Global Warming Violates the Basic Laws of Physics.

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Wow, I guess physicists have nothing to say now about the "physics" of GHGs?....

It wasn't about the physics of GHGs, it was an attempt to refute a meteorological hypothesis with a thermodynamics argument. The scientific literature is littered with many failed attempts to show that something is impossible. A couple that I'll cite from The Daily Galaxy are

“If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can’t do this.” — Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M “Post-It” Notepads.

“Space travel is bunk.” — Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of the UK, 1957 (two weeks later Sputnik orbited the Earth). Should of talked to an engineer I suppose.

“The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.” — Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project Too bad he wasn't a physicist.

This paper would have been a paper about the physics of GHG if it had been explanatory in nature but it is not. Obviously there is a legitimate need to understand the physics involved in meteorological models, but this just ain't it.


First of all that paper you gave comes from ONE physicist, meanwhile the other paper had two physicist... Someone wise enough once said two heads think better than one...

Are you seriously claiming that the quality of a published scientific paper depends on the number of authors??? What a load of rubbish! Serious scientists prefer to judge a paper based on the content rather than the number of authors or number of pages or how long the equations they use are.



Did anyone ever tell you what ASSUMING proves?.... That's what AGW claims are all about flawed assumptions made by people whose whole career depend on the survival of GCMs nomatter how flawed they are...

Yes you cited a place where the author stated his assumptions for a specific calculation. Due to the complexity of natural systems, we always make assumptions in the development of our models, and it is considered good science to state exactly what those assumptions are. Bad science is where we make assumptions and present them as established fact. As for the rest of your rant, it has absolutely no bearing on anything I stated and seems to be an attempt to use some form of an ad hominem argument to muddy the waters with political rhetoric. Sorry, not taking the troll bait




Originally posted by metamagic

Science is exact, scientists are not.


Really science is exact?.... Obviously you don't know much about science because science is ALWAYS EVOLVING..... Science is neither exact nor is it settled....

From the time of the Egyptians, or the ancient Chinese, or the Greeks til today science has EVOLVED quite a bit, and we keep learning new things, and we keep finding out things that once was thought impossible "because science said so" are more than possible.

This last bit of yours is the funniest part yet. First of all, learn the difference between the words "exact" and "static". Science being exact means that we strive or accuracy, precision and to quantify that which we are working with. We strive to follow a set of rules about inference, deduction and proof that allow us to work productively within a paradigm. Scientists, on the other hand often fall short of ideal of scientific exactness for a variety of reasons, one of which is applying the exactness of the scientific method to phenomena that it should not.. You claim that science is not exact because it is evolving is totally nonsensical, science is evolving because it is exact.

And a final delicious bit of irony, you last line we keep finding out things that once was thought impossible "because science said so" are more than possible. proves exactly my original point... climate change is not impossible just because some scientist said so.

Thank you for an entertaining morning Electric.




posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I would really like to see an answer to a very simple question, just how does %0.004 of the atmosphere( thats rounded up) (CO2, thats 383 parts per million) heat up the other %99.006?
All the blogs I go on, never get an answer, I have read that Methane holds 20 times more heat than CO2, but it hardly gets a mention, or water vapour.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
kinda sick of this discussion now , regardless of whether man has an effect on global warming , we are still needlessly polluting our planet for profit !

and thats the bottom line because mother earth said so



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
This is entertaining!


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Your point seems to be that you are trying to refute this by making a claim which really refutes nothing, and has nothing to do with the thread. I have worked with scientists of many different fields and I have valued their opinions as they have valued mine, but that doesn't prove anything at all does it?

Oh but it has everything to do with the thread. You presented a paper which you are using to support your belief that climate change can't happen on scientific grounds and that makes questions the validity of the your arguments and proof quite relevant. If you are going to play the science game, then you can't make methodological issues go away by waving your hands and saying they are not relevant. And by the way, methodological questions do not "refute" anything, they merely call into question the errors that may have been made in arriving at a particular conclusion.

Further, valuing opinions has nothing to do with science. You seem to keep confusing the human foibles of scientists with the principles of science.


Well, i guess your point must be then not to trust anyone who dares to argue against models which are based on flawed assumptions...
Actually i have to say beware of those who would tell you not to believe scientists just because they, and their research happens to disagree with "standard models".

No, not at all what I said, that is your illogical and erroneous assumption. One should always argue against models with flawed assumptions, actually we call that science. Disagreements with standard models are routine, I guess you don't really follow science that closely or you would know that. My warning was that a scientist in one paradigm, let's say chemistry, generally is not going to make valid critiques of another field's paradigm, astrophysics say, unless that also understand the paradigm that they are critiquing In particular I pointed out that scientists who switch fields are different because they can bring their insights into a field of study and are better at detecting those flawed assumptions,


It isn't just a single piece of paper. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers, and thousands of scientists who have shown and or state AGW is a lie. A lie that is as dead as Mann's Hockey Stick graph.

Then we have the leaked emails, the several errors that the IPCC had to concede recently they based their claims on, and the fact that nature itself has shown AGW is a lie.

Now you are ranting. You are prepared to accept without question any paper that supports your belief or that calls anyone who argues against your belief a liar. So I'm calling you on it. Prove it. You state that there are hundreds of peer reviewed research papers that call climate change a lie. For economy, list 20 research papers (not opinion pieces) that call climate change a lie, complete with the citation from the peer reviewed journals (not those published or financed by special interest groups like lobby groups). Remember, they have to state that it is a lie. Put up or shut up.



As i said above there is more than just this paper, and btw should people be impressed by your statements that "you have worked with both types of scientists" and take this claim of yours as proof that AGW is true?

I can't even begin to imagine the jump of illogic you made here. You don't even know my position on AGW and yet you just assume that I'm trying to prove it true. Again, another challenge to you -- at what point in any post in this thread have I made that claim or made a statement in support of that claim? Unless you can show me, stop putting words in my mouth and stick to commenting only on what I say, not on what you fantasize about me.


Originally posted by melatonin
So, science is exact, scientists are not. Science is logical and has no ego, scientists are not and do have 'em.

Caveat discipulus.


Uh oh.. are you fiddling with sources here? I'm not melatonin.


No offense, but I have a hard time believing you have worked with scientists and yet you claim "science is exact"...

Science is not exact, science is always evolving because at the end science is but the estimated guess of a human who is flawed just because he/she is human.

Computer models are made by men, or women, and like humans computer models are flawed, and this is a fact that several peer-reviewed research has shown.

You beliefs about me personally have nothing to do with my augments..but lets go to the last comment you make above about flawed models.

You mean like the models you are presenting to refute global warming? Intellectual honesty demands that you apply the same standards of proof to both sides of the argument.

Guess you didn't read my post, or maybe you read it and didn't understand it. You really need to understand what models are before you spout this nonsense. Yes science is an estimated guess, which is why we need exactness. Anyone who does science understands that models are always an approximation of the phenomena we are modeling, and it is our holding exactness as a principle that allows us to refine our models. That is why scientists talk about the "fit" of a model to the data.

Flaws are errors a very different thing than how closely a model fits the data or the explanatory power of a model.

Would you like me to recommend some reading material?




[edit on 28-1-2010 by metamagic]

[edit on 28-1-2010 by metamagic]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Lots of stars to the posters who jumped on this article as the nonsense that it is.
Just wanted to say nice work!



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


What in the world are you talking about?... Please learn how to make a coherent argument before you post illogical rhetoric which proves nothing but your state of mind...

The Earth is NOT a closed system,



Glad to see you fully agreed with my post then...although you have a odd way of stating your agreement.

As I said, earth is not a closed system, else the reporting the OPs pointed to would have some relevance.

The issue at hand is how much heat leaves the planet...greenhouse gases traps the heat, and more greenhouse gases effectively traps more...so less and less escape...eventually you hit the tipping point where the world gets hotter without releasing enough back out and voila...climate destabilization. the greenhouse gases combined with less polar ice caps to reflect rays away = eventual disaster.

but what do me and the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community know...some guy in germany said earth is a closed system therefore greenhouses dont work...oh, and some politicians said it was fake...therefore it must be fake...damn you scientists...trying to pull the wool over our eyes again with your round earth talk.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by pikestaff
I would really like to see an answer to a very simple question, just how does %0.004 of the atmosphere( thats rounded up) (CO2, thats 383 parts per million) heat up the other %99.006?
All the blogs I go on, never get an answer, I have read that Methane holds 20 times more heat than CO2, but it hardly gets a mention, or water vapour.


Also, how does a virus, basically taking a fraction of a bodys mass, end up killing a person...its soo small...this logic also dismisses viruses as potentially deadly.

Never underestimate the impact of something simply because its smaller than the rest of the system...

Methane is also a greenhouse gas, yes...and potentially causes equal if not more of the global issue over time than man does...we certainly are not helping the problem, and even the most extreme agenda to curb our emmissions will do almost nothing to help the planet...extend it a few years, sure...but the catastrophe will not be averted with any measures put in place today.

time to invent new atmospheric scrubbers to help balance the ecosystem and nullify our impact...along with keep it in a place that is most beneficial towards our life and the rest of the furrys.

I believe in the science behind C.D., however I laugh at the solutions...cap and trade is a farce...it will do nothing....moving to solar energy? sure...someone give me 250k so I can put them on my house and go oil free...its all bullocks. Progress and natural cycle got us into this mess, and technological innovation will be the only way to get us out...time to invent a high tech highly efficient tree.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by FortAnthem
 

Oh look I'm a physicist and I can do better climate science than a climate scientist!!!


So who is going to be right? Scientists who have decades of experience in climate science, or retired scientists taking up climate science as a hobby. Stick to your own field of expertise please guys!


[edit on 27-1-2010 by john124]


If the world had taken the view you espouse here Einstein would have remained a patent clerk.

If the world had taken your view there would be no progress because no one would be able to overturn previous and incorrect notions. By your argument we should also dismiss your post because these men are more learned than you.

I don't yet know the validity of these claims but I know enough to know that I know nothing. I'll be reserving my judgement until all the facts are in and analysed.

S&F for the OP.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by spookfish]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ventian
No one seems to have the ba**s to say it so I will. Those two guys may be just a handful of scientists we have left. Science is about disproving theories in order to prove theories. This whole global warming thing has destroyed the scientific communities credibility. These so called scientists (for funding) have continually tried to prove global warming. They immediately jumped on board in order to please TPTB and line their pockets. Flame me and say I am wrong but it doesn't change the fact that most of the leading "scientists" aren't expanding our knowledge, they are expanding their wallets.


Seconded.

Their careers rely on recieved wisdom. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, whether it is correct or not. I see parallels here with the field of egyptology and the dogma of the classical eyptologists.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Also, how does a virus, basically taking a fraction of a bodys mass, end up killing a person...its soo small...this logic also dismisses viruses as potentially deadly.

Never underestimate the impact of something simply because its smaller than the rest of the system...



you got that right.. once I warmed up a mansion with 14 rooms by use of a single light-bulb


[edit on 28-1-2010 by Ionut]

[edit on 28-1-2010 by Ionut]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


earth is a closed system it means it only receives energy (as you said sunlight) but not matter. And when you think about meteors and outer space well that isn't enough matter compared to earth's size.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


There is a flaw in their reasoning: the second law of thermodynamics precludes conductive or convection head transfer, just as they explain.

But not all heat transfer is conductive or by convection. Some heat transfer occurs because of radiant heat. In that case, the heat transfer will occur if the radiant source is irradiating the surface of anything target in its path, minus any heat radiated away by the target.

In the case of the planet, heat does not need to be transferred from the atmosphere to the warmer ground for the ground to have a net heat gain. The gain (...assuming there is one..., as I am not taking any sides, other than the side of accurate science) would come from radiant heat transfer.

Heat transfer from solar radiation to the ground is not conductive, so there needs to be no violation of any laws of thermodynamics for the ground to heat up under the sun. The heat radiated from the ground back out just needs to be less than the heat received for a net gain in heat to occur.

They are able to find violations to the laws of physics only by making overwhelmingly simplified assumptions about how heat is transferred to the earth.

Global warming may still be bunk (I don't know either way) but what they present is flawed.

-rrr



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ionut

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Also, how does a virus, basically taking a fraction of a bodys mass, end up killing a person...its soo small...this logic also dismisses viruses as potentially deadly.

Never underestimate the impact of something simply because its smaller than the rest of the system...



you got that right.. once I warmed up a mansion with 14 rooms by use of a single light-bulb


[edit on 28-1-2010 by Ionut]

[edit on 28-1-2010 by Ionut]


If you are implying that the earth is like a mansion and then SUN is a light bulb, then this is a seriously flawed analogy.

-rrr



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danna
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


earth is a closed system it means it only receives energy (as you said sunlight) but not matter. And when you think about meteors and outer space well that isn't enough matter compared to earth's size.



Closed means - 100% isolated, no energy exchange. What you are talking about is a maybe a "super thermosbottle".



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
A 'climate scientist' is one who studies climate specifically. Physicists can study climate, and when they do, they are called climate scientists.

All of the arguments that belittle these two scientists as out-of-their-element are bunk.

Who would you believe? A physicist or a climate scientist? But what if the physicists were also climate scientists? One needs more information than they are wrong because it is not their field of study, when, in fact, it is exactly what they are studying.

As for scientists acting like someone they aren't, why don't climate scientists and Al Gore stop acting like economists and why don't economists stop acting like politicians.

The question isn't, "Does climate change exist"? It is "What is the most prudent form of action that we could take if climate change exists or not"? You will find the answer for the latter question is the same regardless of climate changes validity.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
as usual, scientists are making their suppositions without looking at, and knowing the bigger picture...

for example, a month ago an interesting article appeared on NASA website:

NASA article link


December 23, 2009: The solar system is passing through an interstellar cloud that physics says should not exist...


I repeat:

...that physics says should not exist...


sound familiar?


continued:


Astronomers call the cloud we're running into now the Local Interstellar Cloud or "Local Fluff" for short. It's about 30 light years wide and contains a wispy mixture of hydrogen and helium atoms at a temperature of 6000 C.


I repeat:


...at a temperature of 6000 C...


and most of all from the same article:


...possibly affecting terrestrial climate and the ability of astronauts to travel safely through space...


any normal, healthy person with standard mental capacity could make a conclusion that this could be the reason why temperatures are changing not only on planet Earth, but in the whole Solar system too...

...but not climate (and most of other specialization) scientists, they are so occupied with their ego, their careers and their dogmas that they can't think straight, while in the same time, the answer is in front of their noses





[edit on 28-1-2010 by donhuangenaro]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by DINSTAAR

The question isn't, "Does climate change exist"? It is "What is the most prudent form of action that we could take if climate change exists or not"? You will find the answer for the latter question is the same regardless of climate changes validity.


A very good point. Well said.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Since this thread has drawn such interest from those on both sides of the isle, I thought it important that the actual findings of the study should be included in the thread.

This way the posters can know what they are talking about as they either tear apart or defend this study:



Physicist's Summary
A thorough discussion of the planetary heat transfer problem in the framework of theoreticalphysics and engineering thermodynamics leads to the following results:
1. There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass housesand the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect, which explains the relevant physicalphenomena. The terms \greenhouse effect" and \greenhouse gases" are deliberate misnomers.
2. There are no calculations to determinate an average surface temperature of a planet
_ with or without an atmosphere,
_ with or without rotation,
_ with or without infrared light absorbing gases.
The frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees C for the fictitious greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is therefore a meaningless number.
3. Any radiation balance for the average radiant flux is completely irrelevant for the determination of the ground level air temperatures and thus for the average value as well.
4. Average temperature values cannot be identified with the fourth root of average values of the absolute temperature's fourth power.
5. Radiation and heat flows do not determine the temperature distributions and their average values.
6. Re-emission is not reflection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the actual heat flow without mechanical work.
7. The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a perpetuum mobile of the second kind. This is possible by setting the thermal conductivity in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical assumption. It would be no longer a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the \average" fictitious radiation balance, which has no physical justification anyway, was given up.
8. After Schack 1972 water vapor is responsible for most of the absorption of the infrared radiation in the Earth's atmosphere. The wavelength of the part of radiation, which is absorbed by carbon dioxide is only a small part of the full infrared spectrum and does not change considerably by raising its partial pressure.
9. Infrared absorption does not imply \backwarming". Rather it may lead to a drop of the temperature of the illuminated surface.
10. In radiation transport models with the assumption of local thermal equilibrium, it is assumed that the absorbed radiation is transformed into the thermal movement of all gas molecules. There is no increased selective re-emission of infrared radiation at the low temperatures of the Earth's atmosphere.
11. In climate models, planetary or astrophysical mechanisms are not accounted for properly. The time dependency of the gravity acceleration by the Moon and the Sun (high tide and low tide) and the local geographic situation, which is important for the local climate, cannot be taken into account.
12. Detection and attribution studies, predictions from computer models in chaotic systems, and the concept of scenario analysis lie outside the framework of exact sciences, in particular theoretical physics.
13. The choice of an appropriate discretization method and the definition of appropriate dynamical constraints (flux control) having become a part of computer modelling is nothing but another form of data curve fitting. The mathematical physicist v. Neumann once said to his young collaborators: \If you allow me four free parameters I can build a mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you allow me a fifth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will fly." (cf. Ref. [185].)
14. Higher derivative operators (e.g. the Laplacian) can never be represented on grids with wide meshes. Therefore a description of heat conduction in global computer models is impossible. The heat conduction equation is not and cannot properly be represented on grids with wide meshes.
15. Computer models of higher dimensional chaotic systems, best described by non-linear partial differential equations (i.e. Navier-Stokes equations), fundamentally differ from calculations where perturbation theory is applicable and successive improvements of the predictions - by raising the computing power - are possible. At best, these computer models may be regarded as a heuristic game.
16. Climatology misinterprets unpredictability of chaos known as buttery phenomenon as another threat to the health of the Earth.

Study




[edit on 28-1-2010 by FortAnthem]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.


“It’s believed that what drives climate change on Mars are orbital variations,” said Jeffrey Plaut, a project scientist for NASA’s Mars Odyssey mission. “The Earth also goes through orbital variations similar to that of Mars.”


Live Science


Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.


In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

National Geographic


ScienceDaily (Mar. 21, 2003) — Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.


"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York.

Science Daily

Pro Climate Change - Stanford University
I guess our SUV's Caused GW 400,1000,even 2000 years ago

in June 2006 voiced a "high level of confidence" that Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, and possibly even the last 2,000 years. Studies indicate that the average global surface temperature has increased by approximately 0.5-1.0°F (0.3-0.6°C) over the last century. This is the largest increase in surface temperature in the last 1,000 years and scientists are predicting an even greater increase over this century.

Stanford Solar Center

And last but not least no one ever seems to think of this one. The Earth should be turning into a jungle right?

Photosynthesis (from the Greek φώτο- [photo-], "light," and σύνθεσις [synthesis], "putting together.", "composition") is a process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight.[1] Photosynthesis occurs in plants, algae, and many species of Bacteria, but not in Archaea. Photosynthetic organisms are called photoautotrophs, since it allows them to create their own food. In plants, algae and cyanobacteria photosynthesis uses carbon dioxide and water, releasing oxygen as a waste product.

Wikipedia

Just saying.....

[edit on 28-1-2010 by timewalker]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
The rest of the Physicists Summary:



In other words: Already the natural greenhouse effect is a myth beyond physical reality. The CO2-greenhouse effect, however is a \mirage" [205]. The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanisms as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo-explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training. A good example are the radiation transport calculations, which are probably not known by many. Another example
are the so-called feedback mechanisms, which are introduced to amplify an effect which is not marginal but does not exist at all. Evidently, the defenders of the CO2-greenhouse thesis refuse to accept any reproducible calculation as an explanation and have resorted to unreproducible ones. A theoretical physicist must complain about a lack of transparency here, and he also has to complain about the style of the scientific discussion, where advocators of the greenhouse thesis claim that the discussion is closed, and others are discrediting justified arguments as a discussion of \questions of yesterday and the day before yesterday". In exact sciences, in particular in theoretical physics, the discussion is never closed and is to be continued ad infinitum, even if there are proofs of theorems available. Regardless of the specific field of studies a minimal basic rule should be fulfilled in natural science, though, even if the scientific fields are methodically as far apart as physics and meteorology: At least among experts, the results and conclusions should be understandable or reproducible. And it
should be strictly distinguished between a theory and a model on the one hand, and between a model and a scenario on the other hand, as clari_ed in the philosophy of science. That means that if conclusions out of computer simulations are to be more than simple speculations, then in addition to the examination of the numerical stability and the estimation of the effects of the many vague input parameters, at least the simplifications of the physical
original equations should be critically exposed. Not the critics have to estimate the effects of the approximation, but the scientists who do the computer simulations.
Global warming is good : : : The net effect of a modest global warming is positive." (Singer). In any case, it is extremely interesting to understand the dynamics and causes of the long-term fluctuations of the climates. However, it was not the purpose of this paper to get into all aspects of the climate variability debate.
The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric effect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.



The complete study is available Here.





new topics
top topics
 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join