Well, I just now took a fresh look, and I'm still only gleaning bits and pieces. Something about advice to "not under-estimate [sic]" climate scientists (I don't), a belief that taxpayers finance advanced degrees (I don't think so), an assertion that there are those who support "hog-waller[s]" (I've no idea) and that they must not be very smart due to grain transplants but they think they LOOK smart (must be the glasses), and your apparent professed affinity for a certain brand of dog food. But absolutely nothing that has anything to do with my comment to which you replied.

Again, what?