Fraud is a strong word. People co-author books and works all the time and may concentrate on their portion of the paper. When all the editing is done, the person will get credit for their portion of the paper, but someone else may have written the millions of years part. Considering the level of visibility Baumgartner has had as a creationist, I sincerely doubt that he wrote the portion about the millions of years. Maybe a little sloppy in the final publication, but fraudulent is a bit harsh and would have to be proved.
Fraud is a strong word. People co-author books and works all the time and may concentrate on their portion of the paper. When all the editing is done, the person will get credit for their portion of the paper, but someone else may have written the millions of years part. Considering the level of visibility Baumgartner has had as a creationist, I sincerely doubt that he wrote the portion about the millions of years. Maybe a little sloppy in the final publication, but fraudulent is a bit harsh and would have to be proved. The modelling of the mantle flow over hundreds of millions of years is the central theme of the paper. It isn't something somebody might have added at the end.
In the past, when I've collaborated on work and the lead author wrote the work up drawing conclusions I found unfounded or wrong, I've given the author a choice - change the conclusions or take me off the author list (if they do the latter, of couse, the collaboration ends). It's the only ethical course of action for a co-author. See the statements of ethics I posted; If you co-author, you are responsible and accountable for the paper in its entirity.
I expect Baumgardner thought a paper in Science was too useful for his career to take such an action, ethically necessary though it is.
Gosh, how strange to find it necessary to proclaim the importance of personal accountability, and objective rather than situational ethics, on a conservative website.