Correction / counting
One listed Cook paper was mitigation, not endorsement; a welding paper was explicit endorsement. Fraudulent studies have no percentage left to recompute.
Read Article →Category
scientific fraud
9 posts
All sides
Exposing Cook’s fraud is not climate skepticism. AGW is not history’s biggest hoax. Fraud means willful lies about methods, not merely lower ECS estimates.
Read Article →On fraud
Scientific fraud is deception, not only fake cells in a freezer. False titles the authors’ own spreadsheet refutes meet standard falsification tests.
Read Article →How one paleo-participant can change the outcome of a study
A 32,757-year-old in Lewandowsky’s PLOS ONE file erased real age correlations. Minors stayed in; authors knew for a year and still reported false results.
Read Article →No results
Cook raters googled authors and mocked skeptics. Fraud plus an invalid method means there is no 97%--no number at all. Results require methods.
Read Article →The art of evasion
Cook’s team never answered the fraud case. They claimed blind, independent raters they did not use; without those methods, there are no results.
Read Article →Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97%
Cook et al. coded stove surveys, housing papers, and TV-news studies as AGW endorsement. The 97% figure is fraudulent and should be retracted.
Read Article →More fraud
Lewandowsky claimed free-marketeers reject HIV and smoking science. Data show 95-96% agreement; correlations turned assent into “rejection.”
Read Article →Lewandowsky fraud
Lewandowsky’s moon-landing title is false: 3 of 1,145 endorsed both hoaxes. The paper slanders skeptics and should be retracted as scientific fraud.
Read Article →