An accusation of academic fraud is serious, and if not substantiated, is the sort of false allegation of fact that amounts to libel. Way back when the "Climategate" e-mails were first being exaggerated and twisted into evidence of wrongdoing, Patterson first smeared Hughes as a fraud, and it was apparently let go. Now he's doing it again--evidence that libel from the anti-science set must be snuffed out early on--dazzling his audience by parlaying a conclusion that a figure Hughes contributed to a report was "misleading" to an accusation of academic/scientific fraud.
Fraud in science is presentation of fabricated or altered data, data that are not as described, or of conclusions that do not follow from the data. Contributing a figure that may be misinterpreted by a "casual" reader--the worst that can be inferred from the report cited by Patterson, is not fraud.