Impact of Climate Change Is Hitting Home, U.S. Report Finds

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]
Yes, I know who James Hanson is! And he is a joke. Do you know what add junk professor means?😃
 
wittgenstein said:
Response to post 256
I do not understand why you think the official Catholic (Vatican and U.S. Bishops)position is anti science!
Click to expand...
Good stewardship is an “official” position.

The Holy Father - nor the Bishops embrace ideologies.

Until the Science has empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis of CAGW - It is NOT Science. It is a “BELIEF” 
 based not on science but “faith”
an ideology.

What do the Commandments say about IDOLS ?
 
wittgenstein said:
[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]
Yes, I know who James Hanson is! And he is a joke.
Click to expand...
You said you believed NASA.
Originally Posted by wittgenstein
I will still agree with the US bishops and NASA,
Click to expand...
What job does James Hansen hold and for who?

BTW your AGW NASA hero spells his name HANSEN - Not Hanson
 
lynnvinc said:
Well, as I said, humans have thrived very well in the Holocene climate with about 260 ppm of CO2. There are extremophiles that can exist in other climates. I think they say there could even be some microscopic extremophiles in the atmosphere of Venus.

It all depends on whether you value extremophiles over humans (and other creatures & crops that do well in a Holocene-type climate). I tend to value humans more – even tho they can be quite mean and nasty at times 🙂
Click to expand...
Thank you for your comment but I although I know what 260 ppm means I can’t decipher it in normal terms. I have read that the total amount of Co2 in our atmosphere is less than 0.0004 of the total atmosphere. Is that incorrect? It seems to me in any case that a slight increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere would have not have any effect on the average daily temperature over the entire surface of the Earth.

For one thing, even though -warming alarmists call CO2 a “Greenhouse gas” and all of us know that actual greenhouses are warmer than the surrounding atmospheric temperature because the completely glass surface of the greenhouse acts like a solar oven. The increased Co2 in the greenhouse is nice for the plants because they breathe in Co2 and breathe out O2 but the CO2 has nothing to do with the increased temperature in the greenhouse, it is the solar oven effect that does that. Thank you for your interesting comment.
 
Almagore said:
Thank you for your comment but I although I know what 260 ppm means I can’t decipher it in normal terms. I have read that the total amount of Co2 in our atmosphere is less than 0.0004 of the total atmosphere. Is that incorrect? It seems to me in any case that a slight increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere would have not have any effect on the average daily temperature over the entire surface of the Earth.

For one thing, even though -warming alarmists call CO2 a “Greenhouse gas” and all of us know that actual greenhouses are warmer than the surrounding atmospheric temperature because the completely glass surface of the greenhouse acts like a solar oven. The increased Co2 in the greenhouse is nice for the plants because they breathe in Co2 and breathe out O2 but the CO2 has nothing to do with the increased temperature in the greenhouse, it is the solar oven effect that does that. Thank you for your interesting comment.
Click to expand...
You might find this graph interesting. 🙂

2.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SoxiDu0taDI/AAAAAAAABFI/Z2yuZCWtzvc/s1600/Geocarb%2BIII-Mine-03.jpg
 
LisaA said:
Does anyone DISAGREE with “protection of the environment?” Or “promotion of sustainable development?”
Click to expand...
I was going to say that people who are not into mitigating climate change would de facto disagree with “protection of the environment” and “promotion of sustainable development.” Because it just seems odd to me to speak of “sustainable development” on the one hand and charge ahead on the path toward destroying life on planet earth on the other.

I suspect with a lot of climate change denialists AND those concerned about climate change “protection of the environment” tends to amount to lipservice. I keep running into seemingly sincere environmentalists concerned about climate change who think mitigating it will (net) cost money. The point is anyone who is actually into mitigating climate change and most other environmental problems would KNOW that it saves money without necessarily reducing one’s living standards.

And then OTOH there are cases like my mother-in-law in India, who was not an environmentalist per se, but lived an extremely frugal life that would make nuns doing penance in a monastery look like prodigals – even tho we supplied her with plenty of money to live well (she used it to build a grotto at her local church to Our Lady of Lourdes). Her “environmental footprint” was only a small fraction of mine.

So I guess it is possible to do the right thing, even if it is for different reasons.

But I wouldn’t suggest living like my mother-in-law

 
Almagore said:
Thank you for your comment but I although I know what 260 ppm means I can’t decipher it in normal terms. I have read that the total amount of Co2 in our atmosphere is less than 0.0004 of the total atmosphere. Is that incorrect? It seems to me in any case that a slight increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere would have not have any effect on the average daily temperature over the entire surface of the Earth.
Click to expand...
I know it seems incredible (CO2 at .04% of the atmosphere), but that is the case, and in fact it was discovered over 100 years ago that without the “greenhouse effect” (mainly due to CO2, which is long-lasting in the atmosphere), the earth would be 30C cooler & life would not be possible. (It’s a bit complex – the warming that CO2 and some other gases cause, increases water vapor in the atmosphere – which is a powerful GHG, but its molecules only last up there a few days, so it is a positive “feedback,” and not a climate “forcing” like CO2.)

Here is something that discusses it, comparing it with the greehouse effect on Mars (a lot less) and Venus (a lot more) – see pg 22 & 24: columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf & BTW, he does not dispute (with kimmie) that CO2 has been a lot higher millions of years ago, but says with the sun giving more light and the rapidity with which we are emitting GHGs, the situations is different now and more dangerous.
For one thing, even though -warming alarmists call CO2 a “Greenhouse gas” and all of us know that actual greenhouses are warmer than the surrounding atmospheric temperature because the completely glass surface of the greenhouse acts like a solar oven. The increased Co2 in the greenhouse is nice for the plants because they breathe in Co2 and breathe out O2 but the CO2 has nothing to do with the increased temperature in the greenhouse, it is the solar oven effect that does that. Thank you for your interesting comment.
Click to expand...
Well, of course “the greenhouse effect” is only an analogy and the climate situation is not exactly like a greenhouse.

But you’d be surprised to know that scientists have actually pumped in more CO2 into greenhouses and have found that while C4 plants (many of our crops are C4) do a bit better, C3 plants (many of them weeds around C4 crops) do even better and choke out the crops. Also they found that insect damage is greater & figure it is because plants are not as nutritious and insects have to eat more to get their nutrients. And in the real world, when you add in warming and subtract out other necessities for crop growth (water, lacking in droughts; and oxygen for roots, lacking in flooded conditions; and nitrogen, etc) they expect a sharp decline in global agricultural productivity after about 2050, even despite CO2 “fertilization.”

So yes I have been “alarmed” enough over the past 22 years to get off my duff and do what I can to mitigate climate change, and try to “alarm” or inspire others to do the same. While I’ve been extremely successful at the former – reducing our GHG emission more than 60% below our 1990 level, saving us $1000s, while increasing our living standard, I have been an utter failure at the latter, unable to inspire others to mitigate climate change, even by telling about the money-savings, etc. Which has led me to understand that “there is no such thing as a rational economically maximizing man” – a free lunch perhaps, but not that type of man. It’s like instead there is some deep Freudian thanatos at work. The culture of death, or something. I don’t quite understand it, except perhaps that we all bear the mark of Cain, or something.

But I will persist to my dying day to try and get people “alarmed” enough to start mitigating climate change through the Little Way of Environmental Healing. That is my personal apostolate.
 
lynnvinc said:
Well, of course “the greenhouse effect” is only an analogy and the climate situation is not exactly like a greenhouse.

But you’d be surprised to know that scientists have actually pumped in more CO2 into greenhouses and have found that while C4 plants (many of our crops are C4) do a bit better,
Click to expand...
Once again, you do not understand what you state.

In general, plants which follow a C4 pathway originated in subtropical areas

Corn - sorghum, millet, and sugarcane are the main C4 crops.

List of c4 Plants:
  1. Crab Grass
  2. Corn
  3. Amaranth
  4. Sorgham.
  5. Millet.
  6. Sugarcane.
  7. Nut grass
  8. Crab Grass
  9. Barnyard grass.
  10. fourwinged salt bush.
Weeds, generally, fall in the GRASSES a C4 cat.
C3 plants (many of them weeds around C4 crops) do even better and choke out the crops.
Click to expand...
C3 main crops are Soybeans - Rice - Wheat - Rye - Barley - Cassava - Potatoes - Algae - Spinach - Yams - Oranges - Grapes - Coffee plant -Tea Plants - Peanut - Lemon - Carrots - Peaches - Apples

“Weeds” unintended / unwanted plants ] will “choke” unattended crops - TRUE

Vegetation ALL LIFE ] is opportunistic - TRUE

Successful croppers do not allow “weeds” to grow without cultivation - or unchecked.
Also they found that insect damage is greater & figure it is because plants are not as nutritious and insects have to eat more to get their nutrients.
Click to expand...
So what you are essentially saying: Increased CO2
 benefits not only vegetation but other life forms, as well. 🙂
 
lynnvinc said:
Also they found that insect damage is greater & figure it is because plants are not as nutritious and insects have to eat more to get their nutrients.
Click to expand...
One interesting thing May Berenbaum found::: :Increase of CO2 - EXTENDED LIFETIME in insects.
The beetles on the high CO2 soybean plants lived longer, and as a result produced more offspring, than those living outside the Soy FACE plot.
Click to expand...
sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.htm

Alarmist site ]

Here we have observational evidence that this life form - benefits from increased CO2 with LONGEVITY and REPRODUCTIVITY


Could increased CO2 be the elixir for HUMAN LONGEVITY ???

Humans evolve slowly

 
I don’t understand when you say that the official position of the Catholic Church is not that increased CO2 levels are increasing and causing Global Warming. I received something from the Catholic Church I attend and it was on the news that the Pope said that The Church has no argument with science and also with the fact that the Earth is warming and if not stopped will cause great harm to people. If the pope makes an announcement about something I am confident that he is expressing the official Church view.

As to your statement that, “Thou shall not kill” is the official doctrine of the Church. I was taught that the teachings of the Catholic Church stand on 3 pillars; Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the pronouncements of the Magisterium; but that nothing can oppose Sacred Scripture. There are old translations of the Hebrew in the Old Testament that say that that particular commandment is, “Thou shall not kill.” The Commandment in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament that is by some translated “kill” is “ratsach”, and means to Murder.

The Greek word in the New Testament Greek that used to be always translated as kill but now in some translations “to Murder” is, “phoneuo”, which means to murder.

I had a hard time believing the Bible before I knew what I just wrote. That is because the Commandment was always translated as “Thou shall not kill” was one of the commandments that God gave to Moses on Mt. Sinai but God also told Moses that the Punishment for certain crimes was the death penalty. If the Bible is true, how could that huge inconsistancy be there. When I learned that the correct translation was, Murder, then there was no inconsistancy and I was able to eventually come to see that the Bible in it’s original languages of Hebrew and Greek is true and is the Word of God.

I know that the official position of the Catholic Church is the sanctity of life from conception untill natural death, but our Church also has the position that a war can be a “just war” if it meets certain conditions. In that case it is not a sin for a soldier of a country attacked by another country to kill a soldier of the opposing army.

Thank you for replying to my text. Even if you disagree it is good for me to see the the argument of someone who disagrees with me as it makes me think more clearly and may bring up facts that I was not aware of. God bless you and everyone who posts on this blog or reads it.
 
kimmielittle said:
This claim is based upon ideology, not facts.
Click to expand...
I, like JPII, do not need 95% certainty there is a serious problem threatening human life and God’s creation to start turning out lights not in use, and following other Little Ways of Environmental Healing, so I started back in 1990, well before science reached 95% confidence on anthropogenic climate change in 1995.

And I even felt a bit guilty bec I had not started sooner, since I had been well aware of the problem several years before, and vaguely aware of it for a couple of decades (tho not so aware of projected negative impacts).

I attribute my “getting off my duff” to my becoming a Carmelite (OCDS) and seriously coming to grips with my flaws, faults, and sins, rather than blaming everyone else for everything. Like when I used to say, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” I used to think – “If everyone would just be good and do God’s will
” Now I think, “In what way am I not doing your will, Lord. Help me to do your will.”

It was also the 1989 film “Is It Hot Enough for You?” - featuring droughts in Africa and floods in Europe. But I had seen that film a year or so earlier, and it had not so persuaded me to start mitigating climate change. It was my calling to Carmel, then seeing the film again that did the trick.

But not to simply take TV’s word for anything, I contacted the scientists and got the some of the articles on which the claims in the film were based. Of course, science is a lot more reticient than the media. The scientists were more cautious – such as (to paraphrase) “this would be the expected pattern if and when climate change were scientifically established.”

Knowing science, however, and how averse scientists are to the false positive, and how averse I am to the false negative on dangers, harms, and sins, I started mitigating anyway, even tho the science was not completely in, and as it turned out would not be until 1995. (It was an article in the journal Science, which I used to have, but don’t know where it is now). It was in regard to the first studies to reach 95% confidence an ACC (.06 on the null for summer temps and .04 on the null for winter temps). And since 1995 the science has been strengthening and becoming more robust. I’ve been keeping up with it.

There are plenty of scientific articles and good summaries, if you are curious about climate change – written at every level of expertise and lack of expertise. As I mentioned, you can start with the IPCC reports. That is a good place. My knowledge about climate change is firmly based on science (evidence + theory) and the scientific literature. If I don’t understand something, then I contact the scientists and speak to them. I know some of them and I trust them – I even criticize them sometimes for being reticent in their claims, tho I understand why they are that way. I don’t just rely on media stories about studies, but go to the studies directly. How can you say my claims about ACC are not based on fact, but ideology?

And re my ideology: I’m a Christian and I am averse to harming people, even if it is unpleasant to face up to what one is doing wrong, and difficult to find out how to correct it. You can impute whatever other motives or ideology you want about me – it’s a free country – but I’m telling the truth about myself, both about my knowledge re ACC (which is closely based on scientific studies over some 25 years) and about my motives and ideas.

I also thought back in 1990, in light of the seriousness of the threats, it was my duty to inform others about this issue and tell them about ways to mitigate – which I had been finding (to my surprise) were saving us money. But I ran into a brick wall – I guess bec people are so rich they can afford to live a somewhat profligate lifestyle, and it is too much bother to do little things (esp when no one else is doing them and it would just be a meaningless drop in the bucket).

I was about to give up informing people a few years ago (and just be satisfied with our own mitigation measures) when that week at Mass there was a reading about how if your brother is doing something wrong and you fail to tell him, the repercussions of that wrong deed fall back upon you.

So – botheration (sorry you all feel bothered) – here I am, Lord. I seek to do Your will and Your will only.
 
OK, I realize this is pointless as the cult of climate change deniers will say that Scientific American and every scientific organization is part of the conspiracy. I also know that evidence and data mean nothing to them . But here goes!
scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=thousands-of-us-weather-records&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20130116
usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/08/16413805-noaa-2012-was-warmest-year-ever-for-us-second-most-extreme?lite
environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-effects/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
bnd.com/2012/12/13/2426838/senator-appreciative-of-corps.html#storylink=cpy
news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/12/ticking-arctic-carbon-bomb-may-b.html
spiegel.de/international/world/climate-change-scientists-forecast-dramatic-temperature-increase-a-870638.html
worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/28/15512957-sea-level-rose-60-percent-faster-than-un-projections-study-finds?lite
scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-ranchers-struggle-to-adapt-to-climate-change&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20121121
Yeah, those leftist cattle ranchers! 😃
usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/22/15354660-worst-us-drought-in-decades-deepens-to-cover-60-percent-of-lower-48-states?lite
See below for the C.I.A. and military’s part in the conspiracy.😃 Everyone knows that the CIA and military are commies! (Sarcasm)
nytimes.com/2012/11/10/science/earth/climate-change-report-outlines-perils-for-us-military.html?_r=0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
 
lynnvinc said:
It’s very sad there are so few truly pro-life people to also care about the harmful impacts of global warming, especially on the poor. At least for the sake of economic well-being, if not for the sake of sparing others’ lives and livelihoods, it is advisable to mitigate climate change, since doing so can save lots of money & mitigate a host of other problems and harms, without lowering living standards or productivity – at least down to a 50% reduction in GHG (and other pollution) emissions, and even more if people really put forth effort to reduce their harms and/or save money.
Click to expand...
Since when economic well-being of the poor is worse when it is warmer?

Maybe, just maybe, you would like to think about the issue and not just parrot the mantras of the people who plain and simple want to make a big profit on scaring people ( look at the main globalwarming profeteer)

if you are really interested in the reality, you might want to consider WHY the hysteria of the mass-media and political elites was strongly opposed by a lot of prominent scientists not only on a laughable assumption of anthropogenic origin of global warming ( which is normal and cyclical) but to the idea of warming altogether ( in more recent articles there is a new trend - talk is about warming of northern hemisphere only, since it is impossible to deny that there is no warming in Antarctic)

icecap.us/images/uploads/Deniers_ReviewAR.pdf
 
O_F said:
Since when economic well-being of the poor is worse when it is warmer?

Maybe, just maybe, you would like to think about the issue and not just parrot the mantras of the people who plain and simple want to make a big profit on scaring people ( look at the main globalwarming profeteer)

if you are really interested in the reality, you might want to consider WHY the hysteria of the mass-media and political elites was strongly opposed by a lot of prominent scientists not only on a laughable assumption of anthropogenic origin of global warming ( which is normal and cyclical) but to the idea of warming altogether ( in more recent articles there is a new trend - talk is about warming of northern hemisphere only, since it is impossible to deny that there is no warming in Antarctic)

icecap.us/images/uploads/Deniers_ReviewAR.pdf
Click to expand...
Yes recently read a piece on the rapid expansion of the Antarctic ice cap
will cover the earth in 1000 years!

I know there are a bunch of scientific papers supporing GW theories, and of course the BIG BLOVIATER Al Gore
good heavens what an embarrassment. OTOH the global warming junkies ought to consider if this issue were a matter of public interest, the “cure” would not be a government transfer of assets in the form of a carbon tax. Such a tax would not stop the Chinese from polluting and would stifle the economy and hurt the poor and middle class, not the rich with their jets. I do think some individuals have pure intentions but many of the power players are just in it for the money.

Lisa
 
O_F said:
Since when economic well-being of the poor is worse when it is warmer?
Click to expand...
When their crops die from the extreme heat or other impacts brought on by climate change, such as more intense droughts, floods, storms; and then they are unable to work because of the heat or disease spread due to climate change (see reuters.com/article/2013/02/24/us-climate-labor-idUSBRE91N0CN20130224?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2Fenvironment+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Environment%29 ); when they die from heat stroke.

When searise cuts away at their agricultural lands and make them saline, and allows more harm from high tides and hurricanes.

When the fish die due to effects of climate change and ocean acidification. When CC causes super-anoxic oceans, that lead to hydrogen sulfide outgassing, killing sea and land life (see intl-geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/33/5/397.short ).

Here are a few sources re the harms:
  • Cline, W. R. 2007. Global Warming and Agriculture. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development and the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
  • Cruz, R. V., H. Harasawa, M. Lal, S. Wu, Y. Anokhin, B. Punsalmaa, Y. Honda, M. Jafari, C. Li, and N. Huu Ninh. 2007. “Asia.” Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contributions of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson (eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 469-506.
  • Doney, S. C., V. J. Fabry, R. A. Feely, and J. Kleypas. 2009. Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem. Annual Review of Marine Sciences 1: 169-192.
  • Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P. J. Mumby, A. J. Hooten, R. S. Steneck, and E. G. P. Greenfield, C. D. Harvell, P. F. Sale, A. J. Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C. M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, R. H. Bradbury, A. Dubi, M. E. Hatziolos. 2007. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318(5857): 1737-1742.
  • Högy, P., H. Wieser, P. Köhler, K. Schwadorf , J. Breuer, J. Franzaring, R. Muntifering and A. Fangmeier. 2009. “Effects of elevated CO2 on grain yield and quality of wheat: results from a 3-year free-air CO2 enrichment experiment.” Plant Biology 11: 60-69.
  • Hunter, M. D. 2001. “Effects of Elevated Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Insect-Plant Interactions.” Agricultural and Forest Entomology 3: 153-159.
  • Lobell, D. B., W. Schlenker, and J. Costa-Roberts. 2011. “Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980.” Science 333(6042): 616-620.
  • Long, S. P., E. A. Ainsworth, A. D. B. Leakey, J. Nösberger, D. R. Ort. 2006. “Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations.” Science 312(5782): 1918-1921.
  • Munday, P. L., D. L. Dixson, M. I. McCormick, M. Meekan, M. C. O. Ferrari, and D. P. Chivers. 2010. “Replenishment of fish populations is threatened by ocean acidification.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(29):12930-12934.
  • Oh, N-H., and D. D. Richter, Jr. 2004. “Soil acidification induced by elevated atmospheric CO2” Global Change Biology 10.11: 1936-1946.
  • Rogers, A. D., and D. d’A. Laffoley. 2011. International Earth System Expert Workshop on Ocean Stresses and Impacts. Summary Report. International Program on the State of the Ocean. Oxford. stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1906_IPSO-LONG.pdf.
  • Schlenker, W., and M. Roberts. 2009. “Nonlinear Temperature Effects Indicate Severe Damages to U.S. Crop Yields under Climate Change.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 106(37): 15594-15598.
  • Welch, J., J. R. Vincent, M. Auffhammer, P. F. Moya, A. Dobermann, and D. Dawe. “Rice Yields in Tropical/Subtropical Asia Exhibit Large but Opposing Sensitivities to Minimum and Maximum Temperatures.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(33): 14562-14567.
 
kimmielittle said:
Once again, you do not understand what you state.

In general, plants which follow a C4 pathway originated in subtropical areas

Corn - sorghum, millet, and sugarcane are the main C4 crops.

List of c4 Plants:
  1. Crab Grass
  2. Corn
  3. Amaranth
  4. Sorgham.
  5. Millet.
  6. Sugarcane.
  7. Nut grass
  8. Crab Grass
  9. Barnyard grass.
  10. fourwinged salt bush.
Weeds, generally, fall in the GRASSES a C4 cat.

C3 main crops are Soybeans - Rice - Wheat - Rye - Barley - Cassava - Potatoes - Algae - Spinach - Yams - Oranges - Grapes - Coffee plant -Tea Plants - Peanut - Lemon - Carrots - Peaches - Apples

“Weeds” unintended / unwanted plants ] will “choke” unattended crops - TRUE

Vegetation ALL LIFE ] is opportunistic - TRUE

Successful croppers do not allow “weeds” to grow without cultivation - or unchecked.

So what you are essentially saying: Increased CO2
 benefits not only vegetation but other life forms, as well. 🙂
Click to expand...
You amaze me, Kimmie. I didn’t know you were an agricultural researcher, on top of being a climate scientist 🙂 While all I do is pass on what I’ve read in other people’s studies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top