A complete and utter rort to be paid for by us, the inhabitants of a surviving Western economy.

While the world struggles with economic survival, we are asked to part with 100 billion dollars PER YEAR for loony regimes such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo which has a Corruption Index approaching zero.

The organisations at Durban included the Girl Guides Association and various unknown church and 'green' organisations as well as vested political and financial interests. So much for a conference with 'World Leaders'

We lack a leader with the integrity to stand up for the country against the demands for us to be a world citizen i.e. cash cow for dysfunctional regimes.

Well sung Maestro Michael ... now let the chorus begin.

Oh, I see it has.

And now we have newly released satellite based research showing that the excess CO2 is coming not from the the developed world, but from the very third world countries, that demand this money. The developed world is the carbon sink of the planet.

So now I'm sure bonmot & company will not only demand reparations from the third world be paid to the developed world, to enable us to continue disposing of all their CO2, but will also demand all that research money, wasted on a fools gold errand, be returned to it's rightful owners, the taxpayer.

Heard a good one yesterday, at our community bar B que.

Question, Why are climate scientists demanding that they be buried only 6 inches down?

Answer, Because it's too hard holding your hand out from six feet down!

Example of Confirmation Bias:

>> And now we have newly released satellite based research showing that the excess CO2 is coming not from the the developed world <<

Hasbeen, care to provide a link Hasbeen to this "excess CO2", or are you just blowing smoke?

Example of Motivational Reasoning:

>> The developed world is the carbon sink of the planet <<

ROFLWT, a much better joke if it were not so sad.

Incidently oh great one that has gone before; if one includes China and India, one is not surprised - is one?

Hopefully once the money transfers are actually tied to tangible events rather than being disguised as 'research', it will be easier to insist on some objective proof that these events are actually occurring. Woe betide the first activist who tries to demonstrate 'global warming' in the International Court of Justice!

I know it would be painful for you bonmot, but try JoNava.

Her blog should be required reading for all aspiring warmers. You would then at least have some idea of what's coming to get you.

I should have known, hasbeen. You confirm your bias from an anti-global warming blogger that takes out of context the published science (and whatever) to push her ideological agenda.

By the way, it's Jo Nova (can't be a typo - perhaps you were just gazing her navel) - and like most commenters here, Nova is not her real name.

I do drop into her blog-site now and then but personally, I prefer to get my info from the primary source - you know, the real scientists who publish their findings in real journals - not denialist blog sites.

You should try it sometime (you say you're a scientist after all). I'll ask again, can you link to the scientific paper that says;

>> excess CO2 is coming not from the the developed world <<

Really, I am interested in seeing where Jo Nova (and all her groupies) have taken it out of context.

The ins and outs of exactly where the carbon is coming from is for another article, for now we should all note that the Clean Development Mechanism was in its early years simply a rort. Everyone can agree on that now. Emerging economy developers were paid money for projects that were doubtful, or would have gone ahead anyway for the supposed carbon credits. Refrigeration industries were started simply so that they could claim the CDM money for destroying the byproducts.

The CDM's act has been cleaned up a lot, but its efforts probably do little more than illustrate how hard it is to buy genuine carbon credits overseas. But for African nations it has proved a pot of gold. No wonder they want to keep the developed nations hard at this business of reducing emissions

Shot yourself in the foot Bon Mot. No-one who has a strong case resorts to personal abuse.

Jo Nova's real name is Joanne Codling - she took Nova as a stage name. There's no intention to hide her real identity as there is with Bon Mot. I guess you'll be impugning the singing of Dame Nellie Melba because her real name was actually Helen Porter Mitchell.

When you man up and tell us your real identity then you'll be on a stronger, but still faulty, footing on this argument.

Actually, I suggest you go and check her blog today. Interesting peer-reviewed paper that she references which has a 2500 year tree ring reconstruction from China. Looks little like Michael Mann's hockey stick effort. You might come back and tell us how the two can be reconciled. The Chinese reconstruction looks pretty much like what everyone thought the world's climate had been, before Mann's effort introduce the false idea it is unusually hot at the moment.

I think the point about emissions is actually that the countries that claim to have decreased, or controlled, their emissions, can only do that because they've exported emissions to countries like China and India which now do their manufacturing for them, as well as their emissions. Anyone who's been reading the literature would know about this issue, but I guess if you spend your time reading blogs that confirm your prejudice you might have missed it.

Graham,

We're all attracted to blogs that confirm our prejudice....and that includes skeptics.

Wonder if you saw this recently.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-05/global-emissions-on-the-rise/3712166

"Overall atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is now at its highest for 800,000 years."

Why do you impugn the integrity of posters who choose to post under a pseudonym? It's your site and you provide that particular mechanism.

Poirot quotes

'Overall atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is now at its highest for 800,000 years."

And I am sure that they could measure carbon dioxide rates back then. No wonder it is called junk science and that is being kind. Talk about a blind religion.

runner,

Wrap your grey matter around this.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm

"The most striking news from the ice was evidence that the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere had risen and fallen more or less in time with the temperature."

Is it just me who's noticed this?

After the delicious irony of the global warming crowd being stranded in Copenhagen at COP15 due to snow storms, the subsequent COPs have been held in Cancun, Durban (in summer) and next Qatar.

I know it’s "just weather" bonmot but it made me giggle.

there you go joining the foot shooting Poi rot.

'Why do you impugn the integrity of posters who choose to post under a pseudonym?...'
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 12 December 2011 11:04:21 PM

'...You can tell who are the grown-ups on this forum by the pseudonyms they use....'
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 9 December 2011 8:03:41 PM

imajuliannutter,

That was in response to you informing article author, Jayden Holmes to "Grow up you are talking to adults here."

It occurred to me as mildly amusing that someone with the tag "imajulianutter" would highlight how "grown up" was his approach.....it wasn't a criticism pf pseudonymity in general.

Graham appears to be saying that if one chooses to use a pseudonym then one's opinion has less merit....perhaps he's right? However, considering that most on OLO use a pseudonym, I wonder what that says in general?

Poirot

More foot shooting.

Your explanation would hold some water if it was not the only time you have attacked my pseudonym because of my opinions.

But as usual you will continue to forget what you've said in the past and will attempt futhur futile and juvenile justifications.

Try a tot of consistancy and you might gain a little in integrity. ie 'man up'.

imajulianutter,

When all is said and done, we all choose our pseudonyms - and you appear to have set yourself up for the odd ribbing - and not just from me. Even the great Poirot is addressed in character often in relation to his comments....it's part of the deal.

My point on this thread goes to the heart of using pseudonymity at all - not just the type of pseudonym used and how vulnerable it is to frivolous criticism.

Btw...to keep on topic, Ian Plimer has just released a new book designed to dispossess schoolchildren of the notion that global warming may be more than a scam. John Howard was on hand to launch it....an "anti-warmist" manual, no less!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-13/howard-lends-support-to-anti-climate-change-book/3727650

Copenhagen through to Durban, it's almost enough to make me believe in god, or santa claus.

Now all it would need would be a major outbreak of Delhi Belly in Qatar & I'd have to believe in a supreme being after all.

Poirot – a quote from the article you referenced regarding Ian Plimer’s book launch:

“Guests to the book launch were greeted outside by members of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition. "We're here to remind people that it's so irresponsible to put out false science when the science is in," coordinator Kirsty Albion said.”

It seems he’s too late – the indoctrination is complete and successful. You must all be so proud.

Don't worry about it Peter, that's only the ratbag left kids talking.

When they grow up they'll be disgusted at how gullible they were, & take an axe to all the global warming legislation, much more viciously than those who saw through it all now, as it was happening.

If the articles some of their brethren have had posted here are anything to go by, most of their noise is so obviously rubbish, it is probably counterproductive.

Hi Poirot, I'm well aware that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rose last year. Not sure whether I saw it on the ABC or not. I don't go to blogs to get my prejudices confirmed. That's one of the reasons for running a journal like this - I like to have my prejudices confronted so that I can adjust my views to reflect reality when they don't.

You raised the issue of pseudonyms as some sort of a criticism of Jo. I merely pointed out that it was empty criticism, particularly from someone who trades under a pseudonym which obscures them entirely. We all know how Jo is, even if she uses a stage name, but have little idea who you are.

The rhetorical trick that you are playing here is to try to discourage people from using good sources of information on the basis that the websites they are on are socially unacceptable (denialist blogs), and to suggest there is something suss about the people who run those blogs because they don't use the surname they were born with.

Then you pretend that I'm the one making your point as a way of trying to undermine what I am saying. As your point wasn't legitimate in the first place it makes me look a bit dodgy if people believe that I was the one making it.

On the CO2 point, one would expect it to rise, even after the temperature had started to cool because that is what happens in the proxy record. So I'd be stunned if it wasn't still going up. More than that there tends to be a straight line relationship between economic growth and CO2 emissions, and as the world economy grew last year, then so should CO2 emissions.

'...You can tell who are the grown-ups on this forum by the pseudonyms they use....'
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 9 December 2011 8:03:41 PM

How is that anything but an attack on my opinions?

Look Poirot man up. Admit you were caught out in your inconsistancy.

That you won't and that employ all sorts of squirming arguments to weasel out of responsibility is a terrible example to the youngsters who come in here.

imajulianutter,

Go take a bex - you're always swooning about and feigning outrage over something.

Your "opinions" are just that - I'm not particularly interested in them either way.

My comments regarding your pseudonym were in response to your rude and patronising final sentence to Jayden Holmes - a "young" article writer.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12992&page=0#224247

What was your point again about terrible examples to youngsters who come in here?

GrahamY says;
“Jo Nova's real name is Joanne Codling - she took Nova as a stage name.

WilliamS says;
“All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts…”

I say whether she goes by Nova, Codling or Mrs David Evans doesn't really matter:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/04/carbon-tax-will-mean-dark-days-for.html

She still is pushing the common ideological agenda.

GrahamY says;
“When you (bonmot) man up and tell us your real identity (sic)”

Poirot says;
“Why do you impugn the integrity of posters who choose to post under a pseudonym? It's your site and you provide that particular mechanism.”

Ma amie, given the editor impugns my ‘manhood’ (either way) I am not really surprised.

Besides, this has all gone on before http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4851

“Considering that most on OLO use a pseudonym, I wonder what that says in general”

It says dear Poirot that OLO would sink without the non de plume http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp

(or stage name, or tag, or alias, or whatever) – methinks the editor is and will be shooting his own foot.

One who goes by the tag ‘Hasbeen’ tries to get back to topic by saying;

“Copenhagen through to Durban, it's almost enough to make me believe in god, or santa claus”.

Not me, the Lord Father Christmas http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12997 can’t even synchronise his own beliefs:

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/u/1/9K74fzNAUq4

Btw Hasbeen, did you manage to find that paper that you said says;

>> excess CO2 is coming not from the the developed world <<

You are a disingenuous twit bonmot.

I told you where to find the link, but you don't want to know. Yes I know it would be painful for you to have to look at the facts, so don't bother.

Obviously you are nothing but an apologist for the warmist con men, & not worth the time we waste on you.

I do get sick of silly little men on the take, & their fellow travelers.

Ummm ... Hasbeen, you said you are a scientist.

So, please tell me what "paper" ... not what anti-global warming blog-site you frequent.

Tell you what, just tell me who authored it (Hint: perhaps JoNova/Codling/Evans is not the author) and which journal published it so I can look myself.

Just too hard for you to man up, eh Poirot.

If this is how you carry on when you are so obviously caught out being in error I can delight in imagining your terror at all the hard evidence coming to hand that is overwhelmingly debunking all the big lies of global warming.

You'll be catatonic and requiring major medical intervention when it finally dawns on you that you are holding an incorrect belief.

On maybe you'll just morph into another deranged denier.

imajulianutter,

I'm sure you're charming when you're not spitting venom or adopting a pose of moral indignation.

I'm fascinated by your call for me to "man up". Nothing like a good ol' chest thumping in someone's direction, I suppose.
Excuse me if I don't join you. Poirot always was a bit of a dandy, and he prefers to be guided by his little grey cells rather than his gender-based insecurities.

Just thought I'd repost this:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm

A good history of paleo-climatology

Reasonable history Poirot, except when it gets to the end and says that the ice cores prove CO2 increases temperature. What one in fact sees in the ice cores is that temperature decreases while CO2 is still increasing. That's a pretty ineffectual amplification. It also provides no explanation for the warming since the Dalton minimum. An example of confirmation bias at work.

In fact, in recent peer reviewed work Kahan and Peters http://www.culturalcognition.net/projects/mechanisms-of-cultural-cognition.html actually find that the smarter you are the better you are at self-deception and this web reference would appear to be an example of it.

Why thank you for the compliment (I think?), Graham....but I always figured you were much smarter than I : )

Indeed ma amie Poirot, yes he is and much much more : )

But why do lay-people or ordinary members of the public disagree on such things when the vast majority of experts don’t? Perhaps the answer can be found in the very site that Graham links to. Specifically, a peer reviewed paper by in fact the very same author (Kahan) - on the Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus.

In essence, why do those who frequent OLO (for example) sharply and persistently disagree about facts on which the experts largely agree? The study showed that “cultural cognition of risk” (i.e. the tendency of an individual to form a perception of risk congenial to his or her own value judgement - cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and motivational reasoning perhaps?) over-rides what the experts in various fields of the climate sciences (for example) say.

In other words, the average OLO’er (not the smart ones of course) want to believe what they want to believe, regardless of what the experts say. They either deliberately misrepresent the science or more usually, misunderstand the science, to reinforce their own beliefs. As we have seen, this gets played out time and time again on blog-sites (including OLO) as aforesaid mentioned.

The paper goes on to discuss how this divergence in thought processing hinders the implementation of sound public policy, very topical in view of the outcome of Durban.

Poirot carry on squirming and wriggling all you like it is just re-inforcing the demonstration of your inablity to assess situations on the basis of available evidence.

Graham is a lot smarter than you two but he also open minded and is prepared to reassess his opinions in the light of evidence.

That's something you appear not to be particularly able to undertake.

Therein lies the difference in causes of self-deception and self-awareness.

bonmot,

Taking up the thread as to why there's been a shift in the public's view of climate change and why they're happy to ignore the majority consensus of scientists, Naomi Klein links it to a concerted effort by the Princes of Capitalism to spread fear that it's all an eco-socialist plot to relieve the West of its goodies. This resonates in the minds of ordinary folk.

She comments on the large and raid shift in public opinion on this issue. Where folk used to claim a nebulous interest and mild concern on the issue, rapidly shifting opinion now dictates that they are more interested in the issue, but mainly in proving that it's a hoax.

http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate

Poirot,
Your repost. I read it.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm

It seems you haven't read it or you've indulged in a bit of 'confirmation bias' or straight out denial.

'An important clue came from some especially good ice core records that timed precisely the changes in the levels of CO2 and methane. The levels apparently rose or fell a few centuries after a rise or fall in temperature. At first this lag puzzled scientists, but they quickly realized that this was just what they should have expected. For it strongly confirmed that the Milankovitch-cycle orbital changes initiated a powerful feedback loop. The close of a glacial era came when a shift in sunlight caused a slight rise of temperature, and that evidently raised the gas levels over the next few centuries. The greenhouse effect then slowly drove the planet's temperature a bit higher, which drove a further rise in the gas levels... and so forth. On the other hand, when the sunlight in key latitudes weakened, that would not only bring more ice and snow, but also a shift from emission to absorption of gases, eventually causing a further fall in temperature... and so forth.'

It's even referenced. No 58. Shackleton (2000); etc

Then without reference or supporting data the article makes the following generalisation in it's conclusion:

'Our current situation was altogether different. The warming was not started by a small shift of sunlight, as in previous epochs. Our addition of gases to the atmosphere was initiating the process, with the temperature rise lagging behind the rise of gas levels. Emissions were climbing at a far swifter rate than anything in the Pleistocene record, so the lag was measured not in centuries, but mere decades. And already by the 1980s the levels of greenhouse gases had climbed far higher than anything seen for many millions of years.'

All other fundamental assumptions in the article were supported and referenced. But here no argument, no proof just a simpletons assertion.

Now surely there is a grand case of 'confirmation bias' if ever there was one.

Poirot, merci beaucoup

Naomi Klein’s article is a must read for all those who claim to have an open mind (I would be interested in seeing their comments, particularly in light of Durban).

Her analysis is truly revealing with each page a source of quotable excerpts (I note Klein also picked up on Dan Kahan’s study, bottom page 4).

There is a common theme in what Klein has identified, what Kahan has revealed, and what the Heartlanders exhibit - nutters would not have a clue what Dan Kahan is talking about. Ergo, see our own.

Of course, Klein makes much mention of the Heartland Institute – a favourite haunting ground of Joanne Nova/Codling/Evans and her partner in arms, as well as another OLO author in Lord Father Christmas, Christopher Monkton.

A few other antipodeans are regular star attractions as well – you know who they are.

Well done bonmot

You've avoided the truth by ignoring the evidence in Poirot's repost ... and rounded onto a comparatively minor discourse in a field not related to the topic.

Well done you big fake froggy denier.

Well thankyou Julia's nutter,

I agree - the Heartland Institute is a minor discourse compared to the climate talks in Durban.

However, the Heartlanders think otherwise – perhaps you should give Bob Carter a buzz.

Thank you Poirot for the Naomi Klein article; what a joy to read the kind of argument I've been putting forward for ages! And I agree with her that we have to stop trying to appease the greedy/ignorant brigade of minimifidianists--a term that can be considered synonymous with neoliberal/conservative/rational-optimist. It "is" precisely their dystopia that has to be brought down, not only to save the planet, but to save humanity! Klein does't quite go far enough; any new dispensation should hold as sacred and irrevocable that "no" individual may amass wealth or assets beyond an absolute limit. It's precisely the allure of wealth, prestige and the power these bestow that is the cause of the kind of generational corruption we witness in such abundance as to make it perennial throughout history and banal! Gaddafi and Putin being just two of the current batch. Government office has to be transformed into a system whereby its functionaries are servants of the State and not its grotesque beneficiaries.
Consumerism has to be consigned to the vomit bag of history; it's not only nauseating and contemptible, but so far removed from reality as to be breathtaking--that our so-called prosperity "depends" not on thrift but on excess and gluttony!
So far as I'm concerned either humanity undertakes radical change or the sooner we're purged from the planet the better.

The real problem is getting a majority behind the drive for change; I don't believe this is possible, people will cling to their way of life and deny the undeniable, even deny a decent future for their kids or their kids' kids' before they'll embrace modest and unpretentious lives. And this renders all this talk mere "idealism" in a ruthlessly realist paradigm. That's why I believe action on climate change will be forced by ruin and population collapse rather than voluntarily.

imajulianutter,

"...big fake froggy denier."

Here's a link especially for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manners

There you go Poirot

Avoid the issue, that'll make it all go away.

Jeez you really are great for a good old belly laugh.

Here I'll repeat it:

Your repost.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm

It seems you haven't read it or you've indulged in a bit of 'confirmation bias' or straight out denial.

'An important clue came from some especially good ice core records that timed precisely the changes in the levels of CO2 and methane. The levels apparently rose or fell a few centuries after a rise or fall in temperature. At first this lag puzzled scientists, but they quickly realized that this was just what they should have expected. For it strongly confirmed that the Milankovitch-cycle orbital changes initiated a powerful feedback loop. The close of a glacial era came when a shift in sunlight caused a slight rise of temperature, and that evidently raised the gas levels over the next few centuries. The greenhouse effect then slowly drove the planet's temperature a bit higher, which drove a further rise in the gas levels... and so forth. On the other hand, when the sunlight in key latitudes weakened, that would not only bring more ice and snow, but also a shift from emission to absorption of gases, eventually causing a further fall in temperature... and so forth.'

It's even referenced. No 58. Shackleton (2000); etc

Then without reference or supporting data the article makes the following generalisation in it's conclusion:

'Our current situation was altogether different. The warming was not started by a small shift of sunlight, as in previous epochs. Our addition of gases to the atmosphere was initiating the process, with the temperature rise lagging behind the rise of gas levels. Emissions were climbing at a far swifter rate than anything in the Pleistocene record, so the lag was measured not in centuries, but mere decades. And already by the 1980s the levels of greenhouse gases had climbed far higher than anything seen for many millions of years.'

All other fundamental assumptions in the article were supported and referenced. But here no argument, no proof just a simpletons assertion.

jeez poirot,

You keep adding to my delight with your delicious double standards.

When you do it it is a case of:

'you (imajullianutter) appear to have set yourself up for the odd ribbing - and not just from me. Even the great Poirot is addressed in character often in relation to his comments....it's part of the deal.'

odd ribbing?

but when I do it it's a case of:

'"...big fake froggy denier."

Here's a link especially for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manners'

it's a case of bad manners?

Do you ever remember what you write?

imajulianutter (Esq),

I don't resile from my conclusion that if you choose a ridiculous user name - especially one with the deliciously inviting word "nutter" in it - then you are asking for trouble.
It's like walking into a saloon in a jester's suit with the words "PUNCH ME" tattooed on your forehead.

You're the bright spark who thought your tag was so clever. I have never openly abused you (it's a wonder!)....because you're rather pesky as well.

I'm NOT a Julia nutter, so please excuse me if I just address you as ... nutter.

Nutter,

You can contact Dr Weart by email at sweart@gmail.com
I am sure he will be interested in your, um, er ... shall we say, 'critique'.

Given that he was the Director of the Centre for History of Physics at AIP, he no doubt should be aware of the latest developments – you can help out here.

I do note you neglected to include a few cogent sentences following your recent quotation from Poirot's link (but let’s put that down to word limits or only seeing what you want to see. (personally, I think it a combination of cognitive disonance and confirmation bias, but that is only my opinion).

So, Dr Weart continued:

“Even if we stopped our emissions, would feedbacks drive things higher on their own?
There were disturbing signs that feedbacks were indeed kicking in.
Drying forests and warmer seawater were getting less efficient at taking CO2 out of the air,
and methane was seen bubbling up from Arctic wetlands.”

I saw this today; it reminded me of that last sentence:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10773020

Yours in good faith, big fake froggy denier.

Squeers,

I agree that it's unlikely that mankind will heed the warnings.

It's ironic that the same science that improved our lot and furnished us with the ability to do so much damage is now being ignored and ridiculed as it seeks to makes us aware of our dangerous excesses.

We are not wise, wise man.

Well, well well, OLO's resident commie troika is showing the white flag of surrender.

First we see the outright defeatist post of Chairman Squeers with his admissions socialism doesn't work and climate warming as a device to achieve a commie state is now lost. Pity he doesn't accept we the capitalist liberal democrats know we get to chose our own destinies and that they are not directed from on high by 'those who know best' and that we have put AWG and it's acolytes to the sword and are in the process of routing them... with truth.

Then along comes the 'Pravda-like soviet socialist' spokesman, the big fake froggy denier Bonmot who refuses to accept that the 'scientific' article cited as proof of AGW global is mired in a major flawed conclusion and suggests those that have revealed the fraud should seek clarification and 're-education' from the fraudster scientist who penned the simpleton assertions in his conclusion that the current global warming is caused by increased CO2 emissions, (Despite his quoted evidence which shows quite the opposite.)...

And finally arriving in a state of catatonic almost wordless but totally senseless fever is the self admitted dandy and witless (As in without wisdom) 'uselful idiot' Poirot who refuses to even acknowledge he cited an article exhibiting undergraduate shortcomings and continues unhappily on in his denialist belief that such nonsense is science.

Er ... excusez-moi, qu'est-ce que c'est?

"....we the capitalist liberal democrats know we get to chose our own destinies and that they are not directed from on high by "those who know best" and that we have put AWG and it's acolytes to the sword and are in the process of routing them... with truth."

How extraordinarily titillating for you.

Einstein said:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

And I'm sure about the latter.