Yup. I'm a chemist. And last time I looked, chemistry, biochemistry and spectroscopy were all fields of science, just as much so as physics. The fact remains that I DID precisely what I said, worked in and consulted with LLNL.
Here's some other items:
As a postdoc, I did a short project with Willard Libby. I assume you know who he is.
As an undergrad, I worked in a C-14 dating lab (NOT related to the project with Libby...that was a totally separate work (peer-review published, btw)).
My minor in Grad school was in Nuclear Science. So with that background I have a very good background in nuclear measurements.
MEASUREMENT is my area of expertise, and I'm damned good at it, having garnered two R&D100 awards for my work (actually one R&D100 and one IR100).
But the thing that makes me a scientist and you a joke is that I look at ALL the data, and not just what happens to fit my prejudices.
Looking at bad data or data based on flawed theories is in fact meaningless.
You do not have the slightest clue on what fusion is about——’cold’ ‘hot’ or any other kind.
I suggest you perhaps fit into to R.C. Hoagland model of science.
Call names all you want. The cold fusion people still have not produced what they said years ago would be available in six months. IF they ever do then we can have a discussion