>Reply to article by: George Hammond
notspam.org>
>Date written: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:57:48 GMT
>MsgID:<0vghl3hnm3ndsn1no7o3c2ck66ogf2p0fd@4ax.com>>>> You've been already proven to be a LIAR once, now you are
>>>lying again since I have published my work in a PEER
>>>REVIEWED JOURNAL:
>>>which is PROOF that I know what a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL IS,
>>>therefore you are proven to be AGAIN A LIAR.
>>Wrong. Define what a PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL is and then you will have
>>proven your blind faith assertion. I predict you cannot define what a peer
>>reviewed science journal is.
> Get out of here ---hole, it's a documentyed facr that I
>have 2 degrees in Physics and have published 2 full length
>papers in PEER REVIEWED ACADEMIC JOURNALS. Screw.
Grocery store tabloids do not count as peer reviwed SCIENTIFIC journals, but
thank you for fulfulling my prediction anyway. It was made to prove you are
dodging and evading the issue because you have no clue what a peer reviwed
science journal is. You might (or might not) know anything about physics, but
you certainly do not know what a physically real experiment conducted in
a laboratory setting and reproduced by an independant third party is. Maybe you
need a third degree before you will figure out what that is?
> Go back to alt.usenet.kooks where you belong, you have
>nothing of relevance to say.
As long as you are here, I am in alt.usenet.kooks
Looking forward to the (far distant) day you get your third degree and finally
learn what the scientific method is all about.
The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
[The current anthropomorphic global warming nonsense is
based on] "inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar
to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week
from now"
-- Dr. Richard Lindzen
=============================================================
