wikipedia is hardly a second hand source.
Is that what you meant to say?
Given you link, perhaps you meant "only a second hand source", or "just a second hand source" or "barely a second hand source"?
Please don't forget your comment in post #38:
To which I responded by posting links which clearly do show just what the "scientific consensus" is today.
Now you reply with a link showing that "scientific fraud" has grown from one one-thousandths of one percent in the 1970s to one one-hundredths of one percent today.
And this is out of many millions of scientific papers published each year.
I'd say, that's a cause to rejoice (!) since it implies that somebody is actually reading and checking up on all those many millions of scientific papers -- and finding mistakes, whatever the cause.
I'd say, in no possible way is human nature, given our fallen and sinful state, ever accurate to within one one-hundredths of one percent.
So the fact that only one scientific report out of every 10,000 contains errors significant enough to force withdrawal tells us either that A) scientists as a group are amazingly self-disciplined, or B) they really aren't yet being checked carefully enough.
Naturally, I suspect the latter, but am very glad to see the ten-times increase in the scrutiny these guys & gals are getting today.