I define fraud as "operating by a standard which prevents truth from being produced". Being wrong is not fraud. Errors are easily corrected with constructive standards. The question is method of proceeding. There is no excuse for the tactics which frauds use. A subject can be properly represented. People have a responsibility to make sure their statements are correct, or at least provide enough information to determine what the truth is.

Fraud however has motives which are served by preventing truth from being produced. Incompetent persons use fraud to destroy truth and competition which stand in the way of their exploitation. Creating fraud is a method of relying upon fake realities to make incompetent and corrupt persons somebodies.

There are many gimmicks and a highly developed art in misrepresenting a subject through fraud. So fraud has distinct characteristics, as the examples below show.

Fraud is promoted from a totally authoritative position. Authority means unquestionable fact and faith without reason. There is supposedly a dark pit someplace which purifies the realities of authority figures without the need for rationality and accountability. Peer review supposedly purified global warming hype that way. Black box computer models generate any number or lie needed to bolster the propaganda.

If frauds can't make themselves out to be authorities, they speak for authorities just the same. Any drunk, journalist or commentator can speak the unquestionable truth and prevent their opponents from speaking, as long as they are on the authoritative side of the issue. For example, the governor of Oregon is representing the supposed science of global warming and not allowing his state meteorologist to promote the error of questioning it.

Why should idiots force the supposed position of authority down our throats? Why can't we decide for ourselves what authority is worth? Proper criticism requires that a person explain the evidence and logic of what he says, so its validity can be evaluated, instead of speaking for someone else.

Diabolically opposed to the authority scam is logic and evidence. Logic and evidence would allow a person to evaluate for himself. There is a subconscious rule branded onto the DNA of the modern world which says logic and evidence is how the enemies of society destroy our kids and pets. If you see logic and evidence, relegate it to the pit. Anyone who produces logic and evidence puts himself above the authorities who have spoken.

Relativity is one of the clearest examples of fraud, since it is based upon the claim that the velocity of light is determined by the receiving point, so effect precedes cause, which is never valid logic. But relativity is out of public view; so I am focussing these examples upon global warming (on Page 2.), which is a public concern. But first but I'm going to start with my own research on morel mushrooms.
 
Example 1. Morel Mushroom Research

The author of the blog title fungifest.com (who doesn't give his name) ridicules to my morel mushroom web site, adding a few quotes of mine, and then adds a fraudulent statement sent by a reader. My morel web site shows how a mushroom is in the process of evolving from a yeast resulting in highly unusual characteristics, which is extremely informative of evolution and biology. The location of the fraudulent criticism is this:

http://fungifest.com/category/mushrooms/page/2/

and what it says is this:

NOTE: A well-educated reader who focuses on mycology sent a great response to this post. This person stated that:

Many, many fungi have the ability to grow as either a yeast or a mycelium (jelly fungi, smuts, many human pathogens, even some zygomycetes) and this is well understood. Nobody would imply that they all evolved recently from yeasts. All the evidence points to a filamentous form as ancestral for all fungi; many different fungi have evolved the ability to grow as yeasts. Sectoring in lab colonies has been known for a long time, and so have the genetic processes underlying it. Lots of fungi start off as white mycelia and change as they get older, and the sclerotia that morels develop aren’t particularly weird. Variation among fruiting bodies isn’t so special! Morels are well documented to belong to a handful of different biological species–seven or more in N. America.

In addition, this person described the Morel Evolution site as “pseudoscience.”

Every element of the science which is mentioned by the supposed critic is fraud. The critic seems to have studied mycology, which is on a different planet from microbiology. So he doesn't know what a yeast is. He was referring to a type of growth as a yeast. A yeast is not a type of growth; it is a species in a taxonomic group. An organism doesn't change species with types of growth. Yeasts are so vastly different in physiology from filamentous fungi that they don't convert back and forth. The morel demonstrates this, because it still has yeast-like physiology which is not advantageous as a mushroom, which includes residual autolysis and not tolerating exposure to the atmosphere. I describe the evolution of yeasts on this web page: Evolution of Yeasts and Molds.

The supposed expert refers to my web site as "pseudoscience". What are uninformed persons supposed to think? The blogger said of the critic, "A well-educated reader who focuses on mycology sent a great response..." The idiot blogger assumed the fraud was saying something of great value.

The exact status of the critic is not clarified but is portrayed as authoritative. This vagary creates a standard element of fraud—allow for a wide range of possibilities for background in case you get caught. Gullible persons can assume that the highest of authorities is speaking, who could not possibly be wrong; but if proven wrong, the critic can wash the hands of all other authorities by being nothing but an ill informed novice.

Consider this statement: "Many, many fungi have the ability to grow as either a yeast or a mycelium..." Nothing could be a more disgraceful description of the relationship between yeasts and filamentous fungi. They evolved opposite characteristics throughout their physiology.

I do not describe the morel mushroom as growing as both a yeast and mycelium. I say (and show with a large amount of evidence) that the morel evolved from a yeast about 50 thousand years ago, but it now is a mushroom and not a yeast. I do say that the anomaly is a reversion to a yeast-like state; but a yeast-like state is not a yeast. It's only yeast-like in a partial reversion which forms an anomaly.

Then the critic concludes, "Nobody would imply that they all evolved recently from yeasts." I certainly didn't. I have been saying that the morel is unique in evolving from a yeast.

This statement indicates that I look at the same type of organisms others look at and see the same evidence they see but draw a wrong conclusion, where they have been drawing the right conclusions. That point is an extreme misrepresentation, because I did 25 years of research on a unique organism (the morel mushroom) and produced much evidence of it's unusual characteristics, which are nothing like the organisms which the critic mentioned.

Then the critic tries to write-off the anomaly through blather about sectoring and age of mycelial growth. I show stunning photographs of the anomaly, which includes colorful pigments; and I explain that no mushroom mycelium has ever produced such pigments, because light does not reach the mycelium. To try to portray this as something usual is extreme fraud. It's not an error or difference of opinion, because the photographs are extremely clear, and I describe them in detail.

Here's a photo of the anomaly, and I have many more on my morel mushroom web site:

This is what the critic is calling a yeast. It's nothing resembling a yeast; but with my years of study I can refer to it as "a reversion to a yeast-like state". This is in comparison to what the morel mushroom looks like, which is this:

It's important to notice that there is not enough explanation or specific evidence mentioned by the critic for the reader to determine the truth without locating the source and attempting to re-evaluate it. In fact, it is unusual that there is a source that can be referred to, as in this case, when trying to correct fraud.

I've spent 35 years researching this subject, having the most appropriate background possible, studying yeast physiology at three universities, and doing independent research on yeast which I published, where I stumbled onto the basic control mechanisms of mushroom formation. Trashing my results including mountains of clear evidence was the purpose of the supposed expert. He obviously had the purpose of protecting the image of a lot of scientists whose incompetence and corruption are exposed by my results.

This example shows that a corrupt purpose requires a corrupt standard (fraud). Honest criticism would not support the corrupt purpose. So fraud standards are always used to promote corrupt motives.

It also shows something about the recipients of fraud. The blogger was impressed by big words which the supposed expert used and didn't notice that the standard of communication was fraud. Not producing explanations is always a fraud, but frauds never produce explanations, in part because they have poor understanding of a subject, and in part because rationality exposes their corruptions.

This lack of standards by recipients is what allows fraud to sweep through society, as the global warming fraud is doing. The public is being told only that ninety nine percent of the scientists agree on global warming, and they are not demanding explanations or evidence.