There are two simple, yet serious questions about his paper. Question number one: where is the ethics approval section of the paper?
Now, I might be mistaken. The section could be in the paper. After all, the paper is 57 pages long and ethics review section could be hidden someplace. On top of it, I am a ‘denier’. So I might be not seeing what’s there.
On to question number two. Why are there what appear to be fabrications and falsifications in the paper?
Again, this has to be clearly understood. People make all sorts of mistakes in research. The kind of errors that are considered serious enough to constitute scientific misconduct are hard to pin down. As a shortcut, the US NSF for instance makes the determination that any act that constitutes fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, would qualify.
The kind of usage of comment material Stephen Lewandowsky, Cook and others appear to have employed in their paper seems to fall squarely in the falsification and fabrication territory. Brandon Shollenberger’s post is published at a prominent outlet WUWT.
Shollenberger’s evidence doesn’t rely on interpretive grounds to support this conclusion: the excerpted quotes and the full quotes with their context are provided in the open.
Cook usually does not answer to criticism. But this is about a scientific publication in the public domain. Of the questions above, the second one, is serious. It requires a response.