Articles and Archives
Most recent posting below. See other articles in the column to the right.
9 comments - Last on 07/23/2010
“Climategate”: A Different Perspective
Much has been made in Academic Questions and elsewhere of the contents and implications of a series of hacked emails; the resulting scandal is now known as “climategate.” As a climate scientist and member of NAS, I am inclined to agree with those who have described it as the “greatest scientific scandal of our generation”, but the scandal I see is very different from the one that has been presented to NAS members. Climategate is merely the latest in a series of coordinated, politically motivated attacks that represent an aggravated assault on scholarship that should be of concern to every member of NAS who, if they are like me, joined this organization because we were tired of seeing scholarship enslaved to ideology, particularly in academia. NAS has been at the forefront of the battle against such assaults on reason as campus speech codes, affirmative action, deconstruction, and other horrors perpetrated mostly from the political Left. A true test of NAS’s commitment to reason and scholarship is whether it is prepared to take on an attack that this time is mounted largely from the Right.
What the emails show are a few researchers behaving in a manner unbecoming scientists and gentlemen. The true scandal is the attempt to catapult such behavior into high crime and to dismiss an entire scientific endeavor based on the privately expressed sentiments of a few (a very few) researchers working in an environment of ongoing harassment. At the time of this writing, three separate panels convened in
It is helpful first to remember that the emails in question were semi-private correspondence among scientists and that the vast majority of the email shows a high level of diligence and professionalism in conducting and reporting research. The few emails that have been the subject of so much heated rhetoric show that some scientists are occasionally prey to human pitfalls (shocking!). It is simply naïve to suppose that we never complain to each other about the unfairness of editors and reviewers and openly wish we could replace them, or that we sometimes wish we could keep data out of the hands of those we know are determined to misuse it. Drop a microphone into a conference social event and one would hear countless conversations along these lines. This is nothing to be proud of, and most of us are wise enough to keep it out of written correspondence, but the idea that this represents a conspiracy among a broad cross-section of researchers is ludicrous.
Much has been made of the so-called efforts of the authors of some of the emails to keep papers out of the peer-reviewed literature. But the conversations in question were about whether to cite certain papers in a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC performs no research; the decisions in question concerned whether the IPCC should include citations to certain already-published material in their report. There is neither a desire nor an obligation of the IPCC to cite all peer-reviewed publications bearing on the subject, and the writers’ decisions about what and what not to include in the report are based on a judgment of their scientific quality. Far from being blackballed, research that in my view would not normally pass peer review ends up being published out of reviewers’ fears of being accused of blackballing. (The paper that the authors of the emails were discussing did end up being cited in the IPCC report.)
Then there is a discussion about whether a certain editor should be removed from a journal. Such discussions are not uncommon, and I myself have participated in an effort to remove an editor whose professionalism I questioned. It is not only a right but, I would argue, a duty of responsible professionals to seek to replace an editor who consistently underperforms. It is up to the boards of the journals to decide whether such charges have merit.
By now, whole forests (or their electronic equivalent) have been chopped down to provide space for discussion of the “hide the decline” remark in one of the emails. This concerns a well-known disagreement between reconstructions of temperature based on analyses of trees, and actual measurements of temperature. The proxy reconstructed temperatures and the instrumental temperatures agree quite well up to around 1960, but after that, some (not all) of the reconstructed temperatures disagree with the instrumental record. In the extensive scientific literature on the subject, this is referred to as the “divergence problem.” As the land-based instrumental temperatures are highly robust, as has been verified in countless scientific publications, no one in my profession thinks the reconstructed temperatures are correct after 1960; the real question is how reliable they are going back in time before the beginning of the instrumental record of global temperatures dating back to the middle of the nineteenth century. The “hide the decline” remark concerns a decision made by the authors of the third assessment report of the IPCC not to include the part of the proxy record that disagrees with the instrumental record in a summary figure showing global temperature over the last millennium or so. In my view, this represents poor judgment on the part of the authors of that report. But if those same authors were conspiring to hide something important from the public, they did an exceedingly poor job of it, as anyone with the slightest interest in pursuing the matter would rapidly come across the extensive literature on the divergence problem, which includes papers by the authors of the emails in question. The sin of those responsible for simplifying the summary figure pales in comparison to that committed by all those who have sought to elevate this to the level of a grand conspiracy among climate scientists and thereby to discredit a whole field of scholarship.
There are discussions among the authors of the controversial emails about whether to withhold data from some of those requesting it. Such withholding of data is almost never justified, and the email authors must be held accountable for their behavior in this regard. Nevertheless, it is helpful to see their correspondence in the context in which it occurred. It is a matter of record that some of the scientists involved in the email exchanges had been subject to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests of such volume as to rise to the level of harassment. (FOI is, alas, often used in the legal profession as a blunt instrument to bring the opposing side to a standstill; now it is being used to slow down the progress of science.) There is, however, a solution to the problem: simply post all scientific data sets online and make them freely available to everyone. There were two impediments to doing so in this case. First, as a strictly practical matter, much of the instrumental temperature analyses and associated publications date back to the 1980s, before it became routine to digitize the records, and so it is not so easy simply to post it. Second, and far more consequential in the long run, was the decision by certain western European nations to cease to regard environmental data as a public good and treat it as proprietary, forcing others to purchase it and sign non-redistribution commitments. Not only has this greatly slowed scientific progress and created major headaches for researchers, it has also contaminated a culture committed to free and open access to all taxpayer funded environmental data with the notion that environmental data is proprietary and must be shielded from “illegal” uses. The true villains in this story are the governments of the
The allegation that the researchers actually destroyed data has been shown to be false, but it is repeated endlessly.
Shortly after the climategate emails were published, several factual errors were discovered in the most recent assessment report of the IPCC. These include a permutation of digits in the year in which certain Himalayan glaciers were predicted to vanish, and the citation of a Dutch government report that incorrectly stated the fraction of the
The land temperature records compiled by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the
This brings me finally to the overarching question of the influence of politics (campus and otherwise) on science. In any discipline, one finds zealots, and climate science is no exception. Yes, there are environmentalist zealots who are happy to use global warming as an excuse to force us back into a golden stone age of happy hunter-gatherers unencumbered by modern transportation, electricity, and so on; one is right to question the objectivity of their research. So, too, are there reactionaries who reflexively deny the validity of any evidence that we are changing our climate. Whatever side of the issue, we scientists know who these colleagues are; one cannot imagine those colleagues changing their minds in the face of new evidence. I have been working in this field for 32 years and can attest that such ideologues constitute a tiny fraction of active scientific researchers.
Aside from the zealots, there is, in any controversial scientific issue, a broad spectrum of attitudes. This is particularly the case towards the beginning of a scientific endeavor, when the evidence is sometimes murky and the results of experiments are often equivocal. As the field progresses, the evidence usually coalesces into a clearer picture of objective reality. Along the way, scientists exhibit varying degrees of skepticism. It is important to understand that all scientists worthy of the title are skeptics who seldom accept evidence at face value and are always questioning the status quo. A sure way for an up-and-coming young scientist to make a name for himself or herself is to overturn some generally accepted piece of the scientific canon. This is what makes science a largely self-correcting enterprise: no incorrect result can stand long in the face of continuous scrutiny. There are and will always be mavericks in science, and this is a good thing as it combats any herd behavior that might develop. There are serious biologists who do not think that HIV causes AIDS, and until surprisingly recently, there were world-class geologists who refused to accept the theory of plate tectonics. Once in awhile, these mavericks’ ideas prove to have merit. But when extra-scientific organizations embrace maverick views, one can be sure that politics are at play.
Dividing the entire field of climate research into “believers,” “skeptics,” “deniers,” and so on is a particularly egregious tactic deployed by those who wish to discredit climate research. Science is not about belief, it is about evidence. Projections of climate change by the IPCC are deeply skeptical, and there is no attempt to hide the large uncertainty of climate forecasts. The possible outcomes, as far as we have been able to discern, range from benign to catastrophic. Ironically, those labeled “skeptics” by the media are not in fact skeptical; they are, on the contrary, quite sure that there is no risk going forward. Meanwhile, those interested in treating the issue as an objective problem in risk assessment and management are labeled “alarmists”, a particularly infantile smear considering what is at stake. This deployment of inflammatory terminology has a distinctly Orwellian flavor. It originates not in laboratories and classrooms, where ideas are the central focus and one hardly ever hears labels applied to researchers, but in the media, the blogosphere, and political think tanks, where polarization attracts attention and/or turns a profit.
But it turns out that there are not enough mavericks in climate science to meet the media’s and blogosphere’s insatiable appetite for conflict. Thus into the arena steps a whole host of charlatans posing as climate scientists. These are a toxic brew of retired physicists, TV weather forecasters, political junkies, media hacks, and anyone else willing to tell an interviewer that he/she is a climate scientist. Typically, they have examined some of the more easily digestible evidence and, like good trial lawyers, cherry-pick that which suits their agendas while attacking or ignoring the rest. Often, they are a good deal more articulate than actual scientists, who usually prefer doing research to honing rhetorical technique. Intelligent readers/viewers should demand to know the actual scientific backgrounds of these posers and recognize that someone with a background in particle physics or botany may in fact know very little about climate science. Does he/she have a background in atmospheric physics? Can they answer elementary questions about radiative and convective heat transfer, or about the circulation of the ocean and atmosphere? More precisely, does their expertise actually bear on the particular points they are making? It may sound elitist these days, but there is a point to credentials.
While the climategate email authors are castigated for not being paragons of virtue, the sins of others go unremarked. In the summer of 2009, a one-page letter was sent to Congress, signed by one actual climate scientist and six physicists with little or no background in climate science, three of whom were retired. Among other untruths, it contained the sentence, referring to evidence of anthropogenic global warming, “There is no such evidence; it doesn’t exist.” I confronted the sole climate scientist among the authors with this statement, and he confessed that he did not hold that to be the case. Last I checked, lying to Congress was a federal crime.
The issue of global warming has been used to advance all kinds of agendas, often obnoxious ones, like forced sustainability, high taxes, and so on. The preaching of such agendas in the classroom is a legitimate concern for organizations, like the National Association of Scholars, that are committed to keeping politics out of the classroom and the laboratory. But it is the antithesis of such noble objectives to seek to kill the messenger, in this case, climate science, by attacking the science itself, anymore than it makes sense to combat fascism or racism by attacking the theory of evolution. NAS stands at a crossroads: is it truly committed to upholding standards of objective scholarship and free inquiry untainted by political agendas, or is it merely a particular brand of political passion masquerading as high principle? If the former, it should stop attacking climate science and turn its guns against those who are politicizing it.
Kerry Emanuel is a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.He is the author of Divine Wind: The History and Science of Hurricanes, (2005, Oxford University Press). In May 2006 he was named one of Time magazine's "Time 100: The People Who Shape Our World."
Add a Comment
RSS Feed 
del.icio.us 
Digg this 
Share on Facebook
Professor Emanuel describes in detail six incidents that are involved in the "Climategate" scandal. His conclusion is one of human foibles, even of scientists, not systematic or conspiratorial behavior. One test of this random foible theory is whether any showed a diminished extent for global warmimg. gseaver
by gseaver Posted on 07/19/2010
Professor Emanuel,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the subject of Climategate. I am moved to respond to some areas that I consider inaccurate.
I have no doubt that the early days of skepticism regarding climate change were filled with attempts by institutions to create doubt about the science. However, those days are over, in my opinion. As co-author of a book on Climategate, I can assure you that our work was not 'coordinated' or influenced in any way by any institution. Nor was the book by our principal 'competitor,' Andrew Montford. Nor is the work of Steve McIntyre, whose efforts led to the Climategate imbroglio.
The inability to distinguish between the monolithic and lumbering institutions that were the font of original skeptic commentary on climate change and the independent and unfunded blogosphere does not help the credibility of those wishing to move forward on this issue. Especially because there are those who combine all critics under the umbrella term climate denier, the better to dismiss some criticism for which they do not have an answer.
Your characterization of the investigations of the Climategate affair are also not accurate. Not one person involved in any of the investigations asked Phil Jones if he had in fact deleted emails to evade the requirements of the UK's Freedom of Information Act. Not one of the investigating committees investigated the science in question.
The problem inherent in the 'hide the decline' issue is the intended audience for the chart in question. Indeed the divergence problem is discussed in the literature. But the figure was used in the Summary for Policy Makers who are not expected to read the literature. By 'hiding the decline' the authors quite consciously affected to make their proxy reconstruction of temperatures look more certain than the science warrants. And this influenced their activities regarding journal publications and pressuring editors, as well.
Your characterization of the use of FOI to slow down scientific progress is close to absurd. The FOI was used quite sparingly regarding the issues in Climategate. It was not until repeated refusals to share information had occurred that FOI requests increased. I believe three were submitted in five years' time, up until 2009, when readers of Climate Audit mass submitted requests for confidentiality agreements--which they did, not to make life difficult for the recipients, but because they feared the recipients would claim that one request for all the countries would take too much time.
The errors in IPCC AR4, in particular the one regarding Himalayan glaciers, should not be glossed over--not because an error appeared, but because it was brought to Rajendra Pachauri's attention in 2005 by an IPCC scientist, but was ignored--despite review comments flagging it to the lead author's attention. Calling criticism 'voodoo science,' as Pachauri did, did nothing to convince those worried about IPCC procedures that all was well.
I agree with you about the overwhelming issue--the use of rabid attack terms to characterize differing factions of the climate debate. But I ask you, Professor Emanuel--who has done this? It has been done by defenders of the climate consensus, equating skeptics to people who 'deny' the Holocaust, and quite consciously associating them with Holocaust imagery, including traincars full of corpses. As I alluded to above, what is equally vicious is lumping all who disagree with the consensus in that category, completely ignoring the various levels of disagreement.
You are perpetuating that meme here, by lumping all critics together with those most rabid.
As we wrote in our book, Climategate did not undermine climate science. It exposed a small group of scientists who played fast and loose with the norms of science for the purposes of advancing a particular view of paleoclimatology, and broke the law when it appeared they might be exposed. The sad part of this story is, the first time it was exposed by Wegman and the NAS, nothing was done at a time that a corrective might have been more constructive.
by Thomas Fuller Posted on 07/21/2010
In reponse to Tom Fuller’s comments, which I find contain several points of dubious validity:
1. To claim that the days of institutionally generated misinformation are over is either naive or disingenuous. The campaigns of the Heartland Institute, Cato Insititute and many others remain verifiably active and influential. Witness the latest ad placed by industry-funded “CO2 is Green”:
<a href="http://www.eenews.net/assets/2010/07/14/document_gw_02.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.eenews.net/assets/2010/07/14/document_gw_02.pdf</a>
2. I find no evidence in Prof. Emanuel’s remarks that he cannot “distinguish between the monolithic and lumbering institutions that were the font of original skeptic commentary on climate change and the independent and unfunded blogosphere”. In any case, one might argue that the “unfunded blogosphere”, for whatever reasons, has become more nefariously influential than the lumbering institutions. (And, of course, there is still the funded blogosphere.)
3. Emanuel states that “...three separate panels convened in Great Britain, and two investigations conducted by the PennsylvaniaStateUniversity have cleared the authors of the controversial emails of any serious wrong doing, and with good reason.” Fuller states that Emanuel’s “characterization” is not accurate, presumably on the basis of the final “with good reason”. Views on the integrity or lack thereof of the various investigations into Climategate are derived almost universally from blogs, bloggers with axes to grind, and a host of unqualified commenters, and Fuller’s statements appear to be no different. The written reports are available online, and evoke predictable and distinct reactions, largely dependent on preconceptions of the integrity of scientists. Fuller’s comments on this topic repeat blogosphere complaints, and fail to recognize the flimsy basis for most of the alleged transgressions. (Remember that the investigations were not responding to any specific formal complaints; such did not exist.)
4. Fuller claims “By 'hiding the decline' the authors quite consciously affected to make their proxy reconstruction of temperatures look more certain than the science warrants.” This is an assertion about certainty and what “the science warrants”; examination of the primary literature supports the authors’ judgement, and not Fuller’s. No scientific malfeasance occurred. With regard to the issue of pressuring editors, no evidence exists that anything unethical occurred, and I find that Emanuel’s comments on the subject are consistent with my own experience.
5. Fuller states that the use of FOI’s was legitimate, and, in effect, necessary. Emanuel does not defend the response to these requests, but alludes to the associated “level of harassment”. Anyone who believes that the barrage of requests instigated at the Climateaudit website were made primarily with legitimate scientific intent should examine the source:
<a href="http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-data-once-again/" rel="nofollow">http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-data-once-again/</a>
and make their own judgement.
6. I agree with Fuller that Pachauri’s reported response to the identification of a potentially serious error is unjustifiable. However, the exploitation of this particular mistake (and remarkably few others) to condemn the entire IPCC process is also unjustifiable, and typical of demagogic tactics.
7. Fuller regards the “overwhelming issue” to be “the use if rabid attack terms to characterize differing factions of the climate debate” and proceeds to lay the blame on “defenders of the climate consensus”. Disregarding the fact that Fuller appears to make the same kind of generalization that he condemns (one which, in effect, exploits fringe positions to argue a point), I understood that Prof. Emanuel’s primary issue of concern to be different: the position of NAS regarding climate science itself, as stated in his last paragraph.
8. I have not read Fuller’s book, but if the reference to it in his last paragraph is representative, I would regard it as a seriously flawed account.
by Pat Cassen Posted on 07/22/2010
I am also moved to respond to Mr. Cassen,
Here is a list of funders: British Petroleum, Central Electricity Generating Board, Commercial Union, Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Shell, Sultanate of Oman, UK Nirex Ltd. Sadly, they are not funding climate skeptics, they are funding the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia University. Nobody's hands are clean. The CEIs and the AEIs are still funding some skeptics--at a dime to the dollar for funding of people like Joe Romm.
As for the investigations of Climategate, let me hand the podium to Steve McIntyre, writing today:
"The Muir Russell panel blatantly misrepresented the facts surrounding Jones’ notorious request to “delete all emails”, a misrepresentation that, in my opinion, was done, at a minimum, either recklessly or out of gross negligence.
The Muir Russell Report
Muir Russell’s findings on the “delete any emails” incident are contained in chapter 10 paragraph 28. Obviously the issuing of an FOI request affects the right of Jones or anyone else to delete documents. Muir Russell purported to exonerate CRU on this count on the empirical basis that the “delete any emails” request had not occurred in the context of a prior FOI request – a claim that is totally untrue.
As hundreds, if not thousands of people, know, David Holland had submitted an FOI request (denoted by UEA as 08-31) on May 27, 2008, only two days prior to the “delete any emails” request, a request which covered the correspondence between Eugene Wahl and Keith Briffa that Fred Pearce described as “back-channel communications that were a direct subversion” of IPCC policies of openness and transparency.
Holland’s request initiated a flurry of activity by Climategate participants. The next day (888. 1212009215.txt), Jones emailed FOI officers Palmer and McGarvie and Briffa and Osborn stating that “Keith [Briffa] should say” that the back-channel Wahl-Briffa correspondence didn’t exist. The following day (May 29), Jones sent the notorious email (1212063122.txt) to Mann and Briffa famously asking them to “delete any emails” with Briffa regarding AR4, saying that they planned to also ask Ammann, and asking Mann to contact Wahl to delete his emails.
Holland’s prior email request is hardly something that the Muir Russell could or should be unaware of. The UK Information Commissioner was aware of Holland’s request, commenting that it would be “impossible” to contemplate “more cogent prima facie evidence” of a section 77 offence than Jones’ email (while also regretting that poor wording of the legislation meant that the prosecution was time barred under the statute of limitations before the incident had been brought to light.)
The incident had also drawn the attention of the Parliamentary Committee, who stated that the importance of a “conclusive resolution” of the resolution meant that the incident should be “thoroughly investigated” regardless of the time bar:
Muir Russell’s blatant misrepresentation of the undisputed factual record on this point meant that the conclusive resolution requested by the Parliamentary Committee obviously didn’t occur.
I will continue in another post.
by Thomas Fuller Posted on 07/22/2010
I would like to thank Prof. Emanuel for his contribution. I grew up scientifically with many who are now well known atmospheric chemists. Our politics were all over the map. Scientific matters were vigorously debated, politics were not terra incognita, but, for issues such as ozone depletion and climate change, the science provided the boundary condition. It is a failure of our politics, better written, public policy, that many believe their policy preferences should set the boundary conditions for science.
To me, and I suspect Prof. Emanuel, the truly worrying thing about humans changing the climate by inadvertance and ignorance is that when the consequences strike, survival will require sacrificing many freedoms.
by Eli Rabett Posted on 07/22/2010
Along with Dr. Emanuel, I too would like to see politics play a negligible role in science. At least that is the ideal, which has probably never been so. We are all too familiar with those who politicize climate science. In his article he is too polite to name any politicizers, but I'm sure that he would include Al Gore (who is not a scientist) and NASA's James Hansen (who is one), whose hysterics have played no small part in tarnishing the public image of climate science.
There are those critics of climate science, scientists included, who resort to hyperbole, such as "there is no evidence for AGW whatsoever", as well as proponents who equally resort to hyperbole, such as "the science is settled and 100% reliable". When such hyperbole is used in sworn testimony, it could perhaps be criminal (perjury), though I am not a lawyer, so I don't know. But using hyperbole in an open letter to congress, is probably not a crime, but rather falls under the heading of lobbying or activism.
I am afraid that as long as the arena of public policy, where such monumental costs and consequences are at stake, looks to climate science and related fields for information, it inevitably leads to abuse of the science to promote agendas, on all sides. That some scientists, on all sides, may get sucked into the politics is, sadly, an inevitable human failing. I agree that to separate politics from science is a noble ideal to always strive for, even if it can never be fully achieved in practice.
But to return to the ending point of the article, what of the role of the NAS? Dr. Emanuel appears to be under the mistaken impression that the NAS is somehow attacking climate science; it is not. The NAS, as far as I can tell, takes no position on climate science, much less a political stance. Individual NAS members have differing opinions on climate science, on the ClimateGate scandal, and on whether it is appropriate for the government of Virginia to investigate Dr. Mann, but it is absurd to say that the NAS is somehow against climate science.
So, Dr. Emanuel, if we are to "turn our guns against those who are politicizing [science]", what would be some practical steps we can take? Are we to chide our scientist friends when they engage in hyperbole, or even more, in activism? As academics, we cherish the notion of academic freedom. As ordinary citizens, we also cherish our rights to freedom of expression and association. There is no law that says that a scientist of any stripe cannot engage in political activism, even if that activism is related to their field of study. But to do so runs the risk of conflating one's separate roles as activist and scientist in the public mind and, as the unfortunate case of Dr. Hansen shows, reducing the credibility of the scientific field one works in. Do you propose that the NAS should admonish scientists not to engage in activism in their field of study? And if so, to what other fields should the principal apply? I think there should be quite a bit of debate before the NAS adopts any such position.
by grizzly Posted on 07/26/2010
That was all going really, really, really well - until you wrote "Thus into the arena steps a whole host of charlatans posing as climate scientists." Up until that point I was unable to detect much sign of zealotry. After that, it was all too obvious.
Whatever Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts and Richard Lindzen and many others may be, they are not charlatans. Nor are they poseurs.
by cfrankdavis Posted on 07/28/2010
Dr Emanuel,
As a member of the Oxburgh inquiry, can you clarify something for me.
It is my understanding that Phil Jones told the inquiry that it was "probably impossible" to do the 1000-year temperature reconstructions with any accuracy.
This admission bore directly on what was perhaps the most contentious issue in the Hockey Stick dispute, was highly relevant to re-appraisal of CRU's science and therefore should have been reported by Oxburgh, but wasn't.
Can you confirm that Jones did in fact make this statement to the inquiry. And if so, can you explain why this information wasn't included in the inquiry report?
Steve McIntyre
by Stephen McIntyre Posted on 07/28/2010
Mr. Davis: I urge you to re-read what I actually wrote, particularly about the value of mavericks in science. Your charge that I am calling my colleague Richard Lindzen a charlatan is unfounded and scurrilous. As for Steven McIntyre, he has critiqued statistical techniques brought to bear on time series analyses of proxy data, an endeavor to which he is well suited given his knowledge of statistics. To the best of my knowledge, he has never issued a sweeping condemnation of climate science of the kind that has appeared on this web site (e.g. climate science is a "house of cards").
by kemanuel Posted on 08/01/2010