1 Re: The superconductor research: I don't know this guy and his lab, so I don't know the whole backstory, but this seems like a strange bit of research to go into "burn-the-witch" mode over. 
1. We know that other materials superconduct at higher than usual temperatures when under extreme pressures. (100s of GPa, momentarily produced in high-explosive experiements or in diamond anvil cells.)
2. These are hard to reach conditions. It's *extremely* hard to get an experiment right if the conditions are hard to reach, or the equipment is unreliable. Or the material is complicated.
3. Knowing 1, we should be *encouraging* people to stick weird things under extremely high pressures and look for signs of high-temperature superconductivity. *We know this is a thing*. If this guy is wrong about this material and these conditions, he's not violating the sanctity of the temple of The Science, he's just wrong. 
Testing materials for properties we have reason to expect might be out there is not an adversarial process. This isn't Elizabeth Holmes falsifying people's medical test results (and even that - you have to wonder why they settled on the "one scapegoat" out of the entire rogue's gallery.) This isn't even cold fusion.
If people knew more about how science actually worked, they would know that most people have to work for years to get an experiment right, and a lot of people are wrong about a lot of things *all the time*.