Is this SOP at the IPCC?

[PMZ]

What made Sari an expert in 1994, when she was first given a position of importance?

Neither I nor you have any idea why she was hired. She certainly was very educated. She could have been hired as a gifted writer. Maybe she was the only applicant.

Your paranoia that anything that you don't know is a conspiracy is the issue. Not her qualifications.

If you always suspect a conspiracy, you'll always find one.

The IPCC has turned out some amazing science on their mission. Their political foes have accomplished precisely and absolutely nothing.

You must be so proud.

You simply are not going to impose your politics on the world. No matter how low you go.

I can tell by your response that this is embarrassing, that's why you are attacking me personally instead of discussing my point. I have never said that there is any conspiracy here. I have said that there is rampant incompetence.

She was not "very educated" when she was hired almost 20 years ago, she hadn't even published yet (here's a link to her first paper). She wasn't even a Scientist, she had a degree in Social Policy.

There's more examples of not so elite "experts" on the IPCC here:

Rajendra Pachauri ? The Little Man Who Told Big Whoppers | NoFrakkingConsensus

I'm pretty sure that everyone here realizes that you have no background in science, but are political motivated to impose what you wish was true on the rest of the world. People have a healthy disrespect for political motivation, a fact that you try to avoid by lame attempts to discredit a purely scientific body with inuendo.

We've come to expect that political motivations are driven by humanity's lowest instincts, the lure of power and entitlement, and need to treat you with the disrespect that such base compulsions deserve.

In the meantime we recognize that your total lack of science education that your ignorance of leads you to demean, disqualifies you from any role in dealing with solving the climactic problems that mankind has dealt itself. You simply are unequipped to add to mankind's knowledge of our climate and energy future.

Knowledge is what separates man and beast. While the knowledge contributions of the IPCC to climate science have been monumental, political operatives like you have attempted to hijack the action that knowing would allow, and replace it with unstudied ignorance and hope for the best.

The world has declared you and yours irrelevent to climate policy based on your abhorrence to learning even the base science that leads to cost effective solutions.

On the other hand here's an example of your polar opposite. A person who has spent is life in academic preparation for addressing the optimum path to our energy and climate future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri

Every time science has added to our ability to do what's best with increased fundamental understanding that leads to the best what to do, they are opposed by some politically motivated, self serving, know it all, halt progress, return to the past resistance group.

Every time their resistance to learning has been temporary and futile. This time is no different.

 

[mamooth]

Those who can discuss the science, do.

Dave can't, hence his parades of political hit pieces. And his rage when people laugh at the tactic. If everyone keeps pointing out his propaganda tactics, what hope does he have?

 

[PMZ]

Those who can discuss the science, do.

Dave can't, hence his parades of political hit pieces. And his rage when people laugh at the tactic. If everyone keeps pointing out his propaganda tactics, what hope does he have?

It really is science vs nothing. Knowing nothing so there is no risk of doing anything.

 

[daveman]

Those who can discuss the science, do.

Dave can't, hence his parades of political hit pieces. And his rage when people laugh at the tactic. If everyone keeps pointing out his propaganda tactics, what hope does he have?

Those who can discuss the science, do.

Dave can't, hence his parades of political hit pieces. And his rage when people laugh at the tactic. If everyone keeps pointing out his propaganda tactics, what hope does he have?

It really is science vs nothing. Knowing nothing so there is no risk of doing anything.

You two are pathetic. You think believing in something is an accomplishment. You think it makes you superior to those who don't share your faith.

You're nothing more than fundamentalists.

 

[PMZ]

We have the certainty of science, no thanks to you and yours. You're the one operating on blind faith in your politics and political entertainers.

 

[daveman]

We have the certainty of science, no thanks to you and yours. You're the one operating on blind faith in your politics and political entertainers.

Not really.

Especially considering your insistence that we implicitly trust and believe in the IPCC.

YOU are operating on blind faith. WILLFULLY blind faith.

And faith is fine. But don't force yours on me, to the tune of trillions of dollars. I'm not forcing mine on you, am I?

 

[PMZ]

We have the certainty of science, no thanks to you and yours. You're the one operating on blind faith in your politics and political entertainers.

Not really.

Especially considering your insistence that we implicitly trust and believe in the IPCC.

YOU are operating on blind faith. WILLFULLY blind faith.

And faith is fine. But don't force yours on me, to the tune of trillions of dollars. I'm not forcing mine on you, am I?

Science requires no faith because it's how mankind finds truth. That puts it at odds with your politics which is based on dumping your responsibilities on others.

We can't afford your politics. That's evident to every thinking American. We tried it and our resulting debt has never been higher.

We're thinking and planning people. We would never approach a complex problem blindly. We do the science to find the right way to proceed.

You can bitch and whine all that you want but in vain. The stakes are just too high for your half assed approach.

 

[asterism]

Neither I nor you have any idea why she was hired. She certainly was very educated. She could have been hired as a gifted writer. Maybe she was the only applicant.

Your paranoia that anything that you don't know is a conspiracy is the issue. Not her qualifications.

If you always suspect a conspiracy, you'll always find one.

The IPCC has turned out some amazing science on their mission. Their political foes have accomplished precisely and absolutely nothing.

You must be so proud.

You simply are not going to impose your politics on the world. No matter how low you go.

I can tell by your response that this is embarrassing, that's why you are attacking me personally instead of discussing my point. I have never said that there is any conspiracy here. I have said that there is rampant incompetence.

She was not "very educated" when she was hired almost 20 years ago, she hadn't even published yet (here's a link to her first paper). She wasn't even a Scientist, she had a degree in Social Policy.

There's more examples of not so elite "experts" on the IPCC here:

Rajendra Pachauri ? The Little Man Who Told Big Whoppers | NoFrakkingConsensus

I'm pretty sure that everyone here realizes that you have no background in science, but are political motivated to impose what you wish was true on the rest of the world. People have a healthy disrespect for political motivation, a fact that you try to avoid by lame attempts to discredit a purely scientific body with inuendo.

We've come to expect that political motivations are driven by humanity's lowest instincts, the lure of power and entitlement, and need to treat you with the disrespect that such base compulsions deserve.

In the meantime we recognize that your total lack of science education that your ignorance of leads you to demean, disqualifies you from any role in dealing with solving the climactic problems that mankind has dealt itself. You simply are unequipped to add to mankind's knowledge of our climate and energy future.

Knowledge is what separates man and beast. While the knowledge contributions of the IPCC to climate science have been monumental, political operatives like you have attempted to hijack the action that knowing would allow, and replace it with unstudied ignorance and hope for the best.

The world has declared you and yours irrelevent to climate policy based on your abhorrence to learning even the base science that leads to cost effective solutions.

On the other hand here's an example of your polar opposite. A person who has spent is life in academic preparation for addressing the optimum path to our energy and climate future.

Rajendra K. Pachauri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Every time science has added to our ability to do what's best with increased fundamental understanding that leads to the best what to do, they are opposed by some politically motivated, self serving, know it all, halt progress, return to the past resistance group.

Every time their resistance to learning has been temporary and futile. This time is no different.

I have already posted that my background and education is in data, business, and software. I have also repeatedly posted that the politics do not matter to me at all. They really don't.

If a science background is a requirement, why was Sari Kovats appointed to an influential position without any background in science?

 

[PMZ]

I can tell by your response that this is embarrassing, that's why you are attacking me personally instead of discussing my point. I have never said that there is any conspiracy here. I have said that there is rampant incompetence.

She was not "very educated" when she was hired almost 20 years ago, she hadn't even published yet (here's a link to her first paper). She wasn't even a Scientist, she had a degree in Social Policy.

There's more examples of not so elite "experts" on the IPCC here:

Rajendra Pachauri ? The Little Man Who Told Big Whoppers | NoFrakkingConsensus

I'm pretty sure that everyone here realizes that you have no background in science, but are political motivated to impose what you wish was true on the rest of the world. People have a healthy disrespect for political motivation, a fact that you try to avoid by lame attempts to discredit a purely scientific body with inuendo.

We've come to expect that political motivations are driven by humanity's lowest instincts, the lure of power and entitlement, and need to treat you with the disrespect that such base compulsions deserve.

In the meantime we recognize that your total lack of science education that your ignorance of leads you to demean, disqualifies you from any role in dealing with solving the climactic problems that mankind has dealt itself. You simply are unequipped to add to mankind's knowledge of our climate and energy future.

Knowledge is what separates man and beast. While the knowledge contributions of the IPCC to climate science have been monumental, political operatives like you have attempted to hijack the action that knowing would allow, and replace it with unstudied ignorance and hope for the best.

The world has declared you and yours irrelevent to climate policy based on your abhorrence to learning even the base science that leads to cost effective solutions.

On the other hand here's an example of your polar opposite. A person who has spent is life in academic preparation for addressing the optimum path to our energy and climate future.

Rajendra K. Pachauri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Every time science has added to our ability to do what's best with increased fundamental understanding that leads to the best what to do, they are opposed by some politically motivated, self serving, know it all, halt progress, return to the past resistance group.

Every time their resistance to learning has been temporary and futile. This time is no different.

I have already posted that my background and education is in data, business, and software. I have also repeatedly posted that the politics do not matter to me at all. They really don't.

If a science background is a requirement, why was Sari Kovats appointed to an influential position without any background in science?

Politics is all that you have! The science of AGW is unequivocal. If you have some breakthrough that the IPCC doesn't have, let us know what it is. If not we'll go with the science rather than fall for your politics.

 

[asterism]

I'm pretty sure that everyone here realizes that you have no background in science, but are political motivated to impose what you wish was true on the rest of the world. People have a healthy disrespect for political motivation, a fact that you try to avoid by lame attempts to discredit a purely scientific body with inuendo.

We've come to expect that political motivations are driven by humanity's lowest instincts, the lure of power and entitlement, and need to treat you with the disrespect that such base compulsions deserve.

In the meantime we recognize that your total lack of science education that your ignorance of leads you to demean, disqualifies you from any role in dealing with solving the climactic problems that mankind has dealt itself. You simply are unequipped to add to mankind's knowledge of our climate and energy future.

Knowledge is what separates man and beast. While the knowledge contributions of the IPCC to climate science have been monumental, political operatives like you have attempted to hijack the action that knowing would allow, and replace it with unstudied ignorance and hope for the best.

The world has declared you and yours irrelevent to climate policy based on your abhorrence to learning even the base science that leads to cost effective solutions.

On the other hand here's an example of your polar opposite. A person who has spent is life in academic preparation for addressing the optimum path to our energy and climate future.

Rajendra K. Pachauri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Every time science has added to our ability to do what's best with increased fundamental understanding that leads to the best what to do, they are opposed by some politically motivated, self serving, know it all, halt progress, return to the past resistance group.

Every time their resistance to learning has been temporary and futile. This time is no different.

I have already posted that my background and education is in data, business, and software. I have also repeatedly posted that the politics do not matter to me at all. They really don't.

If a science background is a requirement, why was Sari Kovats appointed to an influential position without any background in science?

Politics is all that you have!

That's false. There are serious issues with the methodology used by the early group of scientists that "proved" Anthropogenic Global Warming. Namely, that they did not have any expertise in data and software.

There are serious issues with the vetting of IPCC "Scientists." Many of them were not Scientists when they were hired.

There are serious issues with the IPCC standards, with non peer-reviewed studies being admitted into the reports.

There are serious issues with peer-review in the field Climatology. It has become "pal-review" in some instances and it has become almost dogmatic in collusion to deny publication on the basis of the conclusion instead of the merit of the work. There has even been an effort to pressure a publication for accepting studies not approved by certain individuals.[/quote]

The science of AGW is unequivocal. If you have some breakthrough that the IPCC doesn't have, let us know what it is. If not we'll go with the science rather than fall for your politics.

I have nothing new, others have done a fine job at documenting the issues with the IPCC and some of the influential people involved.

 

[westwall]

The little cowboy wishes that everyone in the world was up to his heavenly standard of error free pontificating.

The IPCC that he criticizes, however, has admitted not being as perfect as he.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledged today that it had erred in projecting the rate and impacts of retreating Himalayan glaciers in a 2007 report. The faulty information appears in one paragraph of a 900-plus page Working Group II report. “In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly,” the group*explained in a prepared statement.

The paragraph in question had claimed that: “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high.”

In fact, glaciologist Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University said this afternoon, Himalayan glaciers are thinning and retreating at a rapid pace, but not at a demonstrably faster rate than in many other parts of the world.

In fact, he said, it’s hard to fully understand how the Himalayas are*responding to Earth’s warming because only about 600 of some 46,000 glaciers in that region are being monitored. Of those, 95 percent are in retreat. But it’s hard to understand how much mass the glaciers are losing, Thompson says,*without first knowing the depth of affected glaciers — a measure of how much water they hold. And currently,*such data are largely nonexistent.

Globally, he says, the glacial census is being rewritten at anything but the proverbial glacial pace. One Andean glacier that has been under study for more than 40 years was retreating at a pace of just 6 meters a year in the early decades. Its retreat has now accelerated to roughly 60 meters a year. Another mountain that used to host six glaciers retains just two remnant ice fields.

Among glaciers within the Brooks Range, which stretches across northern Alaska and Canada’s Yukon, “100 percent” are retreating, he notes. So too, he adds,*are 100 percent of glaciers in the tropics (like areas of Peru where Thompson has monitored ice fields for upwards of three decades), roughly 99 percent of the European Alps and more than 95 percent of glaciers in southeastern Alaska.

Overall, glaciers cap some 10 percent of the planet, Thompson observed during a press briefing this afternoon. And the majority of this cold cover appears to be experiencing not only a net loss of aerial extent, but also a drop in the depth of what remains.*“Many of these glaciers are now being decapitated,” he explains, since they are losing more snow each year from their tops than is falling down upon them.

From: IPCC admits Himalayan glacier error | Climate Change | Science News

What's funny is they KNEW it was a lie and they published it ANYWAY! They are unethical AND stupid. Just look who they employ! PMZ is no doubt a senior janitor there!

 

[daveman]

We have the certainty of science, no thanks to you and yours. You're the one operating on blind faith in your politics and political entertainers.

Not really.

Especially considering your insistence that we implicitly trust and believe in the IPCC.

YOU are operating on blind faith. WILLFULLY blind faith.

And faith is fine. But don't force yours on me, to the tune of trillions of dollars. I'm not forcing mine on you, am I?

Science requires no faith because it's how mankind finds truth. That puts it at odds with your politics which is based on dumping your responsibilities on others.

We can't afford your politics. That's evident to every thinking American. We tried it and our resulting debt has never been higher.

We're thinking and planning people. We would never approach a complex problem blindly. We do the science to find the right way to proceed.

You can bitch and whine all that you want but in vain. The stakes are just too high for your half assed approach.

You "thinking and planning people" are incompetent and corrupt.

I wouldn't trust you to run a Little League bake sale. There's no way in HELL I'm letting you control the economies of the Western world.

 

[PMZ]

The US conservative political cult, led by Rush Limbaugh and others, finds science in the way of the imposition of their politics on the rest of the country. Like the Catholic Church in the years leading up to the Dark Ages, it has become essential in their quest for power for conservatives to disparage education, and science, and science based progress, in order to fuel their world view of society as merely unorganized individuals, living only for themselves.

Fortunately their use of mass media has fallen short of their expectations and our democracy has limited their political influence.

Recovery from the Bush years when their influence peaked, is underway.

By recovery do you mean the unraveling of the doom and gloom predictions of non-stop hurricanes? Or perhaps it's the measurable drop in CO2 emissions due to not natural gas, but alternative fuel technology? And where are all those green jobs that were promised?


I get it. You aren't a scientist, and you aren't even all that competent in the issues of today. You're not even an activist and you get your information from astroturfed sources. Reality plods on without regards to your efforts.


Oh and when you read about an inquiry into the raw data you supposedly said was available? I was one voice of thousands that demanded that it be released.

In fact I'm a engineer and made a very good living solving problems using science.

If you got your science from the IPCC instead of Fox News, and you had the education to understand it, you'd also know the truth.

You choose not to. That’s fine with me. Just don't pretend that your AGW opinions are anything more than what you wish was true.

 

[PMZ]

In this corner, we have the little cowboy. Noted gunslinger.

In this corner we have Sari Kovats.

From Sari Kovats | London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine | LSHTM

"Sari Kovats is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social and Environmental Research in the Faculty of Public Health and Policy. She has been actively researching the effects of weather and climate on human health for more than 15 years and has published widely on this topic; including 60 peer-reviewed journal papers and more than 20 book chapters. Her particular areas of interest include health impact assessment of climate change and epidemiological studies of the effects of climate, weather and weather events in urban*and*rural*populations."

"Sari has been*employed by*LSHTM*since 1994 when she joined the Dept of Epidemiology and Population Health to work as a research assistant*on*one of the first comprehensive books on climate change and health: McMichael AJ, Haines A, Slooff R, and Kovats S, eds. Climate Change and Human Health: an assessment prepared by a Task Group on behalf of the World Health Organization, the World Meteorological Organization, and the United Nations Environment Programme. Geneva,*WHO, 1996 [WHO/EHG/96.7].* In 1997, Sari was promoted to Research Fellow and in 2003 to Lecturer, and in 2010 to Senior Lecturer. Sari has a Masters*Degree*in Social Policy from the SouthBank University in London and completed a part-time PhD in epidemiology in 2010 at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine."

"Sari is a member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Global Environmental Change and Human Health Project of ESSP (Earth System Science Partnership) and on the management committee for the WHO Collaborating Centre on Global Change and Health at LSHTM. Since 2010, Sari has been a Fellow of the*Collegium Ramazzini. She is also on the editorial board of the journal Global Environmental Change."

"Sari has*been involved extensively in the scientific assessment of the impacts of climate change on health for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). She is*currently*a co-Coordinating Lead Author for the chapter on Europe in the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report, due to be published in 2014."

Now if you need a gunslinger, I'd go with the little cowboy.

As a scientist, he's a good cowboy. So for science, I'd go with Dr Kovats.

Why was she hired before she received her doctorate? Why was she hired before she published any papers? Why was she given a position writing guidance documents before she received her doctorate? Why was she placed on so many committees where she has no background or training?

Until you can answer those questions, the conclusion remains that Sari was hired for the wrong reasons -- ideological purity.

I don't know any more than you do about those details. You'd like to advertise your lack of knowledge as insight. I am not falling for that. Lack of knowledge is lack of knowledge.

 

[PMZ]

I have already posted that my background and education is in data, business, and software. I have also repeatedly posted that the politics do not matter to me at all. They really don't.

If a science background is a requirement, why was Sari Kovats appointed to an influential position without any background in science?

Politics is all that you have!

That's false. There are serious issues with the methodology used by the early group of scientists that "proved" Anthropogenic Global Warming. Namely, that they did not have any expertise in data and software.

There are serious issues with the vetting of IPCC "Scientists." Many of them were not Scientists when they were hired.

There are serious issues with the IPCC standards, with non peer-reviewed studies being admitted into the reports.

There are serious issues with peer-review in the field Climatology. It has become "pal-review" in some instances and it has become almost dogmatic in collusion to deny publication on the basis of the conclusion instead of the merit of the work. There has even been an effort to pressure a publication for accepting studies not approved by certain individuals.

The science of AGW is unequivocal. If you have some breakthrough that the IPCC doesn't have, let us know what it is. If not we'll go with the science rather than fall for your politics.

I have nothing new, others have done a fine job at documenting the issues with the IPCC and some of the influential people involved.[/QUOTE]

If you have nothing new, or nothing to add to the science, why do you default to conspiracy theories?

 

[PMZ]

Not really.

Especially considering your insistence that we implicitly trust and believe in the IPCC.

YOU are operating on blind faith. WILLFULLY blind faith.

And faith is fine. But don't force yours on me, to the tune of trillions of dollars. I'm not forcing mine on you, am I?

Science requires no faith because it's how mankind finds truth. That puts it at odds with your politics which is based on dumping your responsibilities on others.

We can't afford your politics. That's evident to every thinking American. We tried it and our resulting debt has never been higher.

We're thinking and planning people. We would never approach a complex problem blindly. We do the science to find the right way to proceed.

You can bitch and whine all that you want but in vain. The stakes are just too high for your half assed approach.

You "thinking and planning people" are incompetent and corrupt.

I wouldn't trust you to run a Little League bake sale. There's no way in HELL I'm letting you control the economies of the Western world.

Tell us all about what you folks accomplish without thinking and planning. I'm pretty sure that is how lower primates do things.

 

[daveman]

In fact I'm a engineer...

Pffft. Engineer of Womyn's Studies, maybe.

 

[daveman]

In this corner, we have the little cowboy. Noted gunslinger.

In this corner we have Sari Kovats.

From Sari Kovats | London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine | LSHTM

"Sari Kovats is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social and Environmental Research in the Faculty of Public Health and Policy. She has been actively researching the effects of weather and climate on human health for more than 15 years and has published widely on this topic; including 60 peer-reviewed journal papers and more than 20 book chapters. Her particular areas of interest include health impact assessment of climate change and epidemiological studies of the effects of climate, weather and weather events in urban*and*rural*populations."

"Sari has been*employed by*LSHTM*since 1994 when she joined the Dept of Epidemiology and Population Health to work as a research assistant*on*one of the first comprehensive books on climate change and health: McMichael AJ, Haines A, Slooff R, and Kovats S, eds. Climate Change and Human Health: an assessment prepared by a Task Group on behalf of the World Health Organization, the World Meteorological Organization, and the United Nations Environment Programme. Geneva,*WHO, 1996 [WHO/EHG/96.7].* In 1997, Sari was promoted to Research Fellow and in 2003 to Lecturer, and in 2010 to Senior Lecturer. Sari has a Masters*Degree*in Social Policy from the SouthBank University in London and completed a part-time PhD in epidemiology in 2010 at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine."

"Sari is a member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Global Environmental Change and Human Health Project of ESSP (Earth System Science Partnership) and on the management committee for the WHO Collaborating Centre on Global Change and Health at LSHTM. Since 2010, Sari has been a Fellow of the*Collegium Ramazzini. She is also on the editorial board of the journal Global Environmental Change."

"Sari has*been involved extensively in the scientific assessment of the impacts of climate change on health for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). She is*currently*a co-Coordinating Lead Author for the chapter on Europe in the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report, due to be published in 2014."

Now if you need a gunslinger, I'd go with the little cowboy.

As a scientist, he's a good cowboy. So for science, I'd go with Dr Kovats.

Why was she hired before she received her doctorate? Why was she hired before she published any papers? Why was she given a position writing guidance documents before she received her doctorate? Why was she placed on so many committees where she has no background or training?

Until you can answer those questions, the conclusion remains that Sari was hired for the wrong reasons -- ideological purity.

I don't know any more than you do about those details. You'd like to advertise your lack of knowledge as insight. I am not falling for that. Lack of knowledge is lack of knowledge.

And yet you want us to blindly accept the IPCC's say-so, and never question why they hired an unqualified person.

You're not going to win any converts that way, kid.

 

[daveman]

Science requires no faith because it's how mankind finds truth. That puts it at odds with your politics which is based on dumping your responsibilities on others.

We can't afford your politics. That's evident to every thinking American. We tried it and our resulting debt has never been higher.

We're thinking and planning people. We would never approach a complex problem blindly. We do the science to find the right way to proceed.

You can bitch and whine all that you want but in vain. The stakes are just too high for your half assed approach.

You "thinking and planning people" are incompetent and corrupt.

I wouldn't trust you to run a Little League bake sale. There's no way in HELL I'm letting you control the economies of the Western world.

Tell us all about what you folks accomplish without thinking and planning. I'm pretty sure that is how lower primates do things.

Your thinking and planning is nothing more than emoting and wishing.

Seriously, kid. That's all you've got.

Thinking people don't insist on blind obedience. Planning people don't insist we do things with absolutely no idea of what the outcome will be.

Your faux superiority schtick is wearing thin, boy. No one's going to agree to your lofty opinion of yourself, despite your petulant foot-stamping.

Now get back to work on your Lego Batcave, Mr. "Engineer".

 

[PMZ]

You "thinking and planning people" are incompetent and corrupt.

I wouldn't trust you to run a Little League bake sale. There's no way in HELL I'm letting you control the economies of the Western world.

Tell us all about what you folks accomplish without thinking and planning. I'm pretty sure that is how lower primates do things.

Your thinking and planning is nothing more than emoting and wishing.

Seriously, kid. That's all you've got.

Thinking people don't insist on blind obedience. Planning people don't insist we do things with absolutely no idea of what the outcome will be.

Your faux superiority schtick is wearing thin, boy. No one's going to agree to your lofty opinion of yourself, despite your petulant foot-stamping.

Now get back to work on your Lego Batcave, Mr. "Engineer".

''Thinking people don't insist on blind obedience.''

Exactly why I have no respect for the speak in one voice conservative cult.