The quote in question: “You’re the greatest in the world, but I think that’s a bit of a lie.”
It was published on Thursday in the journal Psychology Today.
Molten salt was used in the process.
The article goes on to talk about how a person can tell if the quote is real or fake.
But it is clear from the title of the article that it is not an actual quote from the author.
I would like to say, “But it’s a very good piece of journalism.”
But, if you look at the article, there are some other things that are in it, that are not really relevant.
Firstly, the article is a satire piece.
This means it is a parody piece, and this is what people are not going to take seriously.
They are not actually going to believe what it is saying.
So if you take the title as a satire, then you have got a parody in your article.
Secondly, the writer of the piece has no credentials whatsoever.
It’s not a real academic paper, and yet it is being cited on Wikipedia and on the BBC.
You have got someone with no credentials, who has just written something that is completely made up.
It is clearly a very bad piece of writing, and I don’t think that it should be cited by anybody.
It would have been better to have a proper academic paper.
But, I would say that the piece is a very poor piece of reporting, and not a very credible piece of journalistic reporting.
This is not something that a newspaper should be promoting.
What does this have to do with climate change?
Well, what we have here is a piece of research by an academic that has been written by someone who has never actually worked in a scientific field, and it is based on a very flawed premise, and the result is a really poor piece-of-reporting.
What are the implications of this?
Well, this is something that has absolutely nothing to do at all with climate science.
We are not talking about whether or not people are right or wrong about global warming.
We are talking about what we might be doing about climate change.
We don’t know what is going to happen to our planet, and we don’t really know how to do anything about it.
And that is not going be determined by what the author of this piece says.
If he thinks that this is a good article, and that it will lead to a lot of good research, then great.
The point is that he doesn’t know anything about climate science, and he is writing an article based on something that he has never even worked in.
He is not a scientist.
So, the result of this is that it creates a really negative impression of the field of climate science that has nothing to say about climate.
Do you know why this is so?
Well, if it was about climate research, it would be completely irrelevant to the actual scientific work that is going on in the field.
Instead, it is about making the science of climate change look better by using a lot more science that is based in the real world, and so that is what we are trying to achieve here.
To summarise, this article is clearly not a scientific paper, it’s not about climate, it has nothing at all to do with climate, and is just about a very irresponsible piece of science.