WaPo pundits the Goracle

This is not the sort of op-ed we are used to seeing in the Washington Post. But I found it funny nonetheless.  – Anthony

gore-congress-2009
Click to Launch Video

With Al Due Respect, We’re Doomed

By Dana Milbank, Washington Post

Thursday, January 29, 2009; Page A03

The lawmakers gazed in awe at the figure before them. The Goracle had seen the future, and he had come to tell them about it.

What the Goracle saw in the future was not good: temperature changes that “would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth — and this is within this century, if we don’t change.”

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry (D-Mass.), appealed to hear more of the Goracle’s premonitions. “Share with us, if you would, sort of the immediate vision that you see in this transformative process as we move to this new economy,” he beseeched.

“Geothermal energy,” the Goracle prophesied. “This has great potential; it is not very far off.”

Another lawmaker asked about the future of nuclear power. “I have grown skeptical about the degree to which it will expand,” the Goracle spoke.

A third asked the legislative future — and here the Goracle spoke in riddle. “The road to Copenhagen has three steps to it,” he said.

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) begged the Goracle to look further into the future. “What does your modeling tell you about how long we’re going to be around as a species?” he inquired.

The Goracle chuckled. “I don’t claim the expertise to answer a question like that, Senator.”

It was a jarring reminder that the Goracle is, indeed, mortal. Once Al Gore was a mere vice president, but now he is a Nobel laureate and climate-change prophet. He repeats phrases such as “unified national smart grid” the way he once did “no controlling legal authority” — and the ridicule has been replaced by worship, even by his political foes.

“Tennessee,” gushed Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican from Gore’s home state, “has a legacy of having people here in the Senate and in public service that have been of major consequence and contributed in a major way to the public debate, and you no doubt have helped build that legacy.” If that wasn’t quite enough, Corker added: “Very much enjoyed your sense of humor, too.”

Humor? From Al Gore? “I benefit from low expectations,” he replied.

The Goracle’s powers seem to come from his ability to scare the bejesus out of people. “We must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization,” he said. And: “This is the most serious challenge the world has ever faced.” And: It “could completely end human civilization, and it is rushing at us with such speed and force.”

Though some lawmakers tangled with Gore on his last visit to Capitol Hill, none did on the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday. Dick Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican, agreed that there will be “an almost existential impact” from the climate changes Gore described.

As such, the Goracle, even when questioned, was shown great deference. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), challenging Gore over spent nuclear fuel, began by saying: “I stand to be corrected, and I defer to your position, you’re probably right, and I’m probably wrong.” He ended his question by saying: “I’m not questioning you; I’m questioning myself.”

Others sought to buy the Goracle’s favor by offering him gifts. “Thank you for your incredible leadership; you make this crystalline for those who don’t either understand it or want to understand it,” gushed Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who went on to ask: “Will you join me this summer at the Jersey Shore?”

The chairman worried that the Goracle may have been offended by “naysayers” who thought it funny that Gore’s testimony before the committee came on a morning after a snow-and-ice storm in the capital. “The little snow in Washington does nothing to diminish the reality of the crisis,” Kerry said at the start of the hearing.

The climate was well controlled inside the hearing room, although Gore, suffering from a case of personal climate change, perspired heavily during his testimony. The Goracle presented the latest version of his climate-change slide show to the senators: a globe with yellow and red blotches, a house falling into water, and ones with obscure titles such as “Warming Impacts Ugandan Coffee Growing Region.” At one point he flashed a biblical passage on the screen, but he quickly removed it. “I’m not proselytizing,” he explained. A graphic showing a disappearing rain forest was accompanied by construction noises.

The Goracle supplied abundant metaphors to accompany his visuals. Oil demand: “This roller coaster is headed for a crash, and we’re in the front car.” Polar ice: “Like a beating heart, and the permanent ice looks almost like blood spilling out of a body along the eastern coast of Greenland.”

The lawmakers joined in. “There are a lot of ways to skin a cat,” contributed Isakson, who is unlikely to get the Humane Society endorsement. “And if we have the dire circumstances we’re facing, we need to find every way to skin every cat.”

Mostly, however, the lawmakers took turns asking the Goracle for advice, as if playing with a Magic 8 Ball.

Lugar, a 32-year veteran of the Senate, asked Gore, as a “practical politician,” how to get the votes for climate-change legislation. “I am a recovering politician. I’m on about Step 9,” the Goracle replied, before providing his vision.

Prospects for regulating a future carbon emissions market? “There’s a high degree of confidence.” The future of automobiles in China and India? “I wouldn’t give up on electric vehicles.” The potential of solar power in those countries? “I have no question about it at all.”

Of course not. He’s the Goracle.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
248 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
HasItBeen4YearsYet?
February 6, 2009 12:55 am

bluegrue (15:47:26)
Oh, my, this is sweet. Your wonderful Gavin Schmidt is Schmuck…
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/02/gavin-schmidt-is-his-own-mystery-woman.html
[G.S.] has stolen McIntyre’s discovery, sent it to the British Antarctic Survey with the explicitly stated intent to get “credit” for it, and he has lied about it to tens of thousands of readers of their blog. And he is not a random reader of the blogs: his funding – millions of dollars in total – actually depend on this type of “credit”. You know, this is just way too much.”
What a putz! And you want us to read the bilge he writes?

Simon Evans
February 6, 2009 4:08 am

Chris R (11:43:57) :
To Simon Evans:
You expressed doubt that water vapor accounted for 95% of the greenhouse effect. Here’s your answer:
“Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor.”
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html
Note that this a U.S. Dept. of Energy report. Credible enough for you?

Yes indeed, Chris, but may I suggest that you should quote the whole paragraph for proper understanding? I’ve used some bold to clarify –
Partly because the infrared absorption bands of the various components of the atmosphere overlap, the contributions from individual absorbers do not add linearly. Clouds trap only 14 percent of the radiation with all other major species present, but would trap 50 percent if all other absorbers were removed [105] (Table D2 and Figure D1). Carbon dioxide adds 12 percent to radiation trapping, which is less than the contribution from either water vapor or clouds. By itself, however, carbon dioxide is capable of trapping three times as much radiation as it actually does in the Earth’s atmosphere. Freidenreich and colleagues [106] have reported the overlap of carbon dioxide and water absorption bands in the infrared region. Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor. In the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80 percent from carbon dioxide and about 20 percent from water vapor. It is important to remember, however, that it is currently believed that the impact of water vapor produced from surface sources such as fuel combustion on the atmospheric water vapor concentrations is minimal.
As can be clearly seen, your source confirms my statement that water vapour is not 95% of the total greenhouse effect, as previously asserted. Thanks for the link, though, since I hadn’t realised before how this false assumption had taken hold.

bluegrue
February 6, 2009 11:10 am

HasItBeen4YearsYet?
Let’s see. There is smoke over a house. Person A sees it and reports at length about what that could mean to Persons B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J and K. One of them walks over to a discussion Q is holding with some other people and mentions the discussion to Q. Q looks up, notices the smoke that was pointed out to him, goes over to the house, finds the fire, notifies the house owner and the fire brigade so that the house can be saved.
A was the first to see the smoke, Q the first to take action. Please tell me, who is going to be credited for saving the house?

HasItBeen4YearsYet?
Reply to  bluegrue
February 22, 2009 6:56 pm

apples and lugnuts
Someone who acts the hero gets the credit in action situations, but intellectual property belongs to whoever came up with it first. Maybe it has to do with the difference in adrenalin levels, or something?

bluegrue
February 7, 2009 7:50 am

HasItBeen4YearsYet? (21:17:58) :

Perhaps this will be more to your liking?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Though somehow I doubt it, even though the references are much more recent (like this century, even).

Monte Hieb, the author of that page, lists in his table 1 the “natural” and “man-made” additions to CO2 from pre-industrial levels to today, indicating that just 14% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 mixing ratio is man made. He claims that the data is from U.S. Department of Energy in the table description. Tough luck, the DOE page he references (or see an older version at Archive.Org) holds no such “man-made” vs. “natural” information, only the well-known GHG increase data, which constitutes the rest of table 1. At a minimum, the table description is misleading, as it attributes the numbers of “man-made additions” and “natural additions” to the DOE and takes its name to give it credibility. In the footnote 1 Hieb offers an additional source, namely the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, where the data section is not publicly available. Cool, no source for the two data columns Hieb bases his entire argument on. But hey, if you look at the IEA pages you will find, that they defers readers to the IPCC for details. Now, if you look at sections 2.3.1 and 7.3.1.2 of the IPCC FAR WG1 report, the IPCC attributes the entire change from pre-industrial about 280ppm to todays about 370ppm in atmospheric CO2 to human activities.
So your “source” uses unsourced data, which is in stark contradiction to generally accepted findings, to make the argument that human contribution to climate change is negligible. You do not expect me to trust anything on that page, do you?
P.S.: Before you ask, yes, I have e-mailed the above info to Hieb, too, including a link to this discussion.

HasItBeen4YearsYet?
Reply to  bluegrue
February 22, 2009 6:51 pm

bluegrue (07:50:24) :
I was having trouble finding a suitable reference, but thanks to Anthony Watts, here’s one…
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/eia_co2_contributions_table3.png
Human contribution is 3%, according to that IPCC report. The number used in the ref I gave was 3.25%. So, yeah, I believe him, even though the specific numbers differ, and I would like to see more detail on how he does his derivations. And don’t use that, “he’s in the pay of big coal” and I won’t use the “your sources are in the pay of big green,” OK?

bluegrue
Reply to  HasItBeen4YearsYet?
February 23, 2009 12:01 pm

Sorry, the IPCC does not say that just 3% of the Carbon in the atmosphere is anthropogenic, as implied in the table. Anthony’s table is about annual contributions, not accumulated. I’ve hunted down the info in this reply on the “madness” thread. It seems to have been a kind of Chinese Whispers, where from the IPCC via IEA via whoever to Anthony each step dropped a crucial bit of information.
Each year we add CO2 equivalent to 3% of the natural flux into the atmosphere. About half of these 3% stay in the atmosphere, the other half goes almost entirely into the ocean.

HasItBeen4YearsYet?
Reply to  bluegrue
February 22, 2009 7:32 pm

A LINK I JUST FOUND
CO2 IS A PLANT FERTILIZER, NOT A POLLUTANT!
http://www.geocities.com/profadrian/ScienceOfGlobalWarming.html
(and they have a bit more on the how much more important water is than CO2 for greenhouse)

bluegrue
Reply to  HasItBeen4YearsYet?
February 23, 2009 1:06 pm

He rests his argument on “How well do water vapor and carbon dioxide absorb heat energy from the sun?” Greenhouse effect is about absorption of outgoing infrared radiation; fundamentally flawed, sorry.
Fertilizer, yes to an extent, until other limiters like water and nitrogen kick in. Deserts will not turn into green pastures.
Do we need CO2? Of course. However remember, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. A large part of the problem is the speed at which AGW is happening. Ecosystems are adapted to the current climate and will not adapt readily on a timescale of decades, neither will new ones develop that fast.
I’ve played around a bit with google search. As you type “co2 is not a” in the google bar it offers “co2 is not a pollutant” and “co2 is not a greenhouse gas”. Let us stick with the former.
“co2 is not a pollutant” 18,100 hits
“co2 is not a pollutant” -heartland 9,900 hits
“co2 is not a pollutant” -Bush 9,450 hits
“co2 is not a pollutant” -Bush -heartland 967 hits
heartland as in Heartland Institute.
I find the above interesting, I don’t know about you. I admit, using Bush is a bit unfair, given all the EPA clean air coverage.

Greenhound
February 9, 2009 4:15 am

Does Rosie Odonnell write for AlGore??? Remember “fire can’t melt steel”. Just a thought.

E.M.Smith
Editor
February 10, 2009 11:54 am

Walter Cronanty (06:07:03) : The question is not DDT’s availability, it is the economic penalties for using it. I suggest you read some of the articles at: http://www.fightingmalaria.org
OK. I looked. seems to be mostly 2 issues. 1) price of an insecticide goes up when not widely used in agriculture. 2) fear of a ban on ag products.
Those look to be very valid for all the newer non-DDT pesticides. DDT not so much…
“Consider what happened with DDT, a highly-effective insecticide banned by the EU. Many developing countries have stopped using DDT — even though it is only sprayed indoors and not on crops — for fear that their agricultural exports will not be allowed in Europe.”
The cost issue has an offset in that the development of resistance will be much less with narrow use. Since DDT is very simple to make and made in low cost countries like India and China, I don’t see the cost issue being much for DDT (if at all.) Maybe for newer harder to make or patented insecticides, but that’s not DDT.
Fear? Sorry, there is no way to deal with what people choose to fear. It can only be ignored. So show me a real impact, a real ban on imports (despite approval of DDT for interior spraying), not a ‘fear’. An African government making a stupid choice out of fear? Not much can be done to stop governments from making stupid choices; even in the E.U. and U.S.A.
Thus, developing African countries can “pick their poison” [pun intended]. They can use DDT and exacerbate their already grinding poverty due to EU banning agricultural exports, or they can not use DDT and die of malaria.
This looks like an argument of false dichotomy. There are many malaria control methods, not just DDT, and the use of DDT indoors or on nets ought to have no impact on crops. (Your point has clear validity for other ag pesticides and EU banning imports with those on them.) There are also other markets for goods.
The only way DDT ought to end up in an EU test banning imports is if it were used on crops. In that case, your argument becomes: The EU needs to allow use of DDT on crops so that it is more widely used for malaria control. That seems a bit stretched to me…
But if there is a real case of a country having exports banned from E.U. import due to DDT traces consistent with non-crop use, then yeah, I’m with you. That would be a bogus rejection that ‘chills’ the use for vector control… (And any legitimate ‘ban’ needs to be restricted to the lot or farm of origin, not the whole industry or country, lest you get the same bogus chill…)
On balance, I’m not at all sure that “environmentalists,” […] are benefitting the world. While many of their concerns may be valid [not at all sure that CO2 fears are well-founded], many of their ill-thought out, unrealistic solutions do incredible harm.
Yup. That’s why I gave up on the environmental movement when it went off the rails and stopped my (prior) support for Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, et. al. They moved from legitimate concerns to paranoid dementia. I don’t “do” irrational fear well …
I live in a Malaria state. The history of malaria in California is long, strong, and interesting, and the native mosquito is quite a nice vector. I grew up with ‘spray trucks’ from the mosquito control district driving our streets putting out big clouds of “something” (that we kids liked to play in as ‘fog’…). I’m much less concerned about what ‘something’ was or pesticide exposure than I am about any mosquito that lands on my arm!
Even today, vector control is a big issue here and anything that threatens the control of malaria will cause me to have an immediate reaction! (We still have a case every year or three so it takes constant vigilance…)
My heart goes out to those in 3rd world countries dealing with the same control problem. But it can be done. We did it. And the U.C. system has an active program to export our control methods to the rest of the world.
The case that “the E.U. wants clean food and that somehow spells doom for Zimbabwe due to DDT shortage” seems rather weak, though. I suspect that more hinges on the action of the folks in Africa than the actions of the E.U. If nothing else, India and China are large hungry markets… (Especially with the drought unfolding right now in a major grain region in China!)
I’d suggest a strategy of promoting exports to Russia & Asia. Just see how long the E.U. ‘holds the line’ when you resurrect the song “Yes, we have no bananas, we have no bananas today!” 😉 And just think of the fun of scheduling a meeting with the “import minister” then canceling with an apology that the Chinese minister was only available at the same time 8-}

February 23, 2009 12:21 pm

bluegrue (12:01:50)
It appears that Prof. Freeman Dyson does not agree with your view click
I agree with Prof. Dyson, based on common sense: if you put bacterium in a Petri dish with ample food, the bacteria will rapidly multiply until they are in balance with the available food supply.
It is exactly the same situation with atmospheric CO2, which is plant food. With more food available, plants — from single-celled plants, to cereals, to giant Sequoia, will multiply and grow faster. Life on Earth will become more abundant, converting CO2 into cellulose and sugars, and emitting oxygen.
Finally, the central issue is once again being skirted: an increase in atmospheric CO2 is beneficial, not harmful.
Falsify that statement, if you can.

bluegrue
Reply to  dbstealey
February 24, 2009 8:38 am

Prof. Freeman Dyson agrees, that the increase in background CO2 levels is anthropogenic. He supports the creation of bio-engineered trees, which by his estimate will take 20 to 50 years to accomplish, that will sequester carbon, because current flora is not up to the job.
Are we even reading the same article?
An increase can be beneficial if and only if CO2 is the limiting factor; usually the limiting factor is nitrogen or minerals or simply sheer lack of soil to root in. You also neglect, that the expected changes in precipitation patterns will for the most part be detrimental, as plants are accustomed to current conditions. It’s easy to turn acres into deserts, it’s pretty hard the other way around.
Or is this about the 12 year turn-about time? Please follow this little Gedankenexperiment of mine:

I have two jars, A and B, each filled with 280 marbles. Each evening at 9p.m. you take up to 10 marbles out of jar A and replace the the same amount of marbles into jar A by 9a.m in the morning. I will add one marble each to both jars sometime during the night. Each noon we count the marbles in the jars. How many days will it take to have 350 marbles in jar A, how many days will it take to have 350 marbles in jar B?

Does your taking out and adding marbles change the result in any way?

HasItBeen4YearsYet?
February 23, 2009 5:48 pm

@bluegrue (12:01:50) :
From the comment of yours you link to… “Each and every year humanity adds 3% to the 100% of natural CO2 flux into the atmosphere, and of these 103% only 101,5% are taken out again.”
And you can prove that the 3% becomes a problem, how? (references, please).
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=185802
Also, CO2 has clearly been shown to be beneficial to plant growth…
http://books.google.com/books?id=3BoqRF1fNYMC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=elevated+co2+has+resulted+increased+food+production&source=bl&ots=xH6-TNr–V&sig=Uu6XvP-WT1SoU1YtBaNpECcNXxg&hl=en&ei=y0CjSf60MZmatwfol82cDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA132,M1
The best way to depopulate the globe (kill off more of those nasty human parasites) is to limit the availability of food and energy, which is EXACTLY what all the fuss over AGW is REALLY all about.
http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/12/28/world-population-carbon-dioxide-and-eugenics/
Well, hopefully what they wish for us will instead happen to them, and soon.
And, I repeat, the effect of increasing [CO2] will be ever more negligible as that increase occurs.
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
But the benefits will be enormous.
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba256.html
Too bad the selfish power hungry Leftists can’t figure a way of profiting from naturally occurring good, rather than thinking they can become rich by imposing their own short sighted and always harmful prosperity-destroying restrictions on the victims of those social engineering experiments.
CO2 isn’t the only factor, and it is a MINOR factor at that (relative to water vapor which is by far the predominant greenhouse gass). One needs a balanced approach, and Hansen’s is not only not balanced, it’s borderline insane.

bottom line, HARMFUL AGW IS BUBKAS!
http://videolectures.net/kolokviji_singer_nnha/

bluegrue
Reply to  HasItBeen4YearsYet?
February 24, 2009 9:05 am

The best way to depopulate the globe (kill off more of those nasty human parasites) is to limit the availability of food and energy, which is EXACTLY what all the fuss over AGW is REALLY all about.

DON’T YOU DARE PUT ME ANYWHERE NEAR ADVOCATING EUGENICS OR MASS KILLING!!!!! First and final warning: if you ever want to get any reply of mine at all again, steer well clear of this kind of smear attack.
The respiration argument is idiotic at best, as it leaves out the fact, that we only emit carbon in the form of CO2 that we have taken up in the form of plants either directly or indirectly via meat.
Read your sources, the book reference you link to is about nitrogen fixing plants. How much of our flora do they make up?

REPLY:
Suggestion. If you want to garner respect, don’t use words like idiotic in describing others rebuttals while at the same time making one that has problems of its own. Just saying. – Anthony

bluegrue
Reply to  bluegrue
February 24, 2009 1:00 pm

@Anthony,
Just for clarification:
– the “idiotic” was not directed at HasItBeen4YearsYet,
– the argument I called “idiotic” is not one that HasItBeen4YearsYet supports
Humans turn food (plants or meat) into CO2, which in turn is recycled into fauna and flora. If a third party – the article on Atmoz site – lists humans only as a source of CO2 and makes the case that it is a major cause of CO2 increase in the atmosphere, without acknowledging where the carbon comes from in the first place, then I have no idea what else to call this, I am sorry. Maybe you can help me out.
BTW, if another poster paints people, who are convinced of anthropogenic global warming to be a major problem (which happens to include me), as willing to “kill offf more of those nasty human parasites”, then “garnering respect” really is the least of my concerns.

bluegrue
Reply to  bluegrue
February 24, 2009 1:03 pm

@Anthony
I take a break from this blog.

HasItBeen4YearsYet?
February 23, 2009 5:51 pm
HasItBeen4YearsYet?
February 27, 2009 11:20 am

your interpretation of freeman dyson is more than a bit strained…

HasItBeen4YearsYet?
February 27, 2009 11:36 am

DON’T YOU DARE PUT ME ANYWHERE NEAR ADVOCATING EUGENICS OR MASS KILLING!!!!!
Ok, than you’re just their “useful tool?” (gently tiptoeing past the “i” word to avoid the censor)
That’s the effect it will have, and the goal they intend to achieve.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1133682/Melanie-Phillips-Why-Green-zealots-think-dictate-children-allowed-have.html
AGW is just their latest cause célèbre to get people to panic, because panicky people don’t think rationally, and are easily manipulated, and workers united ungainst unjust exploitation by capitalist pigs doesn’t sell as well as polar bear extinction in this day and age.
If you cared about humanity, you would want more CO2, not less…
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/happer.pdf

HasItBeen4YearsYet?
February 27, 2009 12:02 pm

greenie – “COMMIT SUICIDE, OR DIE”
victim – “Are those my only two options?”
“3. The Green Party of Canada recognizes that failure to stabilize and reduce human population within a reasonable time will result in the inevitable reduction of human population by means of high death rates as the earth’s human carrying capacity is not only exceeded but reduced by the consumption of resources and the destruction of biological capital, resulting in poverty, starvation, disease, great human suffering and possibly social disruption.”
http://www.greenparty.ca/convention/motions/p94
It’s a Leftist thang…
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/lefteug2.html
http://www.noonehastodietomorrow.com/eugenics/population/784-784
http://www.infowars.com/bbc-journo-enviros-need-to-embrace-eugenics/
greenie – “Now, just hold still so I can get this rope around your neck. After all, it’s either you or the planet.”
The Left has ALWAYS been known for murderous insanity, and as long as you keep trying to sell me their defective products, blue, I’ll know the company you work for, no matter how loud you shout that you don’t.

bluegrue
February 28, 2009 6:59 am

HasItBeen4YearsYet? (11:36:00) :

Ok, than you’re just their “useful tool?” (gently tiptoeing past the “i” word to avoid the censor)

*plonk*

March 4, 2009 7:24 am

tramadol online
tramadol
http://www.kaboodle.com/leopardchikatilo?tramadol
[url=http://www.kaboodle.com/leopardchikatilo?tramadol]tramadol[/url]
generic cialis
http://www.patinenlinea.net/foro/members/williamnicole.html?generic-cialis
[url=http://www.patinenlinea.net/foro/members/williamnicole.html?generic-cialis]generic cialis[/url]

1 8 9 10