarctic is losing mass due to *warming* but this has been counterbalanced by extra snow fall due to *warming*.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39022 Sep 9, 2013
kristy wrote:
You said I lied about the equator hot spot.
Wrong.
From your article: The hot spot is not a unique greenhouse signature and finding the hot spot doesn't prove that humans are causing global warming.
From the IPCC AR4: Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in the troposphere, cooling in the stratosphere, and, for transient simulations, somewhat more warming near the surface in the NH due to its larger land fraction, which has a shorter surface response time to the warming than do ocean regions (Figure 9.1c). The simulated responses to natural forcing are distinct from those due to the anthropogenic forcings described above. Solar forcing results in a general warming of the atmosphere (Figure 9.1a) with a pattern of surface warming that is similar to that expected from greenhouse gas warming, but in contrast to the response to greenhouse warming, the simulated solar-forced warming extends throughout the atmosphere (see, e.g., Cubasch et al., 1997).
There has been no hot spot as described by the IPCC.
The conclusion from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (co-authored by UAH's John Christy) is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between model and satellite observations is measurement uncertainty.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-...

When even a sceptic like Christy says there's nothing here to see, maybe you should take notice?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39023 Sep 9, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Lie.
We have shipping maps from those period.
They show that the ice melt then was no comparable to the present.
And cut'n paste denier spam too.

Krusty as usual runs to the denier blogs for a response.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#39024 Sep 9, 2013
krust wrote:
So instead we have a 60% increase in ice over the previous year......
.......as I said near the end of 2012, might occur in 2013..... altho I didn't state 60%, as you say & lie.

As usual, toxic topix AGW deniers take the extraordinary 2012 collapse of sea ice (as they did in 2007) & make it THEIR standard bearer. Of course, toxic topix AGW deniers denied to the end, the collapse of 2007 & 2012, by NOT saying anything.

Also, sea ice has NOT increased by 60%. Due to temporary Arctic colds, Arctic sea ice volume(a much better measure than extent) is presently 16% greater than the period 2010 to Current. Present September 1, 2013 sea ice VOLUME is ~5100 cubic kilometers,~10,000 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period to September 1.

The cackling of 'krusty' is actually a coughing spell of toxic topix AGW denial.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#39025 Sep 9, 2013
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
It did not happen. We made it. Glad it is finally over. That was scary.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#39026 Sep 9, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
.......as I said near the end of 2012, might occur in 2013..... altho I didn't state 60%, as you say & lie.
As usual, toxic topix AGW deniers take the extraordinary 2012 collapse of sea ice (as they did in 2007) & make it THEIR standard bearer. Of course, toxic topix AGW deniers denied to the end, the collapse of 2007 & 2012, by NOT saying anything.
Also, sea ice has NOT increased by 60%. Due to temporary Arctic colds, Arctic sea ice volume(a much better measure than extent) is presently 16% greater than the period 2010 to Current. Present September 1, 2013 sea ice VOLUME is ~5100 cubic kilometers,~10,000 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period to September 1.
The cackling of 'krusty' is actually a coughing spell of toxic topix AGW denial.
Hey, gourd head!!! when will warming ever be deemed as temporary in your world???

LOL

btw....what is 'altho'??? We all know what a stickler you are for spelling! Did you finish middle school, mullet???

take a bath you 'steenking foul reprobate". you smell of used bytch.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#39027 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
No delusions in these articles. The articles are written in response to climate scientists who predicted an ice-free Arctic in the summer of 2013. So instead we have a 60% increase in ice over the previous year. Of course this is news and should be reported. If it was a 60% decrease in ice, don’t you think that would be reported? A 60% increase or decrease over one year is big news. The climate scientists who predicted an ice-free Arctic this summer seem to be ones who are delusional. Don’t you believe these scientists should be held accountable for their predictions? And of course we all know that the Arctic ice has decreased since 1979, but there are not any good records to compare what the ice extent was like before then. The melting of the Arctic does not prove that man is responsible for the recent trend, it just proves we have been warming, but not in any kind of alarming rate. None of the IPCC predictions of the major signs of AGW have materialized. Both poles are not melting and there is no equator hot spot that they say must happen that triggers a positive climate feedback and temperatures have reached a standstill for 15 years despite greater than expected CO2 levels.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/prin...

This graph is interactive and will allow you to compare any two years.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39028 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Lie.
The 2013 prediction was not made by these scientists.
OTTAWA (Reuters)- The Arctic is warming up so quickly that the region's sea ice cover in summer could vanish as early as 2013, decades earlier than some had predicted, a leading polar expert said on Thursday. Warwick Vincent, director of the Center for Northern Studies at Laval University in Quebec, said recent data on the ice cover "appear to be tracking the most pessimistic of the models", which call for an ice free summer in 2013.

http://www.achangeinthewind.com/2009/03/arcti...

This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/...

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

Hansen and Wadhams agreed with the prediction and in fact promoted the prediction in public media, thus giving the prediction credence. Wadhams actually said this about Maslowski’s model giving the prediction even more credence:“Some models have not been taking proper account of the physical processes that go on," he commented. "The ice is thinning faster than it is shrinking; and some modellers have been assuming the ice was a rather thick slab.” "Wieslaw's model is more efficient because it works with data and it takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice." He cited the ice-albedo feedback effect in which open water receives more solar radiation, which in turn leads to additional warming and further melting. Professor Wadhams said the Arctic was now being set up for further ice loss in the coming years. "The implication is that this is not a cycle, not just a fluctuation. The loss this year will precondition the ice for the same thing to happen again next year, only worse.

And in 2012, Wadhams has now claimed the Arctic will be ice free by 2015/2016.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/s...

So again I ask, where is Skeptical Science lecturing any of these scientists with their “regression toward the mean” theory? I’m sure they will be out in 2015 lecturing the skeptics when the media reports a response to Wadhams’ 2015 prediction. I mean how dare the skeptics hold someone accountable to their predictions.

So you are the liar, claiming there was only one scientist that predicted a 2013 ice-free Arctic and calling me a liar by stating NONE of these scientists predicted an ice-free Arctic in 2013.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39029 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes- it's perfectly consistent with the downward trend.
Take a lesson from 2008.
Never said there was not a downward trend, perfectly in line with a world that has been warming. This was about predictions made by climate scientists who believed the Arctic would be ice free today.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39030 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, idiot.
My link is based on data up to 2011- yours only up to 2008.
Science moves on, denial doesn't.
You just copied and pasted from a denier blog as usual without thinking.
And did you actually read your link?
It says the Antarctic is losing mass due to *warming* but this has been counterbalanced by extra snow fall due to *warming*.
I am so glad to see that we have spent millions of dollars on satellites only to find out the scientists get conflicting results from all the different satellites. The paper I posted was from ICEstat, a NASA project that was used in the paper you posted.

From the ICEstat website:
ICESat (Ice, Cloud,and land Elevation Satellite) is the benchmark Earth Observing System mission for measuring ice sheet mass balance, cloud and aerosol heights, as well as land topography and vegetation characteristics. From 2003 to 2009, the ICESat mission provided multi-year elevation data needed to determine ice sheet mass balance as well as cloud property information, especially for stratospheric clouds common over polar areas. It also provided topography and vegetation data around the globe, in addition to the polar-specific coverage over the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

So this is the benchmark for measuring ice sheet balance and it says the mass in Antarctica has been increasing, but yet other information says Antarctica mass is decreasing and we haven’t even included the error margins, so basically here we are again at “we just don’t know for sure.” And seriously, we are talking about 0.013 inches per year sea level rise for Antarctica according to your paper, which is statistically zero.

But this is all a strawman argument, because Antarctica is not behaving as predicted by models and by the AGW hypothesis. For these scientists to now say the extra snow is from warming is a lie. The prediction was always for decreased sea ice. If they thought warming produced snow, they would have incorporated that into their models. Instead, none of their models agree with the observations.

Just a few papers on this:

The recent observed positive trends in total Antarctic sea ice extent are at odds with the expectation of melting sea ice in a warming world. More problematic yet, climate models indicate that sea ice should decrease around Antarctica in response to both increasing greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion.
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/polvani+smi...

We investigate the effect of stratospheric ozone recovery on Antarctic sea ice in the next half-century, by comparing two ensembles of integrations of the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model, from 2001 to 2065. One ensemble is performed by specifying all forcings as per the Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5; the second ensemble is identical in all respects, except for the surface concentrations of ozone depleting substances, which are held fixed at year 2000 levels, thus preventing stratospheric ozone recovery. Sea ice extent declines in both ensembles, as a consequence of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/...

This paper examines the annual cycle and trends in Antarctic sea ice extent (SIE) for 18 models used in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) that were run with historical forcing for the 1850s to 2005. Many of the models have an annual SIE cycle that differs markedly from that observed over the last 30 years. The majority of models have too small of an SIE at the minimum in February, while several of the models have less than two-thirds of the observed SIE at the September maximum.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/J... ;
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39031 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-...
When even a sceptic like Christy says there's nothing here to see, maybe you should take notice?
So you keep sending me to Skeptical Science, but they keep coming up with strawman arguments. The whole point is that the AGW hypothesis and models don’t match observations. This is what Christy said regarding model/observation discrepancy on the hot spot:

A particularly obvious feature of this expected warming, and is a key focus of this blog post, is that this warming increases with altitude where the rate of warming at 10 km altitude is over twice that of the rate at the surface. This clear model response should be detectible by now (i.e. 2012) which gives us an opportunity to check whether the real world is responding as the models’ simulate for a large-scale, easy-to-compare quantity. This is why we care about the tropical atmospheric temperature.

We see that all 73 models anticipated greater warming than actually occurred for the period 1979-2012. Of importance here too is that the balloons and satellites represent two independent observing systems but they display extremely consistent results. This provides a relatively high level of confidence that the observations as depicted here have small errors. The observational trends from both systems are slightly less than +0.06 °C/decade which is a value insignificantly different from zero. The mean TMT model trend is +0.26 °C/decade which is significantly positive in a statistical sense. The observed satellite and balloon TLT trends (not shown) are +0.10 and +0.09 °C/decade respectively, and the mean model TLT trend is +0.28 °C/decade. In a strict hypothesis test, the mean model trend can be shown to be statistically different from that of the observations, so that one can say the model-mean has been falsified (a result stated in a number of publications already for earlier sets of model output.) In other words, the model mean tropical tropospheric temperature trend is warming significantly faster than observations (See Douglass and Christy 2013 for further information.)

The bottom line is that, while I have some ideas based on some evidence, I don’t know why models are so aggressive at warming the atmosphere over the last 34 years relative to the real world. The complete answer is probably different for each model. To answer that question would take a tremendous model evaluation program run by independent organizations that has yet to be formulated and funded.

What I can say from the standpoint of applying the scientific method to a robust response-feature of models, is that the average model result is inconsistent with the observed rate of change of tropical tropospheric temperature - inconsistent both in absolute magnitude and in vertical structure (Douglass and Christy 2013.) This indicates our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous and, as suggested by Stevens and Bony, this performance by the models indicates we need to go back to the basics. From this statement there is only a short distance to the next - the use of climate models in policy decisions is, in my view, not to be recommended at this time.

http://www.climatedialogue.org/the-missing-tr...

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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 12 min Guru 181,927
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 2 hr Joe fortuna 201,181
New list puts Vallejo among the statea s most d... 22 hr fred 3
Gay marriage (Mar '13) Dec 19 HOLME 56,692
Vital points in Construction Accidents (Apr '08) Dec 19 Pavlos Lombardi 2
Condoleezza Rice urges Republican party to be m... (Mar '14) Dec 18 Swedenforever 58
Seeking lawyer for big lawsuit Dec 18 Outraged 1
More from around the web