I find it quite ironic that you choose to crow about your own University Of Life "qualifications" whilst decrying mine, which, as a matter of fact, I rarely think about and even more rarely mention. I'm very comfortable with mine, thank you, whilst your rather ranting post betrays your massive insecurities and, quite possibly, a touch of jealousy. Go on, tell us more about your consultancy work in your world of science. I promise not to accuse you of braggadocio. The science you throw at us, along with your rambling and irrelevant distractions about Einstein and radiocarbon dating, is unconvincing, relying far more on links that you don't comment on than on structured argument. When you do try to comment on the facts you generally argue from ignorance, same as Teribus, and you pepper it all far too much with emotion and splenetic outbursts, same as he does. Science looks for consensus. In that regard at least, the two of you are among the most "unscientific" people I've ever come across.

It's also very amusing that both you and Teribus feel qualified to comment on my teaching career though neither of you have ever seen me in action nor are knowingly acquainted with any pupil I've ever taught. It's a bit like my presuming to comment on your sex life based entirely on the content of your postings here. In other words, try not to be so silly.

"Do you seriously think you are the only person on this forum with a BSc, MSc, PhD, or chartered status?"

Another attribute of careful science is that it deals in accuracy. I don't enjoy any kind of chartered status, nor do I have an MSc or a PhD, and I've never claimed any of them. The fact that you can come out with that falsehood over such a simple matter is hardly a good indication that we can trust anything else you say, is it?