Disturbing review of the Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper

[LouisvilleDem]

3. Interesting Reply

You could say, if you were so inclined, that this is an ad hominem. Maybe so.

Maybe? There is no 'maybe' about your reply being an ad hominem. That is all it is, pure and simple. You've said absolutely nothing substantive and completely failed to address any of the issues the author raised with the paper. It is also clear that you couldn't be bothered to read more than the first few paragraphs, because illegitimate inclusions was only the first of several problems the author raised with the paper. I bet you didn't even get to the part where he shows how Cook blatantly lied when he said "Each abstract was categorized by two independent, anonymized raters." Or that he also lied in claiming that the reviewers were blind to the authorship of the abstracts. Do these things matter to you, or do you believe that lying about your methodology is acceptable, so long as your results are "right"?