(Some quotes from AstroMike, some from the quoted article.)

NASA research has vindicated Velikovsky.

What this usually means is that some subset of data torn bleeding from its context supports some minor point of a controversial scientist's case. We'd have to go read the precise article to see.

Droughts are government frauds.

All I know is that I live in Utah, and if those droughts are government frauds, they're superlatively convincing.

He is 99% sure that Joe Newman's energy machine works.

The Newman coil is one of several alleged "free energy" machines whose output is alleged to exceed its input.

Pons and Fleischman, working less than a mile from where I'm sitting as I write this, were both sure their energy machine worked. There was no intent to deceive on their part, and they were not applying any "free energy" mumbo jumbo. Yet it took them considerable study to admit defeat and retract their claims.

Since Mr. Rene has demonstrated himself to be almost totally ignorant of some basic principles of science, it is reasonable to conclude that he would be unable to devise and execute a methodology for analyzing the Newman machine, and thus unable to determine either by synthetic or analytic means whether such a machine is possible.

But since a large percentage of lunar hoax theorists also buy into so-called new age science, and "free energy" is one of those new age topics, it is reasonable to conclude that Rene believes in the Newman machine because it is part and parcel of the standard belief system to which he appears to subscribe.

More information on the Newman machine:

http://www.syc.org/e/skeptic/newman.htm

To paraphrase: Newman acts like the typical charlatan, not unlike Rene himself. He has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars and given nothing in return. The existing laws of electromagnetism and thermodynamics have satisfactorily served science for more than 100 years. There is no reason to suppose they are radically wrong.

"Lisa! In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" (You know that was coming.)

Men and dinosaurs coexisted and dragons were real.

My favorite Gary Larson cartoon shows a cave-man instructor indicating the tail of a stegosaurus: "This is called the Thagomizer, after the late Thag Stevens." The joke is that it's really called a thagomizer.

Creationists are quite fond of trying to cast doubt on various scientific methods of measuring or estimating age. You get similar arguments from them. They're just as hypothetical and conjectural as most of the moon hoax arguments. If Rene wishes to dispute the common methods of dating, let him offer a validated, predictive method of his own.

Saying that dragons are real is simply a matter of trying to decide what was meant by a dragon. Immense, fire-breathing, flying creatures may be what we romanticize today, but the "dragons" that appear in medieval literature may refer to animals that actually existed but were exaggerated in the accounts. The kraken and mermaid are attributed to existing creatures.

Scientists claim huge tidal waves are impossible.

The scientists I know certainly don't claim this. Hydrodynamics is hardly a black art.

Distant galaxies don't recede, their light gets tired.

This is a reference to Rene's arguments that neither Newton nor Einstein had sufficient grasp of physics. (Whereas Rene presumably does.)

Einstein's theories are based on the constancy and inexessibility of the speed of light in a vacuum. The red shift and blue shift are thus measurements of relative velocity, manifested as a shift in wavelenth. Rene claims this is all horse pucky. The light gets "lazy", slows down, and thus effectively lengthens the wavelength.

The Earth rotates on bearings.

So who greases the bearings? Some huge, orbital McCoy? Sheesh, the Easter Bunny is more credible than this.

The equatorial bulge is impossible.

If anyone should understand equatorial bulges, it's Rene. His personal equator bulges obscenely.

Seriously, the whole theory of accretion predicts equatorial bulging. We tend to think of planets as solid entities, but on that scale they're remarkably elastic, much as Rene's waistbands must be.

If Newton was right about gravity the Moon would fall into the Sun.

No, the science of orbital mechanics is quite sufficiently grounded in Newton. The sun-earth-moon system comprises a three-body problem, which has no closed form and therefore requires some serious math in order to fathom, and some serious CPUs to compute.

Let me just say that orbital mechanics, or astrodynamics as it's sometimes called, is not for those who are susceptible to math anxiety. As the Bad Astronomer can attest, most people start to get a bit anxious on about page 5 of the 200-page text.

Rene's attempt at dismissing Newton and Einstein comprises an entire book, published (as usual) on a vanity press and sold from his thrown-together website.

Coulomb's Law is wrong.

This is how this sort of claim usually works. Some other line of reasoning, based on poor understanding, leads to some certain conclusion. And the implication of that conclusion is that some other rule of science -- in this case Coulomb's Law -- must be wrong because it contradicts the newly derived conclusion. Since the new conclusion can't be rejected for ideological reasons, it is then argued that the new conclusion is proof that the established consequent is false.

It's the classic case of reductio ad abusrdum. In the science of reasoning, this technique is used to refute a conclusion. You show that a line of reasoning leads to absurdity, and this shows that the line of reasoning is incorrect. In the normal pattern of reasoning, a conclusion that contradicts Coulomb's Law would be summarily rejected because Coulomb's Law is known to be true according to synthetic proofs and empirical proofs.

Coulomb's Law is to electrostatics what Newton's law is to gravitation. The force of attraction is proportional to the strength of the charge, mitigated by the square of the distance between them. Each is quite easily verified empirically.

Now we might discover down the road that Coulomb's Law is incomplete, much as many of Newton's laws don't fully describe things that Einstein and Lorentz discovered about motion. But that's different than being wrong. Newton is fully predictive within a certain domain of velocities.

Looking at all of that, Rene's ideas are no more science fiction than Star Trek.

I assume you mean no more science than Star Trek. True, with a qualification.

Rick Sternbach, who invented most of Star Trek's speculative science, is very intelligent, very well versed in the conventional sciences, and an avid Apollo fan. Though obviously fabricated, Star Trek's "science" is actually more credible than anything coming out of the pseudo-science camp.