Climate ugliness gets personal

Oregon State University's Memorial Union (&quo...

OSU

From World Net Daily(not the tabloid site World News Daily), with h/t to Green Hell Blog, something that if proven is quite disturbing. Yet given the kind of treatment I’ve recently received at the hands of an eco-zealot who can’t tolerate my views on climate, I’m not surprised.

Some people have no scruples and no shame. – Anthony

Democrats attack Republican candidate’s children

By Art Robinson

In an effort to do my part in rescuing our country from the out-of-control Obama administration, last year I ran for Congress in Oregon’s 4th District against 12-term incumbent, far-left Democrat Peter DeFazio, co-founder of the House Progressive Caucus.

Although I won the nominations of the Republican, Independent and Constitution Parties and the endorsement of the Libertarian Party, a massive media smear campaign by DeFazio, paid for with money raised by MoveOn.org and from special interests favored by DeFazio in Washington, resulted in a 54.5 percent to 43.6 percent victory for DeFazio in a race that was expected to be much closer.

Although I had never run for public office before, I immediately announced my candidacy for Congress again in 2012.

However, when you take a stand for what’s right, sometimes there is retribution.On Nov. 4, 2010, as soon as the election results were in and they were sure their candidate had won, faculty administrators at Oregon State University gave new meaning to the term “political payback.”

They initiated an attack on my three children – Joshua, Bethany and Matthew – for the purpose of throwing them all out of the OSU graduate school, despite their outstanding academic and research accomplishments. OSU is a liberal socialist Democrat stronghold in Oregon that received a reported $27 million in earmark funding from my opponent, Peter DeFazio, and his Democrat colleagues during the last legislative session.

Read full story here: Democrats attack Republican candidate’s children

UPDATE: I decided to pull the direct link to the website that hurled unspeakable insults to me by an  eco-zealot, they don’t deserve the traffic WUWT will generate for them. Such things are best handled by other means. So, I used WebCite to permanently log the website, and you can view it here, scroll all the way to the bottom and note “corrections”: http://www.webcitation.org/5x0pgZdgl

UPDATE2: OSU has posted a statement which you can read here

About these ads

333 thoughts on “Climate ugliness gets personal

  1. It’s a tragedy that we have to share this planet with these grossly uncouth people. Anthony, I checked out that buffalobeast website where you were so roundly, improperly and undeservedly trashed. My sincere thanks to you for not allowing this vile abuse to turn you and good people such as Art Robinson from your path of decency in assisting to enlighten those many who have open minds and are decent prople.
    Thank you again!

    Geoff Alder

  2. “If you’s will be quiet, we’ll leave your family alone. Don’t make us tell you again!”
    I’m so glad we have a new, kinder tone in the world. Without it we might be seeing blood in the streets.

  3. I wouldn’t think the school cared what the Democratic candidate thought. Merely learning that there was a Republican related to these students was likely enough incentive for Oregon State to hound them.

  4. You have to question the morality and the intelligence of the socialists (now there’s a misnomer) when they sink to these abyssal depths.

  5. Wow. Given this is from WND, I’d like to see some verification from a more objective source, but it sounds like the loonies have taken over the asylum at OSU.

    Anthony: regarding your mention at the Beast, I suggest you look at it as making the honor roll, much like Steve Mc’s mention as one of Fifty People Who Matter at the New Statesman. You are in some very fine company as a member of that list.

  6. These eco-zealots aren’t progr – I mean liberals are they?

    Quickly reviewing the Tenets of classical Liberalism I think we should find them and accepting pleasant lot …

    From: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jo52/POS254/libtenets.html

    Tenets of classical Liberalism

    1. Individual autonomy

    The basis of society is the individual. Humans are primarily motivated by self-interest.

    2. Individual rights

    If the individual is autonomous, then all individuals must be free and equal. This implies political equality, the protection of individual rights, respect for individual choices, and the use of reason in making decisions. “I am free and thus I rule myself.” The key individual rights are freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, and the right to property.

    3. Religious toleration

    Individuals and the state must respect one’s right to worship as one pleases. Implies a separation of church and state.

    4. Popular sovereignty and consent

    Government should be ruled by the people rather than by a monarch, a religious figure, or some other elite. Government’s legitimacy rests on the consent of the governed..

    5. Limited and representative government

    The government’s role in society and the scope of its power should be clearly defined. The purpose of government is to protect individual’s life, liberty, and property. Further, in a society of autonomous individuals pursuing their own self-interests, government must represent the various interests of that society. This implies representative government, majority rule, constitutional government, and the rule of law.

    6. Private property

    Society should generally encourage the private accumulation of property rather than place restrictions on it. This implies an economy of free markets, equality of opportunity in the market, and competition. In sum, liberalism defends capitalism.

    7. Universalism and progress

    All people are fundamentally the same. Differences of culture, religion, race, gender, nationality, etc. are ultimately superficial. Overall, liberalism tends to interpret historically progressively: society, economy, technology are all advancing and elevating the human condition in the process.

    .

  7. I wouldn’t bother giving that web site [the Beast] any credence at all. It’s a cess pit. It’s not even witty.

  8. Anthony,

    Please tell me that you are taking immediate legal action. That is by far the most disgusting behavior I’ve ever seen or read. (regarding the website you linked to)

  9. Art Robinson writes,
    “They initiated an attack on my three children – Joshua, Bethany and Matthew – for the purpose of throwing them all out of the OSU graduate school, despite their outstanding academic and research accomplishments. OSU is a liberal socialist Democrat stronghold in Oregon that received a reported $27 million in earmark funding from my opponent, Peter DeFazio, and his Democrat colleagues during the last legislative session.”

    Think there might be more to this story?

    REPLY: As representative of the side that espouses such ugliness, won’t don’t you tell us, “Gneiss”? – Anthony

  10. What is it about these people? They seem to be so insecure in their position that they have to mount these most egregious attacks on people in case they are forced to confront their biases.

    As for that “bit” about Anthony , the errors in there alone make you see how wrong they are never mind the childish comments about his character.

    Right doesn’t always prevail but in this instance it most assuredly will.

  11. Once again we see the influence of political zealots at our higher ed institutions. Once again, the alumni can help by retracting any potential and current gifting.

    Considering how openly these people are smearing a particular family of students, one can imagine the amount of horrids acts that are incidiously taking place.

    Why are the classmates not in mass protesting?

  12. Beyond shamefull , but unfortunately it’s what I’ve come to expect from a democrat! Most of them lack the ability to compete fairly and must stoop to despicable means in order to win! I don’t even know if my vote counts anymore here in Oregon as the voting mechanism is so open to fraud and controlled by the democrats who have no ethical standards what so ever!

  13. Time to call in the U.S. house of representatives to deal with this corruption… oh wait…

  14. Personal attacks are intended to get you so enraged that you lose focus on what you set out to do — whether that’s publish information, win a political office or even just debate a point. Personal attacks are a rotten, low-down, cowardly strategy. It’s horrible to be on the receiving end. But we have to carry on and recognize that it’s just a strategy. Let’s try never to let that strategy win.

  15. Absolutely disgusting! I’ve seen this kind of prejudice at work in academic departments, and I am even a victim of such prejudice. For a bastion of higher learning to take capricious action against students due to political ideology simply works against the entire purpose of “higher education’.

    The faculty involved in terminating these three Ph.D. students should instead be censured and terminated.

  16. Climate skeptics dont have party, so there are skeptics who vote democrats as well. And all politicians are narsistic, sellfish ar.. ho…

  17. I read the full article. It makes me sick.

    When I have children, I hope that places like this are not all that’s left for them to attend school at.

  18. If the cases of these students are as outlined in the article, then the family and the students need to contact FIRE as soon as possible. FIRE will evaluate, and if they believe that OSU is indeed infringing on their 1st admendment rights, they will take action. They have a good record in these sorts of cases.

    http://www.thefire.org

  19. Could the guy have picked a worse outlet for this story than WND? Simply because the story is there, it has no credibility.

  20. Although the story seems unbelievable, I have personally seen this kind of thing happen a few times in my community. I witnessed the careers of two professionals destroyed. In both of these cases, they were initiated by subordinates who wanted to take over their positions. As horrifying as the OSU situation is, the depths to which people will sink does not surprise me anymore.

    As much as one wants to believe that good will triumph over evil, this isn’t always the case. Particularly when engaged in a struggle for survival against these type of people. I think Dr. Robinson is handling this in the best possible way. In the cases I listed above, one opted to fight through legal channels and still has not had resolution after several years. The best scenario for the Robinson students would be to prevent their expulsion, not to seek compensation later. I would recommend the family consult with a lawyer and fight the expulsions. Perhaps they can initiate a legal defense fund where concerned parties to make contributions?

    Also, we need more champions like Professor Higginbotham, who clearly stood up and did the right thing at his own extraordinary personal cost. Good luck to the Robinson family and Professor Higginbotham.

  21. What utter ugliness of mind and spirit impells people to even think such evil nonsense. In the Beast thing, no-one could take such obvious and slimy nonsense seriously. In the Robinson case, the move to eject good and blameless students because their father dared to stand to represent his party of choice is unadultered evil.

  22. Brad says:
    March 7, 2011 at 8:19 am

    Call me when you get a news source, this is terrible if it happened, but I think it is highly doubtful based on my years in academics, and using WorldNetDaily as the only source makes it even more doubtful.
    #
    theduke says:
    March 7, 2011 at 8:22 am

    Wow. Given this is from WND, I’d like to see some verification from a more objective source, but it sounds like the loonies have taken over the asylum at OSU.

    Anthony: regarding your mention at the Beast, I suggest you look at it as making the honor roll, much like Steve Mc’s mention as one of Fifty People Who Matter at the New Statesman. You are in some very fine company as a member of that list.

    I tend to agree with you guys. But knowing university systems as I do, it is VERY VERY easy for these kinds of actions to take place well-hidden from the eyes of the media. This could all be a result of closed-door meetings on campus, even long-time people in that department may not know about it. What I’m saying is, yes, it would be nice to get confirmation but you’ll likely never get it unless you go to OSU and start asking questions yourself.

  23. My entire collection of articles and blogs, seen here at “The ’96-to-present smear of skeptic scientists” http://climategatecountryclub.com/profiles/blogs/the-96topresent-smear-of details the extent the enviro-activists have gone to marginalize skeptic scientists and anybody affiliated with them. One of my articles tells about specific efforts to smear Mr Robinson’s Oregon Petition Project back in 1998 which still get repeated today, “The Curious History of ‘Global Climate Disruption’ ” http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/the_curious_history_of_global.html

    No offense to skeptic scientists and their belief that the truth will ultimately win out when their research is presented – I had this discussion with Dr Sherwood Idso in 2010 – mere presentations of science assessments is not enough. A tsunami of public outrage could occur if people discover how much information the mainstream media has withheld or distorted about skeptic scientists. Someone in a high public place has to break the dam. This won’t happen until people start drawing more attention the second half of the AGW mantra that says “the science is settled / don’t listen to skeptic scientists because they are corrupt”.

  24. This article seems plausible, based on what I have seen of academic politics over the past 25 years. Nevertheless, I would very much like to hear the other side of the story before reaching any conclusions.

  25. The challenge the person because they can’t challenge the idea.
    They challenge a person’s children because they are cowards.

  26. for what it’s worth, we’re only hearing one side of this story.

    And the use of perjorative adjectives in the failed candidates missive doesn’t help.

    Perhaps the failed candidate doesn’t like the head of OSU nuc dept because she’s a “militant feminist” (his words).

    swiftboat anyone?

  27. Anthony writes,
    “As representative of the side that espouses such ugliness, won’t don’t you tell us, “Gneiss”?”

    I’m representing no side except myself, and I have no information about what actually happened at OSU. Do you?

    Art Robinson’s declaration, headlined now by you, that Oregon State University administrators are throwing his three children out of graduate school in retribution for his political campaign, does not ring true. So I’m guessing there is more to this story.

  28. Brad says:
    March 7, 2011 at 8:19 am
    “Call me when you get a news source, this is terrible if it happened, but I think it is highly doubtful based on my years in academics, and using WorldNetDaily as the only source makes it even more doubtful.”

    In my years in the University system, I find it very highly likely that it IS happening. Pettiness, avaraice, and jealousy are the life blood of the faculty club, and mix in state funded research and politics and you get some real ugliness into the process.

  29. Anthony,

    The level of abuse to which some people stoop never ceases to amaze me; moreover the level of expounded vitriol is usually related to the level of protection such numpties feel, safe in their Internet castles.

    It is the ultimate display of cowardice, none of the authors of that piece would have the, as we say over here, trouser potatoes to say that to your face.

    One technique to avoid blood-pressure raising is, when reading such moronic drivel, to say out loud in suitable mothering tones: “ooo, someone’s tired”.

    Cheers and keep up the good work

    Mark

  30. If this is legit, this is a terribly sad story. However there are a couple of alarm bells, one is that it was published in World Net Daily (which is where conspiracy kooks tend to get their stories published) and two the fact that the guy goes on rants about the professors like “militant feminist” and the like. This ad hom attack leads me to think that he is not serious, because a serious person would most likely want to present his case matter of factly. I’d be interested in a journalistic investigation of the claims here, because these are quite serious accusations.

  31. I would hasten to point out that graduate departments can be VERY “tribal”.

    The head of a graduate department is the “Chief”. He knows it, and he treats it the same way that Chiefs in any PRIMATIVE tribe would. A good friend of mine Ed P. (vauge enough)…30 years ago was a graduate student in the Mechanical Engineering department of a local University. He had an arguement with the “Department Head”. He told me the man said, “Ed, you will NEVER get your Phd here…” (He did have his MS degree completed.)

    Ed had done some machine design for a professor in another engineering department, who had jokingly said: “If you ever want a Phd in (blank), let me know.” The day he had the DEPARTMENT HEAD “kill” his Phd (in MechE), he walked 300′ over to the other department, asked Dr. G. “Were you serious?” The good Dr. said, “Completely”.

    I met Ed in the year’s graduate courses in that field he needed to take…but about 2 1/2 years later he had his Phd. Turned out that it was a “hot” field at the time, and he was employed within a MONTH after getting his Phd. Interestingly, years later Ed said, “Dr. S (MechE) did me a FAVOR… by slamming the door in my face.”

    I hope that the influence of the “tribe” does not extend that far and Dr. Robinson’s children can make a similar decision and go elsewhere. I’d recommend U of IL Nuc. E. for example.

    Max

  32. At 8:22 AM on 7 March, theduke had written:

    Given this is from WND, I’d like to see some verification from a more objective source….

    .
    This is carried online at the WorldNetDaily site. It is written by Dr. Robinson himself. You want more verification than his byline?

  33. The Robinsons should contact FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education).

    FIRE has been remarkable in defending the rights of students and faculty when school administrations overstep their bounds

    http://thefire.org/

  34. Apparently OSU and DeFazio are taking their lead from Obama: “Elections have consequences” .

  35. You could sue him, in fact I would however these guys are actually really good news for the skeptic camp, there quickly destroying ANY credibility and showing… me thinks this guys is a 15 year ol kid probably

  36. The nuclear program at OSU receives federal dollars it is not out of the question that someone in either the House or the Senate could open up an investigation.

  37. Anthony, regarding the “Beast” bile. Just remember the psychological phenomenon known as “transference”. When you have people with certain psychotic tendancies, one of their behaviors is to run around and accuse others of the malfience THEY are involved in.

    Thus I have my “suspicions” about a blog called, “THE BEAST”….(Happy 666 to you all!)

  38. Call me when you get a news source, this is terrible if it happened, but I think it is highly doubtful based on my years in academics, and using WorldNetDaily as the only source makes it even more doubtful.

    + 1

    I be willing to bet there is much MUCH more to this story than this. WND is pretty slimy and has no problem distorting facts or making up stuff to get attention!

  39. Juice says:

    “Could the guy have picked a worse outlet for this story than WND? Simply because the story is there, it has no credibility.”

    Two points: first, mainstream newspapers are owned by the same kind of people that are attacking the Robinsons. Do you really believe the NY Times or any other major newspaper would cover this story?

    And second: you are attacking the messenger instead of the message. The only thing that matters are the facts. Art Robinson is the moving force behind the OISM Petition, in which over 31,000 professionals with degrees in the hard sciences, including over 9,000 PhD’s, co-signed this statement:

    The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

    That statement deconstructs the entire claim that “carbon” is a problem by making it clear that CO2 is harmless and beneficial, and it deconstructs the claim with credible co-signers such as Freeman Dyson and Edward Teller.

    After trying and failing to show that the Petition is not legitimate, the purveyors of the runaway global warming scam are out for revenge. Publicity from WUWT will probably help the Robinsons more than the WND article.

  40. If Art Robinson says this is happening. You can bet it is. World Net Daily is not the issue.

  41. I thought that the USA was “the land of the free, and the home of the brave”.
    Land of the slaves and the home of the cowards, more like.
    This story is a national disgrace for all you lot “over the pond”, and I hope you all can do something about it.

  42. Anthony, I don’t mean to make light of what is obviously a very serious issue for anyone caught in the crosshairs of these nuts. But that site you linked to is so wrong, it’s actually funny. It makes me want to meet the makers of it just so I can be reminded of what madness looks like, and know the faces of those who held so strongly to a failed belief system.

    I mean, look at it as dispassionately as you can. The guy adds a comment at the end about romantic encounters with animals directed at you. This means he was so desperate for something bad to say he decided to use (quite literally) the oldest direct insult humanity has to offer. I skimmed some of the others, but everything points to one thing:

    —> This is hilariously poor as attack attempts go. That site, as any form of humor, is truly laughably bad.

    I wouldn’t say I’m the best critic on such matters but I’ve been savoring internet wit since the early says of Seanbaby and Maddox, and that site is truly awful just in terms of what it attempts to do. I’m sorry to make light of what is obviously a serious issue. I can say for certain I wouldn’t like such attacks directed at me. But I must be honest and say, I went to that site and ended up laughing, not at the content, but at the severely inept creators.

  43. Dear Anthony,
    The climate has not behaved how the AGW’s predicted and their world is slowly falling apart.
    They have taken what should be science and turned it into a religion and nothing but nothing makes people as intolerant as religion.
    My view has always been that as and when the day arrives that the AGW theory is finally trashed the young women who believed it will be hugging one another and crying their eyes out whilst the lunatic fringe will turn to violence.
    It won’t be like political and religious terrorism the AGW crowd will behave like the animal rights lunatics and make it personal to individuals.
    Keep your nerve and if you can take him to court .

  44. My daughter received her degree from OSU so I am somewhat familiar with the university. I did not get the impression that it was, as you claim, that is a bastion of socialist ideology (University of Oregon is considered more liberal than OSU.). I also do not agree with your political ideology, nor your characterization of the Obama Administration as being “out of control”. That being said, if what you claim is true about the treatment of your children at OSU (assuming there are no legitimate reasons for there being singled out by some faculty), I very much condemn such behavior. As a former Professor at four universities (2 in the UK and 2 in the US), I have never heard of such things happening on a campus. I hope that a full investigation is made into these allegations, and that all parties who have acted outside of academic norms are properly judged. Finally, I wish your children success in their schooling (which should certainly be based on their academic performance and not the political party affiliation of their father).

  45. This is not the first time Art Robinson has tangled with an Oregon university. He is opposed to “socialist public education” and sells home-school curricula. Perhaps this is his attempt to discredit and smear public education.

    The below quotation is from http://www.independentscientist.com/
    Art’s warrior instincts’ also came to the fore after his daughter Arynne enrolled at Southern Oregon University. To graduate, she was told, she had to take a course called “colloquium,” an exercise “specifically designed to destroy her faith, her innocence, her self-respect, and her happiness in her way of life,” Art says. Advance placement had allowed the boys to skip this insult. So why not remove her from the school? As it happened, the science faculty was excellent, the university’s proximity was convenient, and his tax dollars were paying for this travesty. “What can a student do if the science, engineering and mathematics courses are held hostage by the ‘humanities’ departments?”

    Art informed the university administration that they faced law suits, adverse publicity, and “an ever increasing telephone, fax, and letter campaign.” The first two did not worry them, Art says-they had the lawyers and the media. But the third did. It would have involved many thousands of inquiries, and they would be needing extra telephone lines and secretaries. The president backed down at the last minute. “We won this fight without firing a shot,” Art told his friends, “but only because we were prepared to shoot.” And they were able to do so only because a large number of his subscribers and home-schooling friends “were available to help.

  46. The people involved should attend this workshop being held on campus:

    Workplace Bullying: The Silent Epidemic
    Open to the Public

    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM

  47. olderwiser,

    Your link’s title is:

    Art Robinson fights aging with his home-schooled lab rats

    Don’t you think it might be a heavily biased hit piece by the same kind of people causing Robinson’s “lab rats” their OSU problems?

  48. Anthony

    Find a good defamation lawyer, it is time for you to sue these buffoons!

    Bill

  49. At 9:15 AM on 7 March, Jeremy had written:

    I mean, look at it [the screed of The Beast attacking Mr. Watts] as dispassionately as you can. The guy adds a comment at the end about romantic encounters with animals directed at you. This means he was so desperate for something bad to say he decided to use (quite literally) the oldest direct insult humanity has to offer.

    .
    Well, it might be projection.

    Who knows? The guy vomiting up this spew on The Beast might himself be psychoneurotically fixated upon sodomizing other folks’ barnyard critters and housepets. For all we know, he wrote this garbage while futtering a cageful of chinchillas.

    Male chinchillas, the poor, confused little rodents.

  50. Gneiss says:
    March 7, 2011 at 8:51 am

    So I’m guessing there is more to this story.

    Sonicfrog says:
    March 7, 2011 at 9:09 am

    I be willing to bet there is much MUCH more to this story than this.

    There most certainly is much more to the story. Just click the link to read much more.

  51. ???eco-zealot???

    I think you need some sleep to help clear your foggy, travel whiry mind Anthony. These people are NOT eco-anythings. They’re anarchists out to destroy everyone and everything. The funny thing is that as soon as the cops throw their badges on the floor and walk out the door into the “Brave New Lawless World” these ‘anarchists’ will be the very first victims. Cavemen hate fanatics. Believe me I know of what I speak.

  52. Gneiss says:
    March 7, 2011 at 8:27 am

    Think there might be more to this story?

    Craig Robinson, Michelle Obama’s brother but no relation to Art is head coach for Oregon States basketball team.

    Having said that, I can’t imagine in my wildest dreams that the progressives in Oregon want to become nationally known for being home to cutting edge nuclear technology.

    After going thru 3 ballot initiatives to close Oregon’s only nuclear power plant I can imagine the progressives will do absolutely anything to insure Oregon doesn’t become a center for ‘advanced nuclear technology’.

    IMHO This whole kerfuffle is about killing the nuclear engineering program at Oregon State and sending a message to NuScale to ‘take your business elsewhere’.

  53. About the independence of the media:

    Here in Canada, the Globe and Mail has been the most vocal, one sided newspaper on the climate change issue. Clearly pro IPCC, not a week goes by without the usual pro AGW paper or glorifying of green enterprise. This newspaper belongs to CTV Globemedia, a subsidiary of the Thomson Reuters media empire owned by the richest family in Canada, the Thomsons. Their wealth is above $23billion. Here is some relevant public information that should be known to all readers:

    1) Thomson Foundation Trustee, Sir Crispin Tickell: “Sir Crispin’s close relationship with the Climate Institute began in June 1988 when he was the luncheon speaker at a climate change symposium organized by the Climate Institute for UN Missions under auspices of UNEP.”… “With Sir Crispin as Chairman and under auspices of the IPCC and UNEP, the Institute held Presidential and Ministerial briefings on climate change in 22 nations, the first in Mexico at Los Pinos in March 1991.”

    http://www.climate.org/publications/Climate%20Alerts/Winter2010/SirCrispinTickell-EnvironmentalPioneer.html

    http://www.trust.org/learn-more-about-us/trustees/

    2) The Woodbridge Company (Thomson’s investment arm about $15 billion):

    http://www.alacrastore.com/mergers-acquisitions/Woodbridge_Co_Ltd_(parent_of_Thomson_Financial_ESG)-3312381

    ” Thomson Reuters Corp acquires Point Carbon AS from Schibsted ASA May 27, 2010
    …NORWAY – Thomson Reuters Corp of Canada acquired Point Carbon AS, an Oslo-based provider of analysis, advisory, news and consulting services for European and global power, gas and carbon markets, from Schibsted ASA.…”

    http://www.pointcarbon.com/

    “Point Carbon, a Thomson Reuters company is a world-leading provider of independent news, analysis and consulting services for European and global power, gas and carbon markets. Point Carbon’s comprehensive services provide professionals with market-moving information through monitoring fundamental information, key market players and business and policy developments.

    Point Carbon’s in-depth knowledge of power, gas and CO2 emissions market dynamics positions us as the number one supplier of unrivalled market intelligence of these markets. Our staff includes experts in international and regional climate policy, mathematical and economic modeling, forecasting methodologies, risk management and market reporting. (…)”

    Therefore, the appearance of conflict of interest is obvious: With that much invested why would the Thomson Reuters Canadian flagship national newspaper publish anything against the science of global warming? Have they ever? It took the Globe webedition over two weeks to have a comment on Climategate and it was never an in depth discussion. The subsequent whitewashing inquiries were simply accepted as fact instead of being investigated despite the glaring inconsistencies exposed by Steve McIntyre, a Canadian whose door seems too hard to find for Globe reporters or the Canadian Press for that matter.
    Instead those summoned to explain carbocentric climate science edicts to the readership are political scientists, software developers brought as supposed climate change experts or an IPCC author whose diplomas are in Mathematics who wrote a book with a Globe and Mail political pundit, both being represented conveniently by the same speaking engagement agency.

    In clear, this is not information; this is opinion media. And a simple Google search explains why. As much as it is their right to have a vested interest in the cause, it should be perfectly well advertised every time climate related issues are discussed in their outlets.

  54. If this is true, it is indeed an incredible travesty. However, it comes from the WND, and so its veracity is automatically suspect. (not automatically wrong, just suspect)

    WND gets some things right, like the date and spelling, but beyond that, they’re a tabloid with the typical trustworthiness of one.

    Can you find a more reliable source?

    [Reply: How about Art Robinson, who wrote the article? ~dbs, mod.]

  55. Amazes me how the MSM and the “progressives” endlessly harp about the tea party and the right’s hate speech and how it will result in violence yet when I look all I see is hate speech and thuggery from the progressives: Bullets found at the Wisconsin union rallies, that disgusting piece that included you (which can’t even get facts right), tea party members beaten up by SEIU thugs and this. And for those who don’t believe that faculty members could do what’s been alleged, better come down out of your ivory tower and find out what really goes on.

  56. This is precisely why I feel so vulnerable having only just started my PhD.

    In my experience, academia in the UK for anyone right-leaning, or who holds climate sceptic views, (or god forbid, both) is like a snakepit, whilst it presents itself to the outside world as something more akin to a creche.

  57. Sorry Anthony, but I can’t feel I’m getting a fair account when terms like “out of control Obama administration” and “militant feminist” color the article. Is there a secular accounting of these events available?

    I certainly would not condone these events as described, but there are those of us who contribute to Climate Audit, WUWT etc. but still prefer the administration the country elected the previous one.

    REPLY: No need to apologize or argue with me, I didn’t write it. – Anthony

  58. Anthony: Don’t know what the libel and slander laws in the state where ‘The Beast’ is based are like, but it might be worth serving its owners with a lawsuit, just to make them squirm a bit. Maybe one of the lawyers who read this site could help.

    /Mr Lynn

  59. I recall seeing this sort of bullying occur back in the 1960’s, when various lone voices spoke up against psychiatrists perscribing the amphidamines and barbituates which were called, “Momma’s Little Helpers.” Most of those drugs have since been proven harmful and are banned, but at the time the lone voices were upsetting the applecart of a money-making scam, and they tended to get ostracised, ridiculed, and marginalized, and for a time their voices went unheard. The drug-perscribing psychiatrists looked calm and sensible, while the lone voices raged and looked like crack-pots.

    What seemed to be the downfall of the drug-pushing bullies of that time was that they got too greedy, and were joined by increasing numbers of equally greedy people, who wanted to share in the easy money, until finally too many were being hurt. Then it was no longer a few lone voices standing alone, protesting the bullying and the problems. It became the low, murmuring-but-growing growl of many.

    It is only when a lot of people got angry that, (in the 1960’s,) the amphedamines and barbituates were no longer handed out like candy.

    I think that is what we are witnessing today, only it is about a greater issue. People need to speak out and keep speaking out, and to refuse to be discouraged or to be reduced to raving. Remain calm, strong, and persist.

  60. “that Oregon State University administrators are throwing his three children out of graduate school in retribution for his political campaign, does not ring true”

    Seems like you are sure its not true, but then you state you are guessing? Not very precise in your useage of the English language there? In any regard, this is fairly common in academia. I don’t care how large the university is, none of the faculty really gets along well, they tolerate each other at best and evil games are common. This story is probably more then just true, its probably common and goes both ways. From my experience in graduate programs, the ability to lie, cheat and steal is paramount and people often get this mistaken idea that those in the ivory towers are sole crusaders of truth when in fact they are just the best at being petty, vile and above all else grabbing Government funding by making their studies look better then others.

    Not pretty, but that is university life today. At one point, the best research came out of universities, but that quit a long time ago, and today you only go to university to get your degree and get out as fast as possible. The politics of this makes one think that its like you are constantly running for office with spites and everything else happening. I was not even one of the big dogs, but I saw the damage it caused to others.

    I quit academia for these reasons…petty spites, and other just terrible actions. I did want to teach children in Universities at one point, but whats the point when your entire life is going to be made hellish by others?

    Now as far as this article goes, I never saw anything this bad, but I did see graduate students hounded because their friends screwed up over and over. It didn’t matter that they had nothing to do with an event, their faces would be rubbed in it and the others would gloat and cheer.

    These students for some reason hung in there, but I could easilly see it going the other way. This article is very possible with the kind of people that occupy academia today. Its not the same as it was 30 years ago. Does that mean this article is the unvarnished truth? Who knows, but I am sure it is a good representation of the truth. Smearing people in academia because of who they know is common place.

  61. To Smokey,

    The article I quoted from is quite sympathetic to Art Robinson and it was published in The American Spectator. After reading the entire article, do you still think it is a “heavily biased hit piece by the same kind of people”? It’s true that the title is a strange one.

    I prefer to wait for a little more information before jumping to a conclusion. Unfair things happen in academia — also in corporations, government, wars, and random events. Most of us just deal with it and move on, without our parents launching campaigns against public institutions.

  62. Anthony,

    I went to the link that has you in it. It’s a purely political smear web site. It discredits itself with the childish things it says. It hurts itself by being that way.

    Your stations project is valuable and does work that is real. I think that’s why they hit so low below the belt. If the stations project wasn’t important they wouldn’t even have spent time on you.

    I have only gotten a lesser degree of hate from global warmers. So I don’t know what it’s like to see a web site like that. But you’re a nice guy with a good heart. You should get better than that. God sees all. Even if we don’t get treated the way we should in this life in there will be a day of perfect justice when all will be treated the way they deserve to be treated, both the bad and the good.

  63. From what I can see, the left ALWAYS targets children.

    It’s all about the children. Who will think of the children? Please donate, so we can save the children.

    I’ve recently been helping a high school student with her Social Studies homework, and the political distortion that these kids HAVE to pass is shameful. They all but condemn anything “conservative” as evil and heartless. They’re still claiming that Hitler was “far right”. When the school system itself is promoting a one-sided idealist belief in liberal-left positions, something is horribly wrong.

    Going after a man’s children in school is reprehensible, but those few commenters above who think it’s not likely are apparently blissfully unaware of the real world. It’s not just likely, it’s probable. And it is something I have personally seen.

  64. We were warned that it would come to this, yet most ignored the warnings.
    Why? Because the warnings came from “Conservatives”. Oooh, ick!

  65. Bill Yarber says:
    March 7, 2011 at 9:30 am

    Anthony

    Find a good defamation lawyer, it is time for you to sue these buffoons!

    Bill

    Other people have been encouraged to sue too. It is an expensive process. Timothy Ball tried doing it and ran out of money. I’d like to see a lawsuit over these kind of these things happen too. So many times in the past I’ve wanted to see it. But who’s got the time and money?

  66. After a modicum of Googling, it seems that the one and only reference to this issue is the letter that Robinson himself penned.

    Coupled with the fact that Robinson manages to avoid mentioning what it is the kids are being charged with makes me a bit suspicious.

    Then, to top it all off, this “article” is in the WND Commentary section, not an actual story.

    I’m starting to have multiple red flags go up about the veracity of this story.

  67. anyone that thinks being “swiftboated” means a smear campaign wasn’t paying attention during Kerry’s run for the presidency …

    the candidate was quoted in the article … How many other “sources” do you need ?

    sure, WND is alot like the National Enquirer but then again Mr. Edwards actually was cheating on his wife …

  68. “something that if proven is quite disturbing.”

    Tangential to this, it is interesting to follow stories of conservative speakers being threatened and needing physical protection when making presentations of their ideas on today’s college campus’. It becomes so violent that some events have to be cancelled altogether.

    This latest incident is provided by libertarian pundit Larry Elder:

    How Obama’s Alma Mater Treated an Iraq War Vet

    “Racist!” shouted some Columbia University students at an Iraq War vet. Other students reportedly “hissed and booed.” Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who spoke at Columbia three years earlier, received better treatment from the audience.*

    The subject of the students’ scorn? Former Army Staff Sgt. Anthony Maschek. The 28-year-old Columbia freshman and Purple Heart recipient served in Iraq. During an attack, he was shot 11 times, suffered two broken legs and sustained injuries to his abdomen, arm and chest. He spent two years at Walter Reed, where one leg was amputated. He uses a wheelchair.

    The reprehensible treatment of Maschek took place at a campus town hall meeting held to discuss rescinding Columbia’s 42-year-old ban of an on-campus ROTC program.

    *I listened to Iran’s leader speak at Columbia and there was thunderous applause and plenty of polite listening to go around.

  69. I had never heard of ‘the beast’ before reading this post. Clearly it is a site for those with
    idiopathic amentia. Sadly there is no cure.
    With time and support ‘beasters’ may learn to live independently and perhaps, under supervision, will eventually be able to undertake some kind of useful but very simple employment.

  70. Even the Mafia had a code of honor that protected wives and children from becoming victims of revenge or retribution. At least we now know the OSU mafia has no such honor.

  71. Gneiss says:
    March 7, 2011 at 8:51 am

    Art Robinson’s declaration, headlined now by you, that Oregon State University administrators are throwing his three children out of graduate school in retribution for his political campaign, does not ring true.
    =======================================================

    Really? So, what rings true? 3 individuals, with separately successful academic careers, suddenly have their positions in peril from the same university?…..Random acts? Or maybe the younger Robinsons collectively, yet individually failed at the same time? Yeh, that rings true…….damn man.

    To the rest, an oft disputed quote, but true nonetheless……“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”—(usually attributed to Edmund Burke.)

    Here’s a quote from him that isn’t disputed……“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”

    Do something. I, for one, will call my federal congressional representative. She happens to be a republican…..you know, the ones with the purse strings.

  72. Gneiss says:
    March 7, 2011 at 8:27 am
    Art Robinson writes,
    “They initiated an attack on my three children – Joshua, Bethany and Matthew – for the purpose of throwing them all out of the OSU graduate school, despite their outstanding academic and research accomplishments. OSU is a liberal socialist Democrat stronghold in Oregon that received a reported $27 million in earmark funding from my opponent, Peter DeFazio, and his Democrat colleagues during the last legislative session.”

    Think there might be more to this story?

    —————

    If there is more, then let’s hear from OSU what is actually going on. So three children from the same family suddenly lose their standing? Seems unlikely to me. I think OSU has a little ‘splain’n to do.

    If you are surprised by the possibility that this might be a real attack on Art Robinson’s children you need to wake up from your deep slumber.

  73. you-all need to do some re-think on on democratic political exploitation. Nothing new here really. Get the system working as it was designed to do. Maybe not, he who has the powerrrrr. Goldfinger?.

  74. I wrote my email to President Ray making it clear that such injustice will cost OSU far more than it will gain it. I hope others take 5 minutes to do the same.

  75. They are nasty people. But who are they going to convince of anything, other than that they are nasty?

  76. We know by the democrats own words there is a plan to redistribute wealth. Now it looks like there is a plan to redistribute credit for scientific research. In other words decide who works and gets opportunity not by ability but by connections.

    As for DeFazio, he is a prime example as to why we should not have career politicians.

  77. According to whois, buffalobeast.com is indeed based in Buffalo, New York, owned by Paul Fallon. Oh, I thought the name was familiar. See http://www.buffalobeast.com/05/fallon.congress.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_(newspaper) says Fallon is the publisher, Ian Murphy is the editor, and warrants his own Wiki page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Murphy_(writer) Neither are people I’d like to share anything with.

    I’m amazed that someone can be as bitter as Murphy appears to be. I wonder what his first thought is when he wakes up each morning.

  78. To those critical of World Net Daily. This was a first person piece written by Dr Robinson directly, so we must afford it the same credence as a personal piece on his own web site.

    I have to say that I am always suspicious of these kind of conspiracy allegations. However, the chances of all three of his children committing expellation-level offenses in a single year is unlikely (do you know the kind of action that it takes to expel a PHD student? We are talking outright academic fraud, selling grades, or worse), the timing of this is extremely suspicious, and the accusations of nepotism and favor-granting seem relatively well-documented simply by stating the relations of people within the department. As far as conspiracies againt a person go, this is a pretty strong case.

    Legal action against schools is almost never successful, especially on qualitative judgments like this. However, the school may very well back down to avoid further public embarrassment.

  79. olderwiser,

    I read the article’s title and no farther. I guess I’m more jaded than I thought.☹ Apologies.

  80. Gneiss says:
    March 7, 2011 at 8:27 am

    Yes, an obvious double-standard at work.
    During the 2008 primaries and general elections, some candidates began attacking the spouses. Both Dem & GOP mainstream told the offenders to lay off, as such attacks were out-of-bounds AND below-the-belt.
    Now, tell me, how do certain elected officials, now in power, defend such acts?

  81. I know it is serious but I have to say, if you can get THAT far up their noses, I’d like to shake your hand.

  82. The Daily Beast is children behaving badly. Why are directing traffic to their site by publishing a link?

  83. Since swiftboating means to tell the truth about a liberal candidate, why does this incident remind anyone of swiftboating?

  84. This is an absolute outrage but is fairly typical of the tactics employed by people on the political left these days. They are becoming desperate and don’t seem to “get” that actions such as these actually advance the cause of the political right and drain support away from the left.

    It is really sad. Everything is political to these people. Everything.

  85. Disgusting and scary, so blinded by hate. How much different emotioanally are these vile do-gooders from the communist or nazi do-gooders of past generatios? I don’t think as far away as we may have hoped — and I think the gap is narrowing all too rapidly. Imagine a liberal social-democrat state controlled by these thugs. Their righteous anger is of the same poison just not in the same dosage amounts — yet.

  86. MM those Guys may find out why we have “Libel” Tourism in the UK not to mention involving a British Corporation and Tony Hayward :)

    Gates has significant interests over in the UK and if he maintains a home here he could just decide to have some sport.

    Appalling what was said about you Anthony (as was the rest on the others). Satire has limits imho.

    What this shows is that these guys are running scared, otherwise there would be no need to resort to this kind of garbage!!

  87. I became a fan when of Robinson when he went on Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC. She tried to discredit him, and he did a great job (maybe a bit smug) trashing her and their network. Not to many repubs would go on that show just because it is going to be so not fair or balanced.

    So even though I am from AZ, i followed his campaign and was deeply disappointed when he lost. I feel for him and his family over this incident. You may want to look up the you tube video of the debate from Maddow show.

    Robinson is certainly one of us…HOBO

  88. Anthony, sue the Beast and the writer for $1,000,000 and their domain name. It think it’s an open case of defamation.

    You will get good press, even from the MSM who cannot side with psychopathic eco-fascists. At some point the radical left/green have to reach a tipping point where the MSM has to notice the problem.

  89. Re. the “Beast” … well, I suppose their choice of name partly explains their fascination with that sort of activity … not saying any more …

    I guess now WUWT is officially THE BEST SCIENCE BLOG you’re going to draw fire from all sorts of jealous little pseudoscience believers. Think of it as their warped, twisted way of paying you a compliment. (Then sue!)

  90. Those in the US, please contact Oregon newspapers and your Representatives & Senators.

    Please contact the Office of Congressional Ethics

    http://oce.house.gov/public-input.html

    Especially if you have supporting details.

    Public Input
    Thank you for your interest in submitting information to the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).

    The OCE is an independent, non-partisan entity charged with reviewing allegations of misconduct against Members, officers, and staff of the United States House of Representatives.

    The OCE will accept and review information concerning allegations within its jurisdiction. Please note that a submission of information does not automatically result in an investigation. The decision to begin an investigation (preliminary review) lies solely with the OCE Board. Further, the OCE is not able to provide information about whether the Board has authorized a review or whether the OCE has conducted an investigation related to the information you submit.

    The following information should be included in any submission:
    1. the name, address, telephone number and e-mail address, if any, of the person submitting the information, and the organization s/he is affiliated with, if any;
    2. the full name of the subject of the allegation;
    3. the date(s) the alleged conduct occurred;
    4. a concise statement of facts (or, the source of the information in the event that the person submitting the information does not have first-hand knowledge of the facts);
    5. the law, regulation or rule allegedly violated, if known;
    6. if applicable, name(s) and contact information for any potential witness(es);
    7. if applicable, copies of any documents related to the allegation; and
    8. a signed declaration acknowledging that section 1001 of title 18 United States Code (popularly known as the False Statement Act) applies to the information provided. A copy of the False Statements is available on the OCE’s website and can be provided on request.


    oce@mail.house.gov

    This may come under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

    section 1964(c) of the RICO Act, which allows civil claims to be brought by any person injured in their business or property by reason of a RICO violation. Any person who succeeded in establishing a civil RICO claim would automatically receive judgment in the amount of three times their actual damages and would be awarded their costs and attorneys’ fees.

    See RICO in a nutshell

  91. Well, I just called the school and told them how freaking outrageous this is if those three students haven’t engaged in any kind of academic dishonesty. (To be honest, I find it hard to believe that all three would do something dishonest.)

    Anyway, the woman on the phone said the school will be issuing a formal response today.

  92. Art Robinson – now I remember. He was the one that Rachel Maddow interviewed, where she was exasperated how Art Robinson did not fit her reality in everything she knows is true.

  93. CodeTech says:
    March 7, 2011 at 10:00 am
    From what I can see, the left ALWAYS targets children.

    10:10 certainly did! Splat!!

  94. Dan Inesanto asked: “Can you find a more reliable source?”

    To which dbs said: “[Reply: How about Art Robinson, who wrote the article? ~dbs, mod.]

    ——————–

    Art is the father. Obviously a father is not an objective source about whether his children should stay in a grad program. Does he have documents like letters or e-mails sent to his kids? And, how on Earth does he know this has anything to do with him or his politics? It sounds like a bizarre conspiracy theory.

    WUWT is supporting a harassment campaign without having investigated the facts.

  95. If they fail the brightest, then they have passed the failures.

    Marxism at it’s best.

    Future (intelligent) administrations should nullify all degrees awarded by these ‘Retarded lefty people’ (very very polite version moderators) and hold them to account. (if only there was a tongue biting font)!

    Don’t worry. Who amongst the spineless money grabbing lefties will even speak up for their own family unless they can get a pension!

    Their time has gone. Our time is about to begin.

    Freedom!

    (Watch the movie)

  96. Pathetic and gross. Hearing the truth spoken allowed has really hurt them. This is all to the warmists discredit.

    …but look at the company you’re in Anthony. No one in climate science approaches Freeman Dyson’s intelectual level or his level of integrity. And what’s with Warren Buffet and Bill Gates? Sounds like the warmists have turned to attacking each other.

  97. I don’t know Art Robinson other than being vaguely aware of the name in regard to his work on the Petition Project. I don’t know why he chose WND as the forum to raise this alarm. I suspect it is because WND provided the largest potential audience for what he felt was a desperate plea. I know I would feel desperation in similar circumstances. At a minimum all that Dr. Robinson requests is an enquiry to the University to provide an explanation of their actions toward his children and the professor who tried to support them. Can any of you suggesting that this is some kind of hoax because it was posted on WND, provide an alternative scenario that offers a more benevolent justification for the University’s actions against these people than the one suggested by Dr. Robinson. Personally I’m having great difficulty trying to imagine one.

  98. Wow Anthony, I can see that failure to be picked for the neighborhood baseball team and repeated theft of their lunch money has left a bitterness in these folks.

  99. As another academic who frequents WUWT, I want to add my voice to the chorus of those experienced in the sullied halls, for whom the Robinson article allegations seem all too likely. I’ve known grad students who saw their best work appropriated by their supervisors (in a highly reputable university) and have certainly witnessed the outright hostility of many academics to political viewpoints that differ from their own dominant views. Needless to say, since it is the political left that controls university discourse in every university I’ve experienced, conservative academics have learned to keep a low profile for the sake of just being able to carry on with their careers. Unfortunately, that silences many of us when extremist academics (faculty and students alike) take actions that defy common sense and civility.

    In my place of work, several members of one department use their students to spy on the activities and teaching of a colleague in my department (he’s very active in bringing in guest speakers of all political stripes) because of his career background in security issues – he does not even consider himself right-wing. They are doing their utmost to catch him out in some perceived wrongdoing. Pettiness, vindictiveness, self-righteousness and the conviction that the end justifies the means – all are commonplace in academia.

  100. Whoops! Sorry, wrong rumor. Please feel free to disregard my last post there. I posted before I read.

  101. OSU has just posted a reply on their website at http://www.oregonstate.edu/news
    Due to the laws on confidentiality, they couldn’t say much. They just denied that Robinson’s charges had any merit.

    This is a new low in politics, but it is not likely Republican v Democrat. I think it more likely that Big Oil is attacking those who attack their econazis. Big Oil is behind all the global warming lies, because the econazis successfully prevent new refineries, competition from American Oil Shales (more oil than the entire Midlle East), etc. Less supply = higher prices = higher profits.

  102. Those trashing WND have their heads in the sand. That is one of the few sites where one can find actual news, news the mainstream media does not want published. The interesting thing is, often WND stories end up mainstream, way afterward. That is the correct site to use if you want to reach a lot of conservatives quickly. If you are not a conservative, you will not like that site. Sites are self-selective. The only people who would read the beast are like minded folks who can’t stand the truth about AGW. Real people won’t be bothered with it.

  103. Ken
    March 7, 2011 at 8:55 am

    “… “militant feminist” and the like. This ad hom attack leads me to think that he is not serious, because a serious person would most likely want to present his case matter of factly. …”

    Stating a fact that is relevant is not an ad hom attack. OSU is over-run with militant feminists and other species of radical leftists. It make getting a degree there, for anyone who resists brainwashing, very difficult.

  104. I became a fan when of Robinson when he went on Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC. She tried to discredit him, and he did a great job

    And now we come to the crux of the biscuit (sorry, Frank). Rachel Maddow is a major celebrity of the left. In fact, she is now the “face’ of MSNBC. He made her look quite foolish. And now comes the payback. Chances are pretty good that if these academics are leftists, they were watching that interview.

  105. anyone that thinks being “swiftboated” means a smear campaign wasn’t paying attention during Kerry’s run for the presidency …

    the candidate was quoted in the article … How many other “sources” do you need ?

    Here is the deal about the “swiftboating” incident. Many of the claims Corsi made were never independently verified, as was the case with witnesses that the “swiftboat” info relied on. There was one accusation that could be verified… that the claim by Kerry to have spent “Christmas in Cambodia” was proven to be false. But coming out on the wining side of one claim out of a dozen isn’t a very good record.

    As far as the National Enquirer goes, it has more cred than WND, because when they do get around to doing a real story, they cross their I’s and T’s. The legit stories they have broken, John Edwards and OJ for example, were actually very good journalism. Wish they would do more of it.

  106. Caution:

    Due to my “mos” and work in Vietnam 1966 to 1969 I had the operational codes and security clearances to be in some top loops of the Generals. Had 1-0 team command.
    Installation of high tech devices for operation igloowhite. When the huge build up for the tet offensive was on going we reported the very, very hign numbers of troops, equipment and supplies coming down the trails to the top.
    There were those who did study and think about the use of small nukes.
    When the thing was over on to General Dynamics Ft. Worth research and dev. and a time at Sandia Lab at Abq. . More info regarding possible use of nukes. So, not wanting that to start and thinking something could be done, made the mistake of getting involved in Green Peace in the 1970’s. Did work active for some time to try to slow the spread of nuke info to others .

    Came a time at a Green Peace/Earth First meeting up in Seattle Washington where things were disscussed that caused me to stand up and say no. The wild eyed crazy dangerous violent types had taken over, they took me asside and told me clear. Your no longer welcome here, if you show any longer at our meetings we know how to make sure you never attend again.

    Do not underestimate the core leadership of some of these org.’s. They will do harm and never look back.

    No longer a member of any of them.

    That and the U.S. Congress and Senate need money to get elected as well as any one running for President.

    Follow the money.

  107. Anthony, consider the source, and consider it high praise. You, and the others on that list, are pretty good company as far as I’m concerned. Though I do have to admit that until a few months ago, I’d never heard of the Koch brothers. Now, everywhere leftists are gathered in two or more, they’re ranting about the guys. From the link, you can’t even buy any stock in their company, it’s privately owned! The gall of them!

  108. I’m not much for lawsuits in general, and slander in particular, but if there was ever a call for one, the “Beast” has shown it.

    Anthony, the smear they made against you is telling. However, the slander they include in the “corrections” should be actionable – and I for one, would love to see you pursue that action.

  109. Oh, if it hasn’t been mentioned here yet, there’s an old saying: When you’re taking flak, you know you’re over the target. I’d say you’re in direct sight.

  110. Brad says:
    theduke says:

    Aside from the byline being the Dr. himself,
    WND has more credibility than anything the left MSM has ever had and is usually the source when they do get it right.

  111. Hard to determine the facts in this one. No one seems to have personally contacted Robinson for confirmation. The OSU statement is about as helpful as most of academia proclamations. Still, the Left does do things like this but usually only as wishful thinking.

    I’d be inclined to believe Robinson’s story if details are forthcoming. Otherwise someone should call the Mythbusters or pershaps Judge Judy to see if this can be an epilsode on their show(s).

  112. WND is not exactly my favorite site. It has a tabloid flavor to it. However, it would be folly to dismiss them out of hand. Not infrequently WND is the first to break stories. Shucks, even the National Enquirer gets the big scoop once in a while. The thing is Dr. Robinson wrote the piece and he would not be well served by prevarication. Ph.D. candidates are far more vulnerable than undergrads.

    I would rather Dr. Robinson submitted his article to American Thinker, but hopefully it will be linked to on Morano’s site, Hot Air, Breitbart, etc. A corroborating piece by someone on the inside at OSU would be nice.

    Anthony should feel honored to be smeared in such august company. Until today I’m sure that Beast piece was read by tens of people.

  113. Does not pass sniff test from a quarter of a mile.

    Even before we get to the crazy allegations against the school, we have a first-time congressional candidate, unknown to politics, who loses by 8 points to a veteran and says somehow this was a ‘bought’ election.

    Actually, a first-timer losing by 8 points is a pretty good showing, usually.

  114. ann r – “[WND] is one of the few sites where one can find actual news”

    Uh huh. Like the President’s birth certificate? And that little mix up with Jones and Gore? And the John Kerry “intern scandal”? Or the Kerry-Fonda photo? Yup, gotta love that high quality reporting!

    The list of their tabloid-level reporting errors and mistakes (to phrase it kindly) is longer than they would let through in comments. They’re a junk tabloid.

    Re: Lady Life’s link to OSU’s news page with the response to Robinson’s claim.

    It doesn’t say much, but they could be sued if they said much more. I expect Robinson will be shown to be making stuff up, or at best, wildly exaggerating things.

  115. Robinson’s material singles out several individual faculty members for criticism. The university has found no factual basis for the accusations made against those faculty members. OSU is proud of its education and research programs and faculty in Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics and of department alumni, many of whom hold leadership positions in government and private sector organizations.

    OSU will not comment on other allegations made in the Robinson posts other than to say the claims made therein are baseless and without merit.

    Ok, so that says that *someone* is lying to someone. Either Professor Higginbotham and the Congressman’s kids are all lying to the Congressman or the faculty members are lying.

    But the bottom line is that someone here is lying.

  116. Regarding OSU’s response or more accurately non response: I suspect there is much truth to the story.

  117. World Net Daily isn’t a tabloid site?

    Hahaha. Good one, Anthony. But you forgot the winky ;-) to note you were being sarcastic!

    I mean, c’mon. I’m as conservative as the next guy, I cherish/practice Christian culture and values even though I’m agnostic about the mystic bits, and I really want to see Obama’s original birth certificate before I’d consider him a constitutionally legitimate POTUS and would just as soon haul him off to jail for fraud without it. But that said even I consider WND to be a tabloid. Maybe not as tabloid as the National Enquirer but in the same ballpark.

  118. Lending credence to Art Robinson’s story, and doubt to OSU’s reply posted above, is the fact that the long time Oregon meterologist George Taylor was at OSU and was ousted, allegedly, for daring to believe that much of last century’s warming was due to natural variability.

    There is a pattern of behavior at OSU.

  119. “Dan Inesanto”

    I find WND to be a news source to take with a grain of salt. That said, if I were in the situation of the Congressman, I would take whatever source would be willing to print it. Maybe he sent that letter to many news outlets and WND was just the first one to run it.

  120. crosspatch – or, it might not be so cut and dried. It could be something being taken out of context, exaggerated, or dramatically misunderstood.

    Based on the way this was announced – an opinion piece in a magazine of questionable attachment to things like accuracy – I am guessing it will turn out to be a lot of huffing and puffing by Robinson over something either completely misunderstood or blown out of context. Or, it might be Robinson trying to keep his kids from being evicted for something they really did.

    If Robinson really was completely in the right, and OSU were lying through their teeth, then he would have taken a much more serious step than merely crying foul in a political tabloid magazine.

  121. I follow WND and Art has been featured before… http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=216589

    What a nice story, I see why slugs might want to tear him and his family down. Portions from WND article folllow… HOBO

    Please bear with me for a moment while I tell you what kind of a man Art Robinson – whom I’ve known personally for many years – really is.

    A Ph.D. research scientist of international stature, Robinson co-founded, with Nobel-winner Linus Pauling, the Linus Pauling Institute in Menlo Park, Calif. Then in 1980, with the help of his chemist wife Laurelee, Robinson founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. While carrying out influential research, Art and Laurelee also raised and homeschooled their six children on 350 idyllic acres in southern Oregon.

    Then tragedy struck. In 1988, Lauralee died suddenly from hemorrhagic pancreatitis, leaving Art alone to care for all those children ranging from 18 months up to 12 years of age. What did he do in such a terrible, crushing circumstance?

    Art restructured their homeschooling curriculum in such a way that his children could, to a considerable extent, teach themselves. He also eventually packaged the curriculum and offered it to the homeschooling world. “The Robinson Curriculum” apparently works pretty well, as today all six of Art’s children either have doctorate degrees or will shortly. One has a chemistry Ph.D., two have doctorates in veterinary medicine and the last three are all in the Oregon State University graduate program working toward their Ph.D.s in nuclear engineering.

    Oh, and how’d they pay for all that expensive college and postgraduate schooling – six times? Sales of “The Robinson Curriculum,” which remains very popular among homeschoolers.

    Talk about the American can-do spirit!
    More important, at least as it pertains to the upcoming election, Art Robinson is a straight-shooting, problem-solving Reagan conservative who not only loves this country, he understands this country – what makes it work – and is willing to fight the good fight to restore it to greatness and prosperity.

    One example of his can-do attitude: Robinson has single-handedly documented the utter lack of unanimity in the scientific community on manmade global warming through a petition he started – not an online petition, mind you, but an actual document physically signed – that to date has been signed by more than 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s. All 31,000 agree that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

  122. “Although the story seems unbelievable, I have personally seen this kind of thing happen a few times in my community.”

    Same here. More than a few times.

    I’ve had some really talented professors and mentors… but there is no category of human being I distrust more than academics, particularly administrators. As a group, they’ve consistently shown that they have trouble making rational, ethical decisions. They’re too far invested into their own sense of importance and righteousness.

  123. Regarding the Beast article, you really need to step up your game!! The rest of these guys have direct Big Oil financing and hired goons to do their dirty work. All you have is a tip jar and volunteer minions. And if you compare the number of people who read your site with the number who helped with the Surface Station project, I bet your casual follower-to-minion ratio is much worse than the other guys. Maybe you could increase our twisted loyalty by singling some of us out. Send special articles to us, invite us golfing or something.

    Regarding the OSU students; sorry, I’m rather skeptical that is happened as portrayed. It would seem easier just to slowly beat them down with bad reviews of their work, accuse them of unoriginality or even plagiarism, delete files if they didn’t have a good backup routine, go to a naughty-naughty website on their computer when they leave for lunch, etc. Just throwing them out and stealing their work? Right after their wicked Republican father loses an election? It would be really hard to get away with that and you create a martyr instead of just bleeding someone dry.

  124. I looked at the website attacking you before you removed the link.

    I agree; they don’t deserve the traffic.

    But there is one bright spot in their otherwise loathsome comment: You are on an enemies list that includes Freeman Dyson. Good company.

  125. “If Robinson really was completely in the right, and OSU were lying through their teeth, then he would have taken a much more serious step than merely crying foul in a political tabloid magazine.”

    As I thought I said before, maybe he did send that letter to many different news organizations and maybe WND was the first one to print it, I have no idea. If it were my kids, I would have sent that letter to practically every news outlet in the country.

  126. Dan Inesanto,

    Robinson is a pretty straight shooter. Give us a reason why he would write this article if there was no basis for it. Alternately, explain what three kids finishing their PhDs did to earn expulsion, as you intimated.

    Naturally the administrators and professors will stonewall, and display wounded innocence. But after reading the comments here from numerous academics, it appears that water cooler politics is rampant in universities. Read Don B’s comment above about OSU.

    Posting Robinson’s article on WUWT is probably sufficient to protect his children. Kudos to Anthony for doing the right thing.

  127. These AGW clones are scum, plain and simple. And this also explains how so many “useful idiots” get degrees, and why so many so-called experts are just brain-dead lemmings.

    On the bright side, this fiasco is bound to rock the boat and hopefully help.

    Thanks for posting this Anthony. Now time to make this story go viral.

  128. This could well be a pre-emptive strike by Robinson, Sr. A modest analogy:

    If you hear someone walking around outside your home in the dark, would you turn on lights, make noise and dial 911, or would you lay low, in hopes they don’t break in and are not a homicidal maniac, and if they are, hope the police might solve the crime?

  129. This is truely some of the most disturbing stuff that I have read in quite some time… and the idiotic left always accuse the right of being spoon fed by oil companies… they claim that they are helping the ‘environment.’ One can look and see that they are just being spoon fed money by the green energy companies, which are currently gaining momentum due to the ‘green’ facism, and environmentalism.

  130. Oh come on. I’m sure everyone can think of a dozen different possibilities that could be happening. Like I said, it doesn’t have to be lying, just a bit of hyperventilating.

    Maybe one of the kids is being investigated for XYZ with a possible consequence of being expelled if found to have done whatever. Dad gets all cranked up, and the siblings come in to the defense as well. The school starts getting all snippy about things and some school administrator says something that the dad takes as threatening, whether it is or not.

    Dad goes ballistic, writes a nastygram but realizes that things are slightly overblown, and so doesn’t send it to people who might look at it more closely, but rather sends it to a place where he knows it will get a favorable reception.

    Toss a hundred different variants on just that scenario, or generate a dozen different scenarios where people are just getting all up in arms or are escalating something way out of proportion.

    Anyone who writes a book titled Fighting Chance: Ten Feet to Survival about surviving nuclear war is obviously at home making “excited” statements! :-D

  131. I just have to say that slagging down Ted Nugent (with enough firepower to equip a small army) shows serious lack of judgement and possible suicidal tendencies.

  132. I just posted a link to this at judith curry’s site and I see it is already at ClimateDepot. Let’s all help spread this news! This kind of stuff really p*sses me off, and the only way to stop it is to expose it.

    Now off to find more outlets.

  133. Wow! I just found out that this is the Robinson of the “Robinson Curriculum”. No wonder the school want’s to get rid of his kids. The lefties hate the very existence of his children, and their achievement of PhD’s is intolerable.

  134. At 1:46 PM on 7 March, Harry Bergeron had written:

    If you hear someone walking around outside your home in the dark, would you turn on lights, make noise and dial 911, or would you lay low, in hopes they don’t break in and are not a homicidal maniac, and if they are, hope the police might solve the crime?

    .
    Well, I guess I’d do what we’ve been doing in my family ever since we came over from Sicily, and lure them inside. After finishing them off, we’d drag the corpses down into the back basement and bury them with the other ones.

    Good exercise, all of it, and it doesn’t take more than a sack or two of pre-emptive quicklime to prevent any reek of decay, particularly if you’re conscientious about how deeply you dig ‘em in.

  135. The Greens-Inquisition has truly started to show their real colors. It goes further then just being water melons. The red they show now is that of rage and the red of the blood they want to see oozing from whoever does not agree with them. Dr. Robinson nor his children deserve such treatment. But like the old Catholic inquisition, the current green’s one will attack foremost they deem to be the most dangerous: Those who can and will think for themselves.
    I truly hope that Dr. Robinson finds enough protection with in the society to be able to express his opinion without having to fear for the wellbeing of his children.

  136. Here’s the statement from OSU about Robinson’s claims. Pretty much a non-statement, other than there’s no factual basis in the dismissal of the students.

    CORVALLIS, Ore. — Political candidate Art Robinson published material this past weekend with regard to the status of two of his adult sons and one adult daughter who are graduate students in Oregon State University’s Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics. Robinson made a number of allegations with regard to the students’ experience at OSU and further allegations regarding the university’s relationship with U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio.

    Federal law prohibits institutions of higher education from discussing matters concerning our students with anyone other than the student himself or herself without the express consent of the student involved. Given that, OSU will not comment on any allegation regarding the Robinson students or share any personal information concerning them other than the limited “directory information” allowed by law to be shared.

    Robinson’s material singles out several individual faculty members for criticism. The university has found no factual basis for the accusations made against those faculty members. OSU is proud of its education and research programs and faculty in Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics and of department alumni, many of whom hold leadership positions in government and private sector organizations.

    OSU will not comment on other allegations made in the Robinson posts other than to say the claims made therein are baseless and without merit.

    Which claims? Seems as though the students themselves were dismissed under mysterious circumstances. Surely that would merit some kind of explanation?

  137. If OSU are causing as much trouble as they make out, I’d have tried completing the PhD’s at UoM or MIT.

  138. To those who haven’t figured this out….the kids are not the dad. Regardless of what he’s done, the kid’s actions should stand on their own. If they’re guilty of something, then let it be known.

    I personally witnessed a professor repeatedly bring in students from his home country and treat them like indentured slaves. They were in the lab by 7:30am, and didn’t go home until after 11pm. There on weekends too.
    Just as they’d near the finish of their thesis work, he’d change the topic and force them onto some other project he’d gotten funding for, and once again, grind ‘em.

    One student who was a lot sharper than the others, and I think maybe wound his towel in a different way, if you know what I mean, applied to and was accepted by Stanford.

    Just after he left, this professor called the student’s advisor at Stanford and badmouthed the kid REAL bad. So bad it even got back to me. Yet, there was never any recourse against this prof. We were lucky he finally left. But because he had tenure, he couldn’t be fired.

    Bet you weren’t Reddy for that one.

  139. Post-normal academics, I suppose. Look at the greater good (manifested by Democrats in power, of course) and determine how to get there. Solution: destroy Republicans and their families, thus driving opposition away. A very good strategy, actually. Much like attacking skeptics of CAGW science… the end justifies the means.

  140. Democrats have been attacking kids since they were in the womb, this just goes to show how low and disgusting these people are.

  141. Dave N says:
    March 7, 2011 at 2:16 pm
    If OSU are causing as much trouble as they make out, I’d have tried completing the PhD’s at UoM or MIT.

    Here’s the catch…..which the general public doesn’t ever see or really understand…and why that’s a deal killer.

    When a student starts in on a project, the advisor, or Principle Investigator (read Professor) has gotten a grant which is used, sometimes along with start-up funds for a new prof, to build up an experiment for the prof’s research. This can easily run from
    $25k-50k, and higher. I’ve seen projects run up into the $1/4Mil range.

    They also take time to build up, and in physics especially, because you can’t buy stuff off the shelf and just plug it in. Some experiments in nuclear and atomic physics can easily take a couple of years to build up.

    Why? The prof has to sit down with the students, and give them the task of designing parts and assemblies that he isn’t going to design. Little by little, the department’s machine shop and/or outside shops start to built parts that aren’t available off the shelf, and trust me, there’s lots and lots of those. Lots. Expensive stainless pieces and parts. Delicate, big, precise, oddball and difficult parts of weird materials too.

    Once the pieces are together, you begin runs and sometimes, lots of times, once stuff is stabilized, you sit and take data. Hour after hour. All nite. And you hope that surplus turbo pump doesn’t crap out on you, or you suck some oil out of a dif pump and have to dismantle the WHOLE system and clean EVERYTHING….and start all over again.

    Going somewhere else to finish your thesis?? Not unless where you end up has the same experiment…and THAT’s not likely, because seldom will you find 2 researchers at different universities running the same experiment. Why would NSF or DOE fund
    duplicates?

    That’s why this is very serious. You can’t just pick up and go. You can’t take the experiment with you.

  142. DocattheAutopsy says:
    March 7, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    Thanks for posting OSU’s cover up piece. But it says:

    “Federal law prohibits institutions of higher education from discussing matters concerning our students with anyone other than the student himself or herself without the express consent of the student involved. Given that, OSU will not comment on any allegation regarding the Robinson students or share any personal information concerning them other than the limited “directory information” allowed by law to be shared.”

    So the Robinson kids just have to give them permission. Best to do that very publicly. Then these weasels cannot hide behind that excuse.

  143. Tucci78 says:
    March 7, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    “Good exercise, all of it, and it doesn’t take more than a sack or two of pre-emptive quicklime to prevent any reek of decay, particularly if you’re conscientious about how deeply you dig ‘em in.”
    _______________________________________________________
    That’s OK, Tucci78. I probably needed to clean off my monitor anyway. Here I am reading all these serious comments and come across one from the great healer of the east and end up snorting coffee everywhere. Thanks, Pal.

  144. Far from suing the Daily Beast, you should frame it. As time goes by and it becomes apparent that some of the people they’ve targeted are basically good (don’t want to defend Bill Gates), they’ll deny they ever wrote it. As I said: children behaving badly. It’s great stuff, from a certain perspective, and terribly witty, but, they probably won’t want their names associated with it 20 years from now when sea level hasn’t risen and we haven’t had the AGW-apocalypse. So, make sure you find out the actual names of the people behind the comments.

    The stuff railing against BP was on the money, though.

  145. From the OSU statement:
    The university has found no factual basis for the accusations made against those
    faculty members. [and]…the claims made therein are baseless and without merit.

    Seems they performed a speedy investigation. Unless the same claims and accusations were made known first to the school and some time ago at that.

  146. No threats should ever be given including these:
    Climate scientist Michael Mann says he has received hundreds of them — threatening e-mails and phone calls calling him a criminal, a communist or worse.
    ABC News
    Climate scientist Michael Mann says he’s received hundreds of threatening e-mails and phone calls calling him a criminal, a communist or worse.”6 feet under, with the roots, is were you should be,” one e-mail reads. “How know 1 one has been the livin p*ss out of you yet, i was hopin i would see the news that you commited suicide, Do it.”

    “I’ve been called just about everything in the book,” Mann, who runs of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, told ABC News. “It’s an attempt to chill the discourse, and I think that’s what’s most disconcerting.”

    Mann is not the only one. The FBI says it’s seeing an uptick in threatening communications to climate scientists. Recently, a white supremacist website posted Mann’s picture alongside several of his colleagues with the word “Jew” next to each image.

    One climate scientist, who did not wish to be identified, told ABC News he’s had a dead animal left on his doorstep, and now sometimes travels with bodyguards.

  147. Ian Murphy says:
    March 7, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    “You are not smart. And you’re a coward. And not smart.”

    [Note: this comment is from the blog that smeared Anthony. ~dbs, mod.]

    Thanks mod. Just went to check that site. You did not mention that Ian here is one of the co-authors of that simplistic attack piece but his comment here does exhibit the same kind of ‘sophisticated’ and repetitive writing skills exhibited here.

    With critics like this, really, who cares? Just wish they would post their deep thoughts here more often so we could marvel at them.

    Does Ian want a cracker?

  148. And of course:

    Death threats received by Tony Windsor reveal that the debate over a carbon tax is not really about economic efficiency or policy effectiveness, or even about party politics. It’s about the way responses to climate change threaten the worldview and cultural identity of some groups in the community.

    Here, as in the United States, rejecting climate science and resisting greenhouse policies have become lore in the resurgent movement of right-wing populism whose dominant sentiment is anger.

    After calling him a “f***ing dog”, Tony Windsor’s anonymous caller said “I hope you die you bastard”, a level of aggression way out of proportion to the possibility of a small rise in energy prices.

  149. It seems implausible that 3 students from the same family with very good grades would be expelled from university without some level of conspiracy.
    So either the 3 students are acting in concert and in a gross breach of academic standards, or their department is. The evidence against the 3 students would need to be overwhelming, as yet I haven’t seen any. If the actions of the department are as stated, the university should not only expel the faculty members involved, the should seek whatever criminal redress possible under law.

    Actions such as these (should they have substance) are a direct threat to the democratic institutions of the United States and should be forcefully dealt with by all levels of government and the judiciary.

  150. Anthony:
    When they are writing junk like that, you know you have them on the run.
    You’re doing great work.

  151. And there is this:
    The scientists say the threats have increased since the furore over leaked emails from the University of East Anglia began last November, and a sample of the hate mail sent in recent months and seen by the Guardian reveals the scale and vitriolic tone of the abuse.

    The scientists revealed they have been told to “go gargle razor blades” and have been described as “Nazi climate murderers”. Some emails have been sent to them without any attempt by the sender to disguise their identity. Even though the scientists have received advice from the FBI, the local police say they are not able to act due to the near-total tolerance of “freedom of speech” in the US.

    The problem appears less severe in the UK but, Professor Phil Jones, the UEA scientist at the centre of the hacked email controversy, revealed in February he had been receiving two death threats a week and had contemplated suicide. “People said I should go and kill myself,” he said. “They said that they knew where I lived. They were coming from all over the world.” The third and final independent review into the issues raised by the hacked UEA emails is due to be published on Wednesday when Sir Muir Russell presents his panel’s conclusions.

    Professor Stephen Schneider, a climatologist based at Stanford University in California, whose name features in the UEA emails, says he has received “hundreds” of violently abusive emails since last November. The peak came in December during the Copenhagen climate change summit, he said, but the number has picked up again in recent days since he co-authored a scientific paper last month which showed that 97%-98% of climate scientists agree that mankind’s carbon emissions are causing global temperatures to increase.

    Schneider described his attackers as “cowards” and said he had observed an “immediate, noticeable rise” in emails whenever climate scientists were attacked by prominent right-wing US commentators, such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

  152. Like all sound bastions of higher learning would do, Oregon State quickly went into CYA mode. In the end it will be “nothing to see here”, just as it was at EAU and Penn State.

  153. Ian Murphy says:
    March 7, 2011 at 2:06 pm
    “You are not smart. And you’re a coward. And not smart.”

    Please go away and grow up. How old are you anyway? 5?

  154. Great suggestions above that the Robinsons contact FIRE. What isn’t clear to me is whether they’ve already consulted a lawyer. This sounds pretty actionable to me, and I’m just skimming the few facts offered here. One thing that jumped out at me is the possible theft of intellectual property. Maybe the kids, as Ph.D candidates, have signed away all their rights to the work they’ve done; but maybe not. Somebody needs to read whatever agreements and by-laws the OSU may have in place regarding the relationship, the funding, the various elements of work the kids have done (when, where, with whom, on whose dime: maybe, very probably is, federal money in the mix here). Insofar as this activity would result in breach of contract; theft of IP; conversion; plagiarism or wrongful attribution; fraud on the funding agencies; false claims; etc; it ought to offer some good shots. Yes, the OSU has its lawyers and its flacks. But they’re not free, and they’re probably already “at capacity” so they will not be happy to get stuck with a complaint seeking injunctive relief (and I’d think that, when it’s your Ph.D hanging in the balance, with years of your life already gone and no clear way to start again, the “irreparable injury for which money damages is insufficient” criterion of a plea for injunctive relief would seem to be met). Point being, you want multiple salients: air, land, sea, indirect fire, direct fire, interdiction, etc. A well-developed plan and the wherewithal to see it through. Once you’ve got that in place, you may not have to commit very much of it, because the OSU will see that the better part of valor is to back off what it’s doing. Which appears to be a long-shot play, with outrageous tactics, merely to satisfy an impulse for revenge against the parent of the kids. What a poor prize, for which they would risk so much: scandal, damages, whacking legal fees, possible Congressional or other legislative inquiries, maybe some effect on accreditation, damage to campus “spirit,” distraction (and legal fees!) to the individual faculty implicated in the plan, etc.

    Just my SWAG.

  155. Brad one thing to point out the pages quite another to broadcast the URL
    that’s whereyou went wrong
    be as upset as you wish

  156. Hmmmm!
    From the Guardian:

    The scientists say the threats have increased since the furore over leaked emails from the University of East Anglia began last November, and a sample of the hate mail sent in recent months and seen by the Guardian reveals the scale and vitriolic tone of the abuse.

    The scientists revealed they have been told to “go gargle razor blades” and have been described as “Nazi climate murderers”. Some emails have been sent to them without any attempt by the sender to disguise their identity. Even though the scientists have received advice from the FBI, the local police say they are not able to act due to the near-total tolerance of “freedom of speech” in the US.

    The problem appears less severe in the UK but, Professor Phil Jones, the UEA scientist at the centre of the hacked email controversy, revealed in February he had been receiving two death threats a week and had contemplated suicide. “People said I should go and kill myself,” he said. “They said that they knew where I lived. They were coming from all over the world.” The third and final independent review into the issues raised by the hacked UEA emails is due to be published on Wednesday when Sir Muir Russell presents his panel’s conclusions.

    Professor Stephen Schneider, a climatologist based at Stanford University in California, whose name features in the UEA emails, says he has received “hundreds” of violently abusive emails since last November. The peak came in December during the Copenhagen climate change summit, he said, but the number has picked up again in recent days since he co-authored a scientific paper last month which showed that 97%-98% of climate scientists agree that mankind’s carbon emissions are causing global temperatures to increase.

  157. So OSU issues a release refuting all claims and patting itself on the back with the usual yada, yada, yada.

    So I guess OSU is saying the three are still active PHD candidates in good standing. Can’t have it both ways OSU.

  158. Nobody has cared to explain why his children were removed, or forced out.

    We don’t know Oregon State’s side of the story, we don’t know Robinson’s interpretation of Oregon’s State’s side of the story, we don’t even know if there even is a story.

  159. I wrote the “OregonStateOutrage” website, and let them know regrefully until there is any 3rd party confirmation that the expultion(sp?) process is in place it would be impossible to advocate rationally on anyones behalf.

    If true, the actions are deplorable. However, we currently have a “he said” without even a “she said” response — and we’ve all been fooled in the past. Though frankly, if this doesn’t pan out a true, Mr. Robinson’s political career will be over.

  160. “… a level of aggression way out of proportion to the possibility of a small rise in energy prices…”

    That is really good, Walt Man. Who writes your stuff anyway?

  161. This is actually exactly like the universities in my experience.

    I live in Saskatchewan and when the Government at the time wanted to merge school divisions into “super-divisions”, several people involved in education in my area started a very successful campaign to fight it.

    One of them was just completing a PHD in education and was due to finish in a couple months. The university, and several professors who had help write the provinces new plan, tried to get his PHD work rejected. This was after it had already been accepted and approved, he had already recieved a letter stating the approval of his PHD.

    He was too tenacious to walk away, but in the end they fought him for 3 years before they finally admitted defeat and granted his PHD.

    Another person involved had his kids harrassed at the same university.

    This is exactly the kind of petty, revengeful thinking as has been accused here and I can say without reserve that it very much does happen. I can’t comment on this case, but I have no problem in confirming for the skeptical people that it does very much happen. Many of these people would not pause for a second to ruin someones Career or future, to punish someone who disagrees with them.

  162. to: ‘joan.stueve@oregonstate.edu'; ‘pres.office@oregonstate.edu'; ‘todd.simmons@oregonstate.edu’
    re: Democrats Attack Republican Candidate’s Children – WorldNetDaily
    The Whole World is Watching. If there is nothing to hide, hold a public hearing. Injustice cannot withstand the light of day.
    So long as the matter is kept behind closed doors, the smell will not leave. A public airing is required.
    The actions against Joshua, Bethany and Matthew Robinson and against Professor Jack Higginbotham have come to the attention of WUWT, the number 1 science blog on the planet.
    If you want to see what WUWT can accomplish, look at what is happening to funding for climate science in Congress.
    Should you wish to reply, WUWT is waiting:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/07/climate-ugliness-gets-personal/

  163. Anthony – there is a limit to how much US republican party bullshit I can tolerate. You are obviously republican yourself. But not all climate skeptics are of this political persuasion. You also have a lot of international readers who sit completely outside the US political context and who tend not to see the world through US political filters.

    Indeed I hate to tell you this, but outside of the US, most people regard the current crop of US republican politicians as borderline insane. They seem in complete denial of reality. In particular they fervently deny that failure to regulate financial markets in the Bush years lead to the global financial meltdown, which is the accepted reality in the rest of the world.

    Instead they are apparently embarked on a campaign to blame … Unions … ??? … I don’t know quite how anyone could believe that, but there you go. The republican governor of Wisconsin is behaving like a rabid dog. Somebody should put him down before he bites someone.

  164. “Ian H”

    I don’t see this as Republican vs. Democrat and I am neither. I see this as more Global “Progressives” against common sense. The US Democrats are only the American delegation of the global “Progressives” of which there are many in different countries of the world. This is an issue that crosses national boundaries.

    It could just as easily be about Labour aligned academics in the UK blackballing the children of a Conservative politician.

  165. To Brad and the others who are confused about the academic status of Robinson’s children – that’s what you get for not reading the letter. It’s quite clear if you bother, and there’s no confusion.

    To Ian H – that’s about what I expect from “tolerant liberals” – one-sided ideological economic ignorance and second-hand death threats. Bravo.

  166. Smokey, thank you for the gracious apology. No problem, we all get excited and jump to conclusions sometimes.

    Brad, I am sorry about the treatment you received in this thread. There was no actual evidence beyond the statement of one person that the students actually were expelled. I didn’t see your post, but I am assuming that you only shared what is public information anyway.

    I am surprised that this blog, which just won an award and which I had respected, would have so many readers who accept as truth an angry article published by one apparently distraught parent, who had a similar issue with a different university in the past. There starts to be a pattern of being unable to jump through the requisite hoops to accomplish a long-term goal, seeing a conspiracy everywhere, and running to your friends to get them to gang up your perceived offender.

    I am further disappointed to see the issue framed as a left/right political one. These things are always much more complicated than that. I was gently forced out of a graduate program at OSU myself, but it actually turned out quite well for me in the long run. OSU is not a bastion of vile socialists, neither is Art Robinson defined solely as a right-wing nut job. They both make valuable contributions to society. There isn’t much hope for our civilization if we all limit our thinking and disrespect people who we only assume disagree with us.

    To be scientists, we need verifiable facts. In this case, they are not available to us. Let’s let Art Robinson and his kids work out their problems with OSU by themselves.

  167. Please do follow up, Anthony. The story is incomplete to say the least. What are the grounds on which these graduate students are being dismissed? As for turning their existing work materials over to another student or an instructor, that’s frankly beyond belief. Surely that doesn’t happen in academia anywhere. If students leave, their work is lost, not stolen.

  168. thefordprefect says:

    Professor Phil Jones, the UEA scientist at the centre of the hacked email controversy, revealed in February he had been receiving two death threats a week and had contemplated suicide. “People said I should go and kill myself,” he said…. Professor Stephen Schneider, a climatologist based at Stanford University in California, whose name features in the UEA emails, says he has received “hundreds” of violently abusive emails since last November.

    tfp, is that the same Phil Jones who practically stood up and cheered when he heard that John Daly had passed away? Excuse me if I don’t care about Jones’ pathetic crocodile tears. And “hacked” emails? Provide proof they were ‘hacked’! The gauntlet is down. It’s your credibility on the line.

    And you’re quoting Steven Schneider? The same Steven Schneider who advised lying to promote AGW? That Steven Schneider, who according to you whines about having received hundreds of unfriendly emails since last November?

    Got news for you, tfp. Steven Schneider died, IIRC, in July 2010.

  169. Anthony – perhaps it is a badge of honour to be mentioned among the other names on Dumb and Dumber’s Beast posting. Your profile and accomplishments are getting attention! When AGWers are reduced to obscenities they are admitting defeat. There’ll be no hiding their decline.

  170. Interesting how this item about Art Robinson and his children is polarizing responses, along AGW / skeptic lines. Only one of these sides considers Josh, Bethany and Matthew Robinson to be human beings.

  171. Dear Ian H.
    Indeed I hate to tell you this, but inside of the US, many people regard the current crop of European citizens as pitiable victims and will resist any further political attempts to alter our system of government to reflect yours.

  172. Ian H says @March 7, 2011 at 4:40 pm:
    Somebody should put him down before he bites someone.

    That is threatening language.

  173. I know Dr. Robinson personally and have met his children. He is extremely intelligent, forthright, and honest. His children are quite wonderful, also super smart, and exceedingly polite and deferential. They are a credit to their father and to the entire state.

    I also know the OSU faculty involved. I am an OSU grad, as are my two children.

    Dr. Robinson wrote the truth. That is his practice and history. The OSU Dept. of Nuclear Engineering is indeed engaging in a political jihad against his children, who have done nothing to warrant such treatment.

    This is not the first time that OSU faculty and administrators have allowed their political biases to interfere with academic freedom, but perhaps the first time an entire family of students has been viciously slandered and threatened with expulsion.

    The grievances aired publicly by their father may seem aggressive (to those who are not fathers themselves), but the public airing of this matter came only after four months of private efforts, including those of Prof. Jack Higginbotham, president of the OSU Faculty Senate, whose own career is now threatened.

    By the way, WND’s home office is located in Cave Junction, Oregon, the same community where the Robinson’s live. It should be no surprise that neighbors communicate with one another. WND posted Dr. Robinson’s letter word-for-word, without spin or excess zeal.

    I also know George Taylor personally, the former Oregon State Climatologist who was ousted from OSU at the behest of Governor Ted Kulongoski. Political slime-crawling by OSU faculty and administrators is standard behavior; I can cite numerous other instances.

    Destroying the science careers of exemplary students for base political reasons is beyond the pale. OSU has sunk too low. Not only should the offending (and nepotistic) faculty of the OSU Dept. of Nuclear Engineering be fired, but so also should be Dr. Ed Ray, President of OSU.

  174. Anthony,

    The evil things done to these students and the unbelievably vicious things said about you are not primarily intended to harm the victims. They are intended for one main purpose: to frighten anyone else from joining with you in opposing this scam which has an evil ulterior motive. Witness the same thing in the 10:10 video: the ‘recidivists’ got no chance to ‘repent': instead the supporters were plastered with blood and gore: “That’s what will happen to YOU if you step out of line!”

    Unfortunately the main game here is not the honest scientific discourse seeking the truth about the climate, it is the hidden and evil goal of totalitarianism. Well each of us has to step up and be counted, which we see happening in the enormous amount of support in the comments in this thread. We who love truth are all standing together, most of the white hats under their own names – unlike the spammers! Let’s make sure the villains understand that their ratbaggery and dishonesty will end in their historic humiliation recorded in posterity for all time.

    With the greatest admiration,
    Ron House

  175. Keith G says:
    March 7, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    Regarding the Beast article, you really need to step up your game!! The rest of these guys have direct Big Oil financing and hired goons to do their dirty work. All you have is a tip jar and volunteer minions.

    No, no – while the claims that Anthony is in the clutches of Big Oil are patently false, the time he spends hanging around Stevenson screens suggests he’s connected to Mega Mercury. Similarly to Willy Sutton, Anthony (Quicksilver) Watts seeks out weather stations because that’s where the mercury is.

  176. Dr. Dave says:
    March 7, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    Read Dr. Robinson’s article from SPPI a little over a year ago and then ask yourself if there isn’t sufficient motivation to attack his family:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/how_govt_corrupts_sci.pdf

    It’s not much of a stretch to imagine threatened liberal academics behaving badly.
    Robinson’s article shows that he hates university scientists, especially if they have government contracts. The only word about this that we have is his.
    We only have his word that his kids are in danger of being expelled. Maybe he is trying to scare OSU into giving his kids a quick PHD.

    His petition on climate change posed as a National Academy of Sciences paper, and this deception got some people to sign the petition that normally would not have signed it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

    The article followed the identical style and format of a contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal,[6] even including a date of publication (“October 26″) and volume number (“Vol. 13: 149-164 1999″), but was not actu
    ally a publication of the National Academy. Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said that the article was “designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article…is a reprint and has passed peer review.” Pierrehumbert also said the article was full of “half-truths”.[14] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who “are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them.”[14]

  177. At 5:34 PM on 7 March, olderwiser had written:

    I am surprised that this blog, which just won an award and which I had respected, would have so many readers who accept as truth an angry article published by one apparently distraught parent, who had a similar issue with a different university in the past.

    .
    Having been familiar with Dr. Robinson’s writings since he took over Access to Energy from its founder, Dr. Petr Beckmann, in 1993, I find nothing in his presently cited WND article that is particularly “angry” or “distraught,” though Dr. Robinson is understandably concerned for the education, the research work, and the careers of his children.

    Indeed, should he not be?

    He is reaching out to the same thousands of colleagues, past readers, customers of his home education curriculum, and other like-minded individuals who had supported him in his 2010 congressional election campaign for such expressions of public concern as can be brought to bear upon the people who are perpetrating what clearly appears to be a vindictive injustice against the members of Dr. Robinson’s family.

    I find nothing in his present publication at variance from his voice in persuasive prose on other subjects, and I see nothing either intrinsic to this appeal or in his past writings to suggest that Dr. Robinson is not an honest and straightforward reporter of the circumstances described.

    If the administration of Oregon State University (OSU) had valid and defensible grounds for the measures taken against these three of Dr. Robinson’s children, I would think that they would not hesitate to articulate their reasons for this concerted attack upon them, if only putting forth some explanation of the institutional policies and procedures being implemented in these three separate cases being simultaneously brought to outcomes extremely adverse for the students concerned.

    (What’s that old saw about how “Once is the thing itself, twice is coincidence, but three times is enemy action”?)

  178. Speechless… I just can’t process the level of hatred and ignorance it took to make such remarks. Its actually scary what some people believe in.

  179. The repeated statements stating the wrong time for the CRU emails and overlooking the recent demise of Stephen Schneider bespeak of yet another CAGW PR effort.

  180. Smokey says:

    Robinson is a pretty straight shooter. Give us a reason why he would write this article if there was no basis for it.

    I suppose your definition of a straight shooter is someone whose ideology and worldview is as extreme as yours? Robinson was involved in an episode that a REAL straight shooter, Bob Park called “a dark episode in the annals of scientific discourse” ( http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN03/wn080803.html ). And, as opposed to you, I use the term “straight shooter” because Park will go after people liberal or conservative if he thinks they are acting against scientific interests; for example, on several occasions, he criticized liberal Senator Tom Harkin for his role in creating the NIH Office of Alternative Medicine.

    I’m going to need some real evidence before I believe that OSU did something as stupid, immature and, frankly, counterproductive (since they would alienate many of those like myself who are no friends of Robinson) as he claims they did.

    [And, by the way, why would Dems be so out to get Robinson anyway? I would think that, given that Fazio’s district is “only marginally Democratic on paper; it narrowly voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004″ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_DeFazio) , they would be happier to have an extremist like Robinson on the Republican ticket than someone who could actually win. He lost by 11% in such a district in a year with such an anti-Democratic tide that Harry Reid came much closer to losing to a pretty nutty extremist.]

  181. Ron House,

    Bravo! Well said!

    I watch with interest as the facts slowly appear. As time passes our preconceptions, (which we all have and many (including myself) make quite obvious in their comments,) will give way to deeper understanding of what actually happened at this school.

    However the really important thing is to have this occur out in the open. If it were not for sites like this one, who would even know about the travails of this father and his three children? Would not they merely be margainalized, and basically told to go away and dry up?

    Freedom Of Speech involves a place to be heard.

  182. DCC writes,
    “But the only meat in it is one sentence:”

    No, it’s in two sentences and you missed them:
    “Federal law prohibits institutions of higher education from discussing matters concerning our students with anyone other than the student himself or herself without the express consent of the student involved. Given that, OSU will not comment on any allegation regarding the Robinson students or share any personal information concerning them other than the limited “directory information” allowed by law to be shared.”

  183. Molon Labe @ 6:01. “That is threatening language.” What you said.

    Ian H, you might want to check in with your masters on the current rhetorical frame. It has something to do with the deplorable lack of civil discourse of which, apparently, all but the Progs are guilty. Please try to keep up.

  184. @Ian H
    “Indeed I hate to tell you this, but outside of the US, most people regard the current crop of US republican politicians as borderline insane. They seem in complete denial of reality. In particular they fervently deny that failure to regulate financial markets in the Bush years lead to the global financial meltdown, which is the accepted reality in the rest of the world.”

    I’m outside of the US and I disagree with you. The Republicans in particular have been more civil and respectful than the Democrats, something plain to see if you don’t rely on the liberally biased mainstream media for your news.
    In particular I am aware the failure to regulate loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were by far the largest contributor to the global financial crisis, and I have seen evidence that Democrats blocked many attempts by Republicans to regulate these institutions. It is not hard to understand that if you mandate that mortgages should be made available to high risk borrowers and then back those mortgages with a government guarantee, then the government is going to have a lot of defaulted loans on their books. It was then a Democrat president that handed hundreds of billions of TARP dollars to the same institutions that had propagated this financial folly, rather than let them collapse and let the market correct itself. That Democrat president has behaved no differently than any previous Republican president.

    “Instead they are apparently embarked on a campaign to blame … Unions … ???”
    Specifically they wish to limit the collective bargaining rights of PUBLIC sector unions. Why? Well if you have a collective that can strong-arm their private sector employer to pay higher salaries, medical and pension benefits, then the private sector employer has ultimate recourse to close down the business if the demands are too onerous.
    In the public sector the tax-payer is the employer, and the taxpayer doesn’t have this ultimate recourse. To keep health, education, sanitation, power, water, emergency services the taxpayer has little choice but to accede to the demands of the collective.
    This is the crux of the argument. Essentially the ability for public sector unions to collectively bargain transfers the power to halt the essential function of government to unelected parties. It is against the principles of democracy.
    Roosevelt said in 1937:
    “Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government….The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”
    FDR believed that “[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.”

    /rant

  185. Elliot Ness is going after Al Capone’s money and wealth. Did the “Untouchables” really think Al Capone would go down without a fight?

    Of course, Al Capone in this instance represent the left-wing communists, anarchists, or environmentalists. (This does not include all left-wing people.) Al Capone’s organization has power and money and is able to bribe many people who would otherwise be indifferent or opposed. Al Capone is popular in the media and essentially they are in Capone’s back pocket. These things were true until Al Capone was sentenced for tax evasion as they are true for the figurative Al Capone in my parallel. Elliot Ness and the Untouchables is anyone who disagrees with the figurative Al Capone. I really can’t help but think of the parallels between AGW true believers and organized crime.

    Expect more causalities in the battle between truth and power.

  186. Ian H

    I am having a huge problem figuring out any way to relate your comments to the situation being discussed.

    While I do think Scotty OWalker here in Wisconsin has done more for Obama’s re-election chances than George Soros ever could, I just don’t see how it relates to OSU attacking innocent students because they don’t tow the party line. This is an absolutely horrible abuse of power, one that I suspect is every bit as dishonest and unethical as it sounds.

    Some of you are asking why not just pick up and go elsewhere? The cost. You have to start over. A former undergrad student of mine was forced out of one PhD program because she wouldn’t sleep with her “advisor”. Starting over elsewhere cost her an extra 4 years.

  187. Ian Murphy: You are not smart. And you’re a coward. And not smart.

    Ian: I had a special ed student (2nd grader) sent to me once on an in-house suspension. She started the day well, but something set her off mid-morning. (Never did figure out what it was.) She threw an absolute fit, throwing things and winding up under a table berating me with every insult she could think of. Wound up her tirade with, “…and you’re ugly!” At which point the rest of the class (3rd graders) burst out laughing. Since you seem to need some new material, you have my permission to quote her tag line.
    Sincerely,
    John the Teacher

  188. Joel Shore says:

    “I suppose your definition of a straight shooter is someone whose ideology and worldview is as extreme as yours?”

    Joel supposes wrong, as usual. My “ideology” [nice commie word, there] is exactly in line with the original Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am a Constitutional originalist. You can’t be more normal than that.

    Joel Shore, on the other hand, is on the wacko far Left eco-fringe – while I am solidly in line with the original Constitution, and a scientific skeptic with an open mind: if evidence of global damage caused by CO2 is verified, I will change my mind. But Joel Shore’s mind is made up and closed tight. He is a True Believer.

  189. Does anyone else find it disturbing we still don’t know why his kids are being expelled?

    We don’t even know if Robinson’s claims are even true…

    Usually when you face expulsion at Universities, you go through some sort of public arbitration process, usually through a student disciplinary body. Where are the records for this?

    How come he won’t tell us why Oregon State is suspending his kids… its a conspiracy is not good enough explanation, unless if you belong to the tea party/tin foil hat crowd.

    Show us the bacon. Right now this story is almost pure conjecture.

  190. On the subject of government employee unions brought up earlier by non-American Ian H posting:

    “Indeed I hate to tell you this, but outside of the US, most people regard the current crop of US republican politicians as borderline insane. They seem in complete denial of reality. In particular they fervently deny that failure to regulate financial markets in the Bush years lead to the global financial meltdown, which is the accepted reality in the rest of the world.
    .
    “Instead they are apparently embarked on a campaign to blame … Unions … ???”

    .
    …at 6:40 PM on 7 March, TimM had written:

    Specifically they [the Republicans] wish to limit the collective bargaining rights of PUBLIC sector unions. Why? Well if you have a collective that can strong-arm their private sector employer to pay higher salaries, medical and pension benefits, then the private sector employer has ultimate recourse to close down the business if the demands are too onerous.
    In the public sector the tax-payer is the employer, and the taxpayer doesn’t have this ultimate recourse. To keep health, education, sanitation, power, water, emergency services the taxpayer has little choice but to accede to the demands of the collective.
    .
    This is the crux of the argument. Essentially the ability for public sector unions to collectively bargain transfers the power to halt the essential function of government to unelected parties. It is against the principles of democracy.

    .
    To further this discussion, I would like to recommend the 23 February opinion piece authored by economist Thomas J. DiLorenzo on “The Political Economy of Government Employee Unions,” from which I quote:

    The enormous power of government-employee unions effectively transfers the power to tax from voters to the unions. Because government-employee unions can so easily force elected officials to raise taxes to meet their “demands,” it is they, not the voters, who control the rate of taxation within a political jurisdiction. They are the beneficiaries of a particular form of taxation without representation (not that taxation with representation is much better). This is why some states have laws prohibiting strikes by government-employee unions. (The unions often strike anyway.)
    .
    Politicians are caught in a political bind by government-employee unions: if they cave in to their wage demands and raise taxes to finance them, then they increase the chances of being kicked out of office themselves in the next election. The “solution” to this dilemma has been to offer government-employee unions moderate wage increases but spectacular pension promises. This allows politicians to pander to the unions but defer the costs to the future, long after the panderers are retired from politics.

    .
    A more pungent observation was published by columnist Ann Coulter on 23 February, “Look for the Union Fable,” in which she wrote:

    Government unions have nothing in common with private sector unions because they don’t have hostile management on the other side of the bargaining table. To the contrary, the “bosses” of government employees are co-conspirators with them in bilking the taxpayers.
    .
    Far from being careful stewards of the taxpayers’ money, politicians are on the same side of the bargaining table as government employees — against the taxpayers, who aren’t allowed to be part of the negotiation. This is why the head of New York’s largest public union in the mid-’70s, Victor Gotbaum, gloated, “We have the ability to elect our own boss.”
    .
    Democratic politicians don’t think of themselves as “management.” They don’t respond to union demands for more money by saying, “Are you kidding me?” They say, “Great — get me a raise too!”
    .
    Democrats buy the votes of government workers with generous pay packages and benefits — paid for by someone else — and then expect a kickback from the unions in the form of hefty campaign donations, rent-a-mobs and questionable union political activity when they run for re-election.

    .
    It is extremely unlikely that these aspects of the government employee unions’ effects upon American politics and the national economy will ever be reported responsibly by the mainstream media in this country, just as the MSM is committed cement-headedly to the anthropogenic global arming fraud.

    But it is possible to access informed opinion contrary to the duplicitous “accepted wisdom” nonetheless.

    As we like to say around here, Algore really regrets having invented the Internet.

  191. Ian H says: (March 7, 2011 at 4:40 pm)
    “Indeed I hate to tell you this, but outside of the US, most people regard the current crop of US republican politicians as borderline insane.”

    I love to tell you this: most people inside the US don’t give a rat’s ass about what people outside the US think.

    Your comments about Wisconsin show you have no idea what the reality is.

  192. Ian H says:
    March 7, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    Anthony – there is a limit to how much US republican party bullshit I can tolerate.

    Then go somewhere else.

    Indeed I hate to tell you this, but outside of the US, most people regard the current crop of US republican politicians as borderline insane.

    So, is that supposed to mean something?

    They seem in complete denial of reality. In particular they fervently deny that failure to regulate financial markets in the Bush years lead to the global financial meltdown, which is the accepted reality in the rest of the world.

    Really now? Reality? I think reality is that you clearly do not have a clue regarding basic economics. Quite honestly, most people that fail to understand how and why the meltdown occurred are precisely the reason the US is the economic powerhouse it is (and has been for over a century.) Perhaps if people like you actually understood economics (basics) your countries would not have falle so far behind. Granted, your disease has affected the political elite in the US, and noticeably, we are beginning to wane as a result.

    Instead they are apparently embarked on a campaign to blame … Unions … ??? … I don’t know quite how anyone could believe that, but there you go. The republican governor of Wisconsin is behaving like a rabid dog. Somebody should put him down before he bites someone.

    Unions served their purpose at a time they were needed. They are no longer needed. Indeed, unions are the reason our manufacturing capability is now in China and Mexico, places where there are no unions demanding $40/hour for menial tasks a monkey could perform. I’ve been in two unions (OCAW and Teamsters,) and can say from experience, they are a benefit to nobody.

    Mark

  193. Anthony, sorry that you are being savaged by these clowns….however, the louder they squeal, the more we can be certain that things are changing, and not in the direction they want.

    Keep up the good fight and good work!

  194. Gneiss said:

    DCC writes,
    “But the only meat in it is one sentence:”

    No, it’s in two sentences and you missed them:
    “Federal law prohibits institutions of higher education from discussing matters concerning our students with anyone other than the student himself or herself without the express consent of the student involved. Given that, OSU will not comment on any allegation regarding the Robinson students or share any personal information concerning them other than the limited “directory information” allowed by law to be shared.

    That’s not meat, it’s boilerplate. Meat would be to add “If the students involved will give us permission to disclose the circumstances, we will do so.”

  195. I am still having trouble believing Robinson’s version of events. Robinson’s versions of events only makes sense if you believe in conspiracies and stereotypes about academia. The fact that Robinson posted his diatribe on World Net Daily, a site known for its conspiratorial nature and shoddy journalism, does not allay these fears.

    And typically when you accuse someone of something, you at least attempt to present their side of the story. We still don’t know why Robinson’s kids all suddenly face expulsion. We don’t even know if this is even true.

    And typically when you face expulsion in academia (even at the undergraduate level), it is presided over by students and professors, and deans. It is a deliberative and evidence-based procedure, it is not automatic or instantaneous.

  196. eadler wrote: “Read Dr. Robinson’s article from SPPI a little over a year ago and then ask yourself if there isn’t sufficient motivation to attack his family”

    I’m speechless. What are you? What is wrong with you. Are you so filled with hate that you can’t reason?

  197. This is seriously damaging to OSU. I sincerely hope folks will pull the plug on funding the school. No money, no classes, no enrollment…bye bye problem makers.

  198. Ron House

    The evil things done to these students and the unbelievably vicious things said about you are not primarily intended to harm the victims. They are intended for one main purpose: to frighten anyone else from joining with you in opposing this scam which has an evil ulterior motive.

    That is exactly it. It is part of the process of “shut up”. If you are outspoken in opposition to their positions on things, they “make an example” out of you to prevent others speaking out. I see it all the time. The reason why they so instantly go off on anything Sarah Palin says, for example. The message is to other women that if you hold views against the “progressive” line, shut up or you will get similar treatment.

    There is a video on YouTube, it is “Klaven on the Culture” episode entitled “Shut Up” that explains it pretty well. Only progressives are allowed to make their views known in public. Anyone else must be attacked and attacked very personally and it must include even their children as a deterrent to others that they are next if they speak their mind. It is quite sick, actually. An example is Kathy Griffin saying that it was her New Year’s resolution to destroy the life of Palin’s 16 year old daughter. This is the sort of people we are dealing with. Absolutely sick.

    It doesn’t matter if you agree with her or not, to engage in that sort of tactic is sick. To applaud that sort of tactic makes one just as sick.

  199. I’ve been lurking here obsessively for a couple of years now but have never posted, except once, until now. At times the obsession has been pretty bad (My wife sometimes describes herself as a “wattsupwiththat widow” (!) I’ve personally worked to spread the word about this site and have made a great many “converts” from the pro-AGW Warmist camp (and not the least among them, my physicist brother-in-law). What I first loved about the site, and still do, is its spirit of what I would call “focus and collegiality” in the good old fashioned American sense of that – as in “what do we all have in common here to help us solve this problem — together.” Name the problem, it doesn’t matter. The pragmatic (empirical) solution must dictate the priorities and nothing else. This spirit has always been associated with words like, “I don’t give a tinker’s damn what his politics are, or who his father was, etc. etc., he runs one hell of a #$%$#ing railroad (or shop, or lab or army, or back hoe, whatever!)

    My theory is that, in the case of Americans, this spirit has its origins in the stark realities of our frontier origins. We learned that when you first arrive in a howling wilderness, it’s a good idea to shut up and listen and above all not to try and go by the book. In fact if you don’t promptly throw the book away, you’ll stand an excellent chance of dying—as so very many of those folks did, though they’re now forgotten. This environment breeds pragmatists, but also pragmatists with excellent noses for that completely untranslatable American expression – “bullshit.” (Maybe there should be an anti-AGW bumper sticker that simply says “Bullshit Kills”) And these attributes are certainly not limited to Americans, I know Canadians and Australians and many others who have them.

    But I digress. As for this site, along with integrity, its focus is what primarily makes it so successful. It addresses a specific phenomenon, or set of phenomena, as central, i.e. a global fraud-in-progress that is founded on distortion, lies, greed and all too often, smears, bad manners and bad breeding. In other words, founded on politics. And even worse, politics masquerading as science.

    Speaking of politics, I was lurking and posting among the first few hundred on the original Free Republic website during the late 90’s and watched as its relatively civil and elevated level of discourse descended into the gutter with the arrival and dominance of the howlers and haters and name callers and Trotskyites turned neocons, and all manner of base and vulgar and ill-educated sorts. None of whom gave a damn about the First Amendment or were really interested in free speech at all. At any rate the point is that I’m neither a Demublican nor a Pepublicrat and flatter myself that I take issues just as I take people, one at a time and, insofar as possible, without prejudice.

    All of this is aimed at a strong vote in favor of this site remaining as lively and elevated and civil and nonpartisan as it has been so far. Nobody here wants to be issued with an “opinion kit.” Meaning that if you feel one way about any given issue, you’re somehow expected to toe someone else’s line as to how you’re to feel about every other issue besides. One attribute of a truly free person is that he does NOT put his political opinions on and wear them like clothes. Seeing humanity as a series of political interactions from cradle to grave is a form of degrading slavery that we can all do without. It would be easy for the site to go the way of so many others, that have gotten distracted from the most important issues on the table. The most important issue here is exposing the attempted political and economic power grab deriving from the QED fallacious theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    At least within the context of this all important mission, someone else’s opinions about any other issues are matters of indifference to me. If there’s any danger that my personal political views of the moment are going to close someone’s else’s ears to the empirical case to be made against this grand global deception, then I will keep my mouth shut about them and remain empirically on topic at all costs.
    I think this is already a rule of thumb that the majority of posters to this site seem to follow.

  200. I am concerned about corruption of science, in education. That minds like Freeman Dyson and Linus Pauling could be so demonized today is strange, bizarre. That folk
    like David Horowitz have to stand on the ramparts, today, advocating for truth,
    above political correctness, is tragic in this advanced age.

    I read “Mike”‘s links to Oregon State’s new climate research funding. Whew! $20 million in one, including a K-12 program to help children “understand” this “settled science.” (And, even Gavin S. is now claiming The Science Is Not, Really, Settled…. smile. Well, the child propaganda machines, like the Soviet Union’s, are working overtime…)

    I know, personally, many climate scientists — old ones, with settled careers, tenure — who keep their heads down, won’t read blogs, discuss the issue: mitigation is insurance…. period….. don’t ask.

    I’ve longed believed the American universities were corrupted by political correctness beyond reality, facts, science. But, I couldn’t prove it.

    I wonder if there is a way to prove the political corruption in climate science in the universities — separate the politicians, the money interests, the eco-fascists.

    …kinda like the NOAA weather station observers….. millions of eyes and ears.

    (BTW, Anthony, whatever *did* happen to your report, published after the hurried NOAA jobbie?) …..Lady in Red

  201. This story just got a plug on Instapundit which will transmit it as a possible story to Fox News etc. That’s how the Climategate story made its way to an episode of Glenn Beck within a few days.

    “REPORT: Oregon State: Republican candidate’s children expelled as retribution? Charlie Martin is looking for independent confirmation of this somewhat hard to believe story.”

    http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/07/oregon-state-republican-candidates-children-expelled-as-retribution/

  202. David Hagen:

    “Please contact Oregon’s:

    Senate Education and Workfoce Development Committee

    House Subcommittee on Higher Education”

    …to what end?

    Robinson’s children might be poster kids, but The System needs to change.

    How do we do that, keep the lights focused on the roaches? ….Lady in Red

  203. Anthony i would not worry to much about the beast web site. I read thier crap they wrote in the list and it seems that hate anyone that thinks for them selves. The admin posted on the last comment that murphy was going to put a bullet in his head, so now if the other will do the world the same favor the public would not have to be subjected to such DRIBBLE.

    And one other note maybe you should put the link back up and they might see the kind of traffic that makes your site so good with the quality of posters and commenters.

  204. I’ve contacted my congressman -Walden R-Red Sea of Oregon about this.
    This if is as stated OSU is going the way of OU.

  205. Depending on the circumstances behind the expulsion, some programs require a 5 year ‘washout’ period before the former PhD candidates will be admitted. Even if they managed to avoid this circumstance, the previous poster is correct about time lost. They would certainly have to repeat any research portion of their PhD work but also in all likelihood repeat most if not all of their PhD class work and retake cumulative exams and any other ‘milestone’ assessments PhD students have to take for particular departmental qualifications.

    Being expelled from a PhD program sucks. I know someone who was, about half way through. Grade related. They sold cars for a while and then got into real estate. No PhD for them.

  206. I did some Google searches, and found a few things, but nothing very informative as to the veracity of this report. I’m with Amy Ridenour – we need more information. I don’t doubt some of these assertions are troubling. If they do prove to be even remotely true, I personally will find a way to boycott the state of Oregon as long as the Leadership of that university remains intact. That may sound like a hollow threat, but a word-of-mouth boycott of a state can have immense impact, especially when you can convince your associates, friends, and family to join. I’ll definitely be keeping an eye on this story.

  207. I’m a pretty hard core conservative, but I don’t believe a thing out of WND. However, I have read many other posters say that “we haven’t heard both sides”. If the story is true, and all 3 kids are being thrown out, I fail to see what the other side is. If all three kids have 3.8+ GPA’s and have done some awesome work as the proud father claims, I could see it possible that one of them did some horribly aggregious act and might be dismissed because of it…but really, what are the odds of all 3 kids (high GPA), being thrown out? Yes, we need confirmation on this story…but if indeed all 3 kids and one of the faculty (I looked up Higganbotham, and he seems to be a pretty stand up guy), are going to be dismissed, then there is no other side.

  208. At &:52 PM on 7 March, crosspatch had written:

    The evil things done to these students and the unbelievably vicious things said about you are not primarily intended to harm the victims. They are intended for one main purpose: to frighten anyone else from joining with you in opposing this scam which has an evil ulterior motive.
    .
    That is exactly it. It is part of the process of “shut up”. If you are outspoken in opposition to their positions on things, they “make an example” out of you to prevent others speaking out. I see it all the time. The reason why they so instantly go off on anything Sarah Palin says, for example. The message is to other women that if you hold views against the “progressive” line, shut up or you will get similar treatment.

    There is a video on YouTube, it is “Klaven on the Culture” episode entitled “Shut Up” that explains it pretty well.

    .
    So I went to find that “Shut Up” video.

    And damnit, I’ve spent the past hour looking at every one of these Klavan on the Culture pieces available. The guy is not only likely to cause the average “Liberal” fascist’s feculent rostral knob to explode with rage, but he’s pretty funny.

    Curse you, crosspatch.

  209. walt man says:
    March 7, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    Waltman – I normally would not comment on an internal domestic US discussion, but as you bought in the Australian situation and present such a limited and biased description of extremism. I might remind you that extremism exists on both sides. It seems it is o.k. for the Australian Broadcasting (ABC) to be extremist, present one sided and abusive descriptions of skeptics, much to the amusement of one group of like minded “intelligensia” and for those same proponents of academia who spent time on blog sites ridiculing skeptics, it is hardly surprising that this belittlement and poor behaviour rankles others in the community. In Australia the very left wing academics see it as their duty to force their opinions and beliefs on those of lesser status (in their eyes only!!) and expect to get their way and retain control of Climate funding for their own purposes. You also seem to forget the insidious labelling of both Australian skeptical scientists and the lies told to discredit and reframe the debate in an attempt to link any scientific dissent with big oil and tobacco, or simply to present them as crazy and not to be trusted. You also conveniently forget the virilent putdown and labelling of all who questioned the chosen version of post normal science, including the name calling by certain media commentators – all good fun, until it raises some push back as these things inevitably do.
    There is surprisingly (for some) in Australia, a vast number of ordinary people who have had a life long interest in the weather and its variability and can think and see and by research through the internet have learned more of the political attempt to overule by a mythical consensus. Those ordinary people do not like the smears, the attempts to avoid having to actually discuss the science or promote discussion between scientists, or explain anything. “I am the scientist, I believe, so you MUST accept my belief as truth!!”
    This arrogance is something to behold and when the ordinary person finds that they will be adversely impacted by something they see as a great big lie to introduce a great big tax, that our political minority masters are bringing in. When the political promise was that they would not do this. It is hardly surprising, that among the ordinary taxpayers, this is something they get agitated about, and the least responsible, who have little voice to protest, will revert to primieval personal threats.

    But it is not only from one side, you also see it from those that swallowed the big science consensus lie and “believed” the propaganda that they were saving the world.They now see that “idealistic belief” crashing into nothing, and some committed individuals so resort to the same kind of actual threats, or just muttered insults as a means to express themselves.

    I could say that the Clive Hamilton’s and others that used such emotive language to put down others are merely reaping the whirlwind that they have sown. The same with politicians who forget who they are really representing in the community.

    That is why we need open debate among scientists without professional association restraints, to bring out these issues in the open, admit mistakes where mistakes were made or or conjecture presented as fact. we need to clean up and reform climate science.

    Too much has been covered up, reframed for political spin – let honesty and open debate take place. If you don’t, you create a fertile climate for the lowest common denominator to be unleashed among those that “believe” they are disenfranchised or have no other means to express their anger or resentment.

    I would prefer civil discussion to both sides of the issue.

  210. D. Malloy Dickson says:
    March 7, 2011 at 7:59 pm

    And you say it so well, thanks, ditto for Australians!

  211. Speaking of Australia, I see Gillard was meeting with Obama today… after what she just pulled off with her surprise carbon tax, that was not a pretty picture.

  212. Ian H says:
    March 7, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    Indeed I hate to tell you this, but outside of the US, most people regard the current crop of US republican politicians as borderline insane. They seem in complete denial of reality. In particular they fervently deny that failure to regulate financial markets in the Bush years lead to the global financial meltdown, which is the accepted reality in the rest of the world.

    Ian, for your own benefit, please ask yourself how you could possibly know what the people in the whole rest of the world outside of America think. In that light, next consider whether you can then be confident that you know anything at all about the topics you addressed, and certainly regardless of “what most people think”, which you should know by now also has no logical or empirical bearing upon what is true.

    It’s your own mind, after all, that you should be most interested in. Is it really working up to the level you want, if you allow it to refer to what you can’t possibly know, what the people of the whole rest of the world think, then use that as a basis for establishing what is real, but which has no general a priori bearing upon reality, “what most people think”, except in regard to what most people think?

    Bob Dylan anecdote: once a reporter said to him, “People say ‘x’.” He replied, “Yes, people do say ‘x’.”

  213. I live in Oregon, in the district in which Mr. Robinson challenged Mr. DeFazio. The “smear campaign” consisted of repeating what Mr. Robinson has said and written, such as “public education is child abuse.” Mr. Robinson has the interesting view that as a candidate he can say whatever he likes and that it’s a smear if the press brings it up afterwards. Overall, his campaign was astonishing and very well funded by out-of-state interests.

    So I am familiar with Art Robinson and also to a degree with OSU. Robinson’s analysis of OSU’s practices do not concord with reality. His paranoid delusions of sainthood have gotten very tiresome here in Oregon, and those less familiar with them should reserve judgment until he produces something resembling evidence.

  214. I, too, live in Oregon’s Fourth District, in the People’s Republic of Eugene, aka Moscow on the Willamette.

    I’m not so sure Mr. Robinson was the best candidate for the Republicans to put up against DeFazio, but he made a pretty good run at it, considering. I think he lost by 11 points, which was the closest DeFazio has come to being knocked off in quite some time. Most likely DeFazio was saved by the liberal bastions of Eugene and Corvallis (the latter now being even more liberal than Eugene, if that’s imaginable).

    Without knowing more, I’m loath to comment on Mr. Robinson’s allegations, but they do seem far fetched. However, OSU is quite the hotbed of political correctness these days. Former Oregon state climatologist George Taylor’s last few months there weren’t all that pleasant, if my understanding is correct, so it’s within the realm of reason that Mr. Robinson’s kids could have run afoul of the prevailing doctrine and somehow gotten the boot.

    If they did get booted, for illegitimate reasons, heads should roll.

    Check tomorrow’s Register-Guard (registerguard.com), Eugene’s paper. I know they’ll have an article on it. The R-G’s editorial positions are usually tilted toward the academic, but occasionally the paper’s been able to do some decent reporting.

    Let’s take a deep breath and hope more facts surface.

    Other than that, Go Ducks!!!

  215. Update.

    Here’s the Register-Guard article, apparently posted about the same time I was commenting above. See: http://www.registerguard.com/web/updates/25976532-55/robinson-osu-students-defazio-university.html.csp

    Doesn’t tell us much more than we already know. Maybe they’ll do a followup for Wednesday’s paper.

    Turns out Corvallis isn’t in the 4th District. I thought it was. The boundary is a bit goofy up there. I guess Eugene alone saved DeFazio’s electoral bacon!

  216. Rob Spooner says:
    March 7, 2011 at 10:39 pm

    So I am familiar with Art Robinson and also to a degree with OSU. Robinson’s analysis of OSU’s practices do not concord with reality. His paranoid delusions of sainthood have gotten very tiresome here in Oregon, and those less familiar with them should reserve judgment until he produces something resembling evidence.

    I live in Greece and as an outside observer I take your “evidence” means:
    “evidence that all three of his children on a thesis track are being stopped”.
    If you mean “evidence that they are unfairly stopped” my credibility is challenged, because the probability of having all three students of the same family stopped on a thesis program after two years of graduate work, at the same time, is astronomically small. Even for two students.

  217. A badge of honour Anthony…… Wear their vilification, loathing and fear of you proudly…… We love the smell of leftist insults in th’ morning.

  218. Dear Rob,

    It’s Dr. Robinson, Ph.D. Evidently your “familiarity” has some defects.

    If anything has gotten tiresome in Oregon, it’s one-party rule by a cabal with a long running disdain for family values. It’s an Oregon liberal thing: proud of being “weird”, [don’t know the details, but this section seemed over the top ~ ctm]

    Now your one-party “saints” are attacking a model family, a man who raised and home schooled his six kids after their mother died, kids who have all earned or were about to earn PhD’s.

    I know Dr. Art Robinson. He is one of the most honest men I know. Honesty was a hallmark of his campaign. I have no doubt that his statement is true, indeed understated if anything. The facts Dr. Robinson aired regarding Dr. Jack Higginbotham are also true.

    Your charges of “paranoid delusion” are baseless slander without the slightest thing “resembling evidence”. Dr. Robinson’s campaign was funded by small donations from resident Oregonians, not “out-of-state” interests, another baseless lying slander on your part.

    DeFazio has not been in Congress for 24 years without creating a machine, a cabal of radical supporters. He is one of the most left-wing of all Congressmen, a long-time officer of the Progressive Caucus, and his staff are closely connected to eco-terrorist groups. He was shocked by Dr. Robinson’s near victory — DeFazio seriously underestimated Dr. Robinson — who has said he will run again in 2012. DeFazio and his closest supporters are vindictive and taking preemptory action.

    Readers of this site know that Dr. Robinson drafted a petition against the CAGW Hoax that was signed by 31,000 scientists, destroying the vaunted “consensus” touted by Alarmists. He is a man of courage and conviction, a great American who deserves universal support, not more foul attacks on his character and on his children.

  219. Doesn’t your FBI combat Mafia style businesses in the USA. Go for them hook line and sinker.

  220. Funny how as every part of our society becomes political so does the corruption.

    And funny how people can defend the attack of someones children, shame on all of you on this thread.

  221. A little late I know. There is a world of difference in such a Public Policy Statement of Intent, & putting it into practice & adhering to it. Just saying it is not always enough, although I am well aware in this letigious politically correct world, that all organisations MUST have a “policy statement” about everything & anything! I spent 10 years as a school governor at my childrens primary school, & the plethora of “policy statements” I had to delve into & re-write in accordance with Guvment guidelines was incredible. Most of them didn’t even apply to a small village school! It’s all part of the “making you feel guilty you’ve committed a crime” behavioural control system! Do you colonials have similar issues with all institutions/businesses/companies/firms?

  222. BTW just for the record, I think OSU have behaved appallingly, & to single out three members of the same family is surely suspicious? AtB

  223. Robert Wykoff says: March 7, 2011 at 9:27 pm

    If all three kids have 3.8+ GPA’s …
    [if] one of them did some horribly aggregious act and might be dismissed because of it …
    but really, what are the odds of all 3 kids (high GPA), being thrown out? …
    all 3 kids and one [Higganbotham] of the faculty

    Pure, untimely, coincidence, surely not!

    DCC says: March 7, 2011 at 7:40 pm
    Meat would be to add “If the students involved will give us permission to disclose the circumstances, we [the university] will do so.”

    They are already showing their true colours.

    It is said “It’s Not The Crime, it’s The Cover-Up”, but, in this case, it looks like it is the crime (on four people) as well.

    Assuming there is an investigation, how independent will the investigators be? Investigators suffering climate change do appear to loose their independence and investigative skills. Well they do in Norfolk, England.

  224. This thread is an example of why the US is so often isolated from the rest of the world.

    Of course, if someone’s kids got expelled from university because of a parent’s political or other views, that is disgraceful. I would be defending those students, whatever their parent’s views might be.

    But once again, it is the confabulation of political opinions and personal integrity that leaves people in the rest of the world baffled. Apparently, if you don’t agree with a particular worldview (in every respect) you are a worthless individual, a serial liar and a sociopath. Anthony has recently experienced this on the website-that-I-will not mention, as they do not deserve any hits courtesy of WUWT. In fact, they accused him of even worse than that, in many people’s opinion.

    I do not think that generic terms like left and right are very useful. Calling anyone who is not a US right wing Republican a person without integrity and intelligence is not only wrong and stupid, it also prevents overcoming CAGW nonsense.

    While I suppose that it has been therapeutic for people to vent on this thread, the deep streak of paranoia that pervades US political consciousness looks pretty ugly to the rest of the world. It may be that the US political system is so corrupt that it is deserved. But, in more relaxed democracies, we apply Occam’s Razor.

  225. Wow,

    That was quick.

    “Accusations” published on the Web on 7 March 2011.

    OSU completes “investigation” and finds no substancer to the claims on 7 March 2011.

    Even Muir Russell could learn something from these guys!!!

  226. ^^^ “But once again, it is the confabulation of political opinions and personal integrity that leaves people in the rest of the world baffled.”

    I am part of the ROW and I disagree.

    Actually I beleive that we are experiencing an increasing polarity of political views Worldwide in Anglo-Saxon societies at least.

  227. At 3:11 AM on 8 March, johanna had written:

    While I suppose that it has been therapeutic for people to vent on this thread, the deep streak of paranoia that pervades US political consciousness looks pretty ugly to the rest of the world. It may be that the US political system is so corrupt that it is deserved. But, in more relaxed democracies, we apply Occam’s Razor.

    .
    Okay, so let’s go with the law of parsimony. Ready, johanna? Regarding three individual tenure-track postgraduate students, against each of whom is taken expulsion proceedings from the same department of the same university hard on the heels of a vigorously contested congressional district election (part of a nationwide contest in which, as a whole and at both local and state levels, America’s “Liberal” fascist political faction had its metaphorical guts ripped out as a reaction principally against the largely unconstitutional actions taken by our Blue Party in the 111th Congress and the practices of the Fraudulence-in-Chief currently infesting the White House) and the challenger’s announcement that he’s coming after the National Socialist Democrat American Party incumbent again in 2012, let me repeat an old military dictum incorporated by writer Ian Fleming in his novel Goldfinger (1959):

    “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.”

    .
    Should that not be preferred as the simplest of all contesting theories?

  228. This has got to be a beat-up. Its like a tabloid headline which gets you reading, but the truth is a bit of a let down.

    But what is going on in America when people start writing this sort of rubbish? Clearly this article is designed to further polarize the land of the free into Left and Right, and in doing so increase animosity and distrust between Democrats and Republicans. Its almost as though some people in the US are looking longingly at the more politically unstable parts of the world, and wishing it on themselves.

    What do these people want – a civil war? Over here in Australia, maybe I shouldn’t care, but we have a nasty habit of copying everything the US does…..

    America has been in decline for the last few decades, but, a bit like climate change, who would have had any idea it would happen so fast?

  229. johanna says:
    March 8, 2011 at 3:11 am

    This thread is an example of why the US is so often isolated from the rest of the world.

    …It may be that the US political system is so corrupt that it is deserved. But, in more relaxed democracies, we apply Occam’s Razor.

    Your democracy is just as corrupt, there’s just less at stake for each individual politician because your country doesn’t have the financial base the U.S. does. Americans loudly and visibly demonstrate their distaste for any appearance of corruption because if you back off from what is visible to you, you essentially surrender all corruption that is invisible to you. At the very least, politicians in the U.S. have to look over their shoulder once in a while. “More relaxed” democracies bring you the European Union, lots of rules with no representation.

    The U.S. is isolated from the rest of the world because the rest of the world has always treated the U.S. as if there’s nothing to learn from it.

  230. John Brookes says:
    March 8, 2011 at 6:16 am

    Same babble from you John, different site, not doing too well at JoNova I see, and a cheap shot into the bargain!

  231. Kate7 says:
    March 7, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    eadler wrote: “Read Dr. Robinson’s article from SPPI a little over a year ago and then ask yourself if there isn’t sufficient motivation to attack his family”

    I’m speechless. What are you? What is wrong with you. Are you so filled with hate that you can’t reason?

    Kate,
    I never said that. I was quoting Dave, who wrote that. He felt that OSU had the motivation to attack Robinson’s family. He wasn’t justifying it. You need to read a little more carefully.

  232. This may sound a little harsh, but I have to laugh at the non-Americans who post here expecting America and Americans to somehow be “better” then bemoan that we are not more like them. Johanna, above, seems to think that political values are somehow separable from the moral fiber of the individual. CAGW was never about science but rather is a struggle for souls. Those who refuse to see that likely sold their souls long ago.

  233. MarkW [March 7, 2011 at 10:52 am] says:

    “Since swiftboating means to tell the truth about a liberal candidate, why does this incident remind anyone of swiftboating?”

    Bingo. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

  234. Why is walt man trying to compare his examples of Mann mail to this topic unless he is just trying to detour it? Is it Anthony or Dr. Robinson’s experience he is trying to sidetrack? Anyway, I’m just too politically incorrect to resist the urge to reply, so here goes …

    walt man [March 7, 2011 at 2:51 pm] says:

    “Climate scientist Michael Mann says he has received hundreds of them — threatening e-mails and phone calls calling him a criminal, a communist or worse. 6 feet under, with the roots, is were you should be,” one e-mail reads. “How know 1 one has been the livin p*ss out of you yet, i was hopin i would see the news that you commited suicide, Do it.” I’ve been called just about everything in the book,” Mann, who runs of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, told ABC News. “It’s an attempt to chill the discourse, and I think that’s what’s most disconcerting.” Mann is not the only one. The FBI says it’s seeing an uptick in threatening communications to climate scientists. Recently, a white supremacist website posted Mann’s picture alongside several of his colleagues with the word “Jew” next to each image. One climate scientist, who did not wish to be identified, told ABC News he’s had a dead animal left on his doorstep, and now sometimes travels with bodyguards.”

    {obligatory humor: That’s not a Threat! Knife!}. Well I see lots of personal opinion in there aimed at MM, transmitted by people who have opinions and the right to express them, while none of it is sycophantic or complimentary to be sure, or in the best of taste, but you did say threats. What threats? Unless you are trying to dilute a meaningful term like threat, which is a bad idea because you may one day face a real threat (e.g., your daughter is stalked by an ex-boyfriend who threatens to kill her), and you will finally understand how petty your comment is there. People in the know will tell you that real threats rarely come in emails where the IP address and routing is almost always obtainable. The same people will also tell you that real threats are never to be discussed publicly, and they are instructed as such, so I am calling bull{snip} on both the FBI and Mann whining. I get the feeling that Mann is simply acting as a classic drama queen here. Cry Me a River.

    walt man [March 7, 2011 at 2:55 pm] says:

    “After calling him a “f***ing dog”, Tony Windsor’s anonymous caller said “I hope you die you bastard”, a level of aggression way out of proportion to the possibility of a small rise in energy prices.”

    Well I’m not a UK resident and different laws obviously apply, but if it were here in the States I would say this: ‘Man up you weenie! Don’t get your panties in a bunch. If you are asking for blind obedience, and for the citizens to just pay the tax and shut up, you don’t belong in public office. That colorful language appears everywhere from TV to hip hop, why should the ruling class be spared? Perhaps a Praetorian Guard can be implemented to protect your new-age sensibilities.‘ I would also add: ‘Be thankful it is only coarse language because we used to favor tar and feathers to decorate our would-be tyrants and rulers.’ Is that too harsh? Does it pass the threat test? (sigh). I’m living in a world of {snipsies}. What is stunning is the arrogance of that last phrase small rise in energy prices. Oh lord, PLEASE let our liberals here come out of the closet like that. They will do more for the cause of destroying socialism then we can ever hope for. Please let them speak like this!

    walt man [March 7, 2011 at 2:58 pm] says:
    thefordprefect [March 7, 2011 at 3:30 pm] says:

    “The scientists revealed they have been told to “go gargle razor blades” and have been described as “Nazi climate murderers”

    Oh dear! Playground humor. Walt my boy (and fordie), you need to find some new heroes to groupie for, these ‘scientists’ have no spine, they’re backbone free. Why would you follow someone with no spine is beyond me. Are you telling me that you never heard anything like this before? In grade school or growing up in your neighborhood? Yikes. Helpful suggestion though, never ever play poker because you get rattled way to easy.

    Molon Labe [March 7, 2011 at 6:01 pm] says:

    “Ian H says @March 7, 2011 at 4:40 pm:

    Somebody should put him down before he bites someone.”

    “That is threatening language.”

    Say what? Not in my hood or likely anywhere outside of the beltway, or politically correct ivory towers. I guess it would be threatening if you were a dog. Seriously though, this is to be expected when all the men are out working the real jobs, the rest become climate scientists and whine about the serfs not worshipping them enough!

    It’s bad enough that liberals think they can escape the unwashed masses behind rope lines, gated communities, Malibu mansions and CO2 belching private jets, but people such as this little Mann aren’t just hypocritical ecophobic private citizens like Cameron and Streisand, Mann and his ilk are living at least partially on the public dole. When they accept public money, they do not work for any government, they work for the taxpayers. These threatening emailers are presumably taxpayers, the same taxpayers who fund these public employees. So my question to walt man and others, now that I’ve walked you through the chain of command, do you still think Mann should be whining about commentary from his employers? Or should the system be rigged so that they only receive positive feedback? <—(pssst, see the double entendre in there!)

    Now, about all the strange postings here concerning the crybaby Mann. Liberals should *never* attempt to put forth hypocrisy arguments. Has anyone noticed that walt man is using [1] examples of hate mail to these (in)famous public employees (Mann et al) as some kind of comparison to the On-Topic [2a] nasty commentary directed at private citizens (like Anthony) and [2b] bureaucratic tribal retribution aimed at Dr. Robinson’s children. Apples and Oranges once again! Let’s break it down:

    In case 1 pushed by several trolls here, the so-called threatening emails are from the employers to the employees (citizen taxpayers to public employee scientists). I have no problems with this (within the boundaries of the law of course) as it is employer (taxpayer) feedback. If you cannot handle the criticism get out, but you cannot dodge accountability although you may really want to. Verdict: Taxpayers HAVE standing in *this* court.

    In case 2 we have …

    (A) disparaging commentary mentioned by Anthony in the top post from (presumably) private citizens to private citizens (from eco-zealots to Anthony). If and only if Anthony Watts accepted taxpayer money then this would be like case-1 and the senseless comparisons would fly. But as it stands now, these are just little trolls spouting their ecobable to another private citizen. Then again some of these commenters may be public employees on the taxpayer dime disguised as private citizens attacking Anthony in which case we would have the inversion of case-1, public employees attacking private citizens. (ahem, could that happen?) Verdict: eco-zealots have NO standing in *this* court.

    (B) And there is the main topic of this thread where a partially public institution allegedly attacking a private citizen (OSU vs. Dr. Robinson). The possibility that OSU may be receiving State/Federal funding makes this potentially radioactive. The fact that the school shut up about it makes me very suspicious. But there is certainly no comparison to case-1 above. Verdict: quasi or public institutions have NO standing attacking private citizens. Epic fail.

    Anyway, there are commenters more civilized than myself that may disagree with and believe that all this coarse language hurts everyone. Well, I’ll remain an outlier on this. Besides, did these leftist crybabies tone it down or come to the aid of other people being publicly crucified? No they did not, because they were too busy banging the nails into the hands and feet of those very sacrifices. So to the liberals whining now about these trivial ad hominems sent in private emails (which no-one would know about had they not publicized it themselves), I ask a question: How would you like to trade places with Joe McCarthy, or Nixon, Goldwater, Reagan, Oliver North, Judge Bork, Quayle, Clarence Thomas, Ken Starr, GWB, Cheney, Libby, Monckton, Sarah Palin …?.

    Answer: you wouldn’t last a minute in their shoes. Welcome to the real world.

  235. I read the piece just now. Can someone explain what this has to do with science or global warming or, as Anthony opines, ‘climate ugliness’?

    What the piece appears to be is an upset father trying to push right wing talking points to incense people over the treatment of his kids. That it was even published is shameful, that this website gives it play is just poor form.

  236. John Brookes says: (March 8, 2011 at 6:16 am)
    ” Clearly this article is designed to further polarize the land of the free into Left and Right, and in doing so increase animosity and distrust between Democrats and Republicans. ”

    The reason, John, is that we have far too many politicians who are lawyers. They are taught to be adversarial; increasing animosity and distrust runs in their veins. They see the world as a place where he who postures best wins. I am not against lawyers, we all need one at some time. I am against bringing the lawyer mentality to the job of running the Country.

  237. Mark S says:
    March 8, 2011 at 7:24 am

    Another drive-by. I’d love to see more details here, but I’m sure that the fact that Dr. Robinson was the originator of the Oregon Petition Project had absolutely nothing to do with these events, Right Mark?

  238. Rob Spooner
    March 7, 2011 at 10:39 pm

    But public education IS child abuse in the hands of you lefties. You are more interested in Marxist indoctrination then education with the result that children’s minds are permanently damaged by the molding of their cognitive processes needed for them to except as truth the socialist lies.

    The purpose of Elementary school is to produce Democrats.
    The purpose of High School is to produce Socialists.
    The purpose of the University is to produce Marxists.

  239. Mark S says:
    March 8, 2011 at 7:24 am

    “That it was even published is shameful, that this website gives it play is just poor form.”

    It was most kind and efficient of you to include such an excellent review of your own comment right within the body of the comment itself.

  240. The local paper there, the Democrat Herald, says that they were contacted by Robinson. They tried to contact everyone involved but the only response they got was from Higginbotham, telling them to contact the official University spokesperson, so apparently he’s not willing to speak publicly about any of this on behalf of Robinson, despite the above comments that make it sound like he’s totally on Robinson’s side. The paper is getting stone-walled by everyone at the university, wich in itself kinda sounds guilty to me.

  241. John Brookes says:
    March 8, 2011 at 6:16 am

    Clearly this article is designed to further polarize the land of the free into Left and Right, and in doing so increase animosity and distrust between Democrats and Republicans.

    Whaaaaa, go have a good cry, Brookes, maybe someone will give you your bottle or change your diaper. Life is just sooo difficult once you have to think a little and use words instead to deal with yourself and life.

    And so your current best attempt at this adjustment is to repeat that feckless, “Polarization is always evil,” meme, allegedly true because it’s allegedly “what most people say” or something equally useless. And because everything’s just so much better handled by Totalitarianism or group-think, which have given the World such grand maxims as the Islmofascist’s deathworshipping ‘ethic’, to the effect that, “Everyone must commit suicide while killing Infidels in order to prove they are not Infidels”, or Communism’s “Social Justice” ‘ethic’ of enslavement, essentially stating that, “We must act so as to become ‘equal’ slaves by letting the Central Government ‘redistribute’ everything possible ‘equally’, except for its own maximal share, conveniently necessary to keep everyone else so ‘equal’.”

    So you say those are better than a “polarizing” system based upon the inherent right and creativity presumed in regard to each individual person’s free thought capacity, and the inherent economic Liberty of each to seek their own betterment, within the limits of some laws which define “criminality”; and which demonstrably creates wealth for everyone, including even the persistently indigent and validly incapable? And while Islmofascism and Communism are provenly or certifiably abject failures in assisiting people and Humanity to deal with life?

    Brookes, what are your own noble non-polarizing – adopted because they’re “what most people say”, even the whole “rest of the world”, perhaps EU-approved, or self-annointed, “It’s true because I say it” – thoughts? Is one of them, “America is evil or failing because people are rightfully able to think and act on their own”, thus necessarily producing the evil-in-itself “polarization”? Which is in fact “polarizing” itself.

    Obviously, Brookes, according to you, you can have no control over what you say or think. At best, noises and appearances just pop into your head and then you repeat them, perhaps arguing after the “thinking” of the great Howard Dean, that ~”you know they are true because your unconscious must have worked on them.”

    Otherwise, you can give no basis for what you say or think beyond the justifications pertaining to what a competent Parrot could offer.

    Boo hoo.

  242. Someone here opined:
    “….outside of the US, most people regard the current crop of US republican politicians as borderline insane. They seem in complete denial of reality. In particular….the accepted reality in the rest of the world.”

    First thing every morning when I arise, I wonder what the rest of the world thinks of us. “Self,” I say, “how do those geniuses in Myanmar, Luxembourg, Sudan, Togo, Belgium, Libya, Paraguay, Ukraine, Ireland, Syria, and Croatia view us today? They have so brilliantly run their own affairs that we must perforce consider their opinions.”

    Sometimes the Collective Ignorance, as exemplified by the UN, prevents me from getting my beauty rest.

  243. First, Robinson says that this has been going on since November, so it’s quite likely that OSU has known of his allegations for some time. I doubt that their investigation began yesterday. The Eugene Register-Guard attempted to find anyone to corroborate Robinson’s side and came up with nobody, as evidently was the case with the Corvallis paper.

    In the election, Robinson didn’t just lose in Eugene. He lost in Springfield massively. He lost here in Florence on the coast. He lost in Pleasant Hill in the foothills of the Cascades.

    It’s perfectly OK to say that public education is child abuse, and even elaborate as someone on this blog has just done. The First Amendment protects this. It’s delusional to think that it is then a smear when the press points out that you, a candidate for public office, have called public education child abuse. That’s the other part of the First Amendment.

  244. Not a drive by. I didn’t know that this was the Dr. Robinson of the Oregon Petition fame. I get the climate connection now. The piece is still horrible and unsubstantiated but I get why Anthony is giving it play now.

  245. Rob Spooner
    March 8, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Thank you for providing such wonderful evidence of the validity of the point I was making.

  246. Mark S says:
    March 8, 2011 at 10:48 am

    Not a drive by. I didn’t know that this was the Dr. Robinson of the Oregon Petition fame. I get the climate connection now. The piece is still horrible and unsubstantiated but I get why Anthony is giving it play now.

    I think that after the OSU “investigation” statement there is plenty of substantiation. If they were not throwing those kids out, a simple statement “no changes are foreseen in the department graduate students during this academic year” would refute that the three graduate students were being thrown out. As is , they are confirming something fishy is going on that they do not discuss.

  247. Lars Larson is a local (Oregon/Washington) radio talk show host and has a national show. Yesterday I caught his interview with Art and it ended with him promising to bring his son on the show to discuss what is going on at OSU. Art also said his son would sign whatever paperwork needed giving OSU permission to discuss his case. Wont have a chance to listen today but that’s going to be interesting.

  248. This discussion has gone pretty far afield, so I’ll just add that I understand why Higganbotham doesn’t want to publicly engage at this point, but it sure would clear things up. Perhaps someone else will come forward and we can have this hashed out in detail.

    It does kind of sound like OSU is protecting a “rogue department,” as many other have pointed out this kind of chain of events is not uncommon in academia.

    Also, I seem to be seeing a pattern here and maybe someone else can corroborate: those who have experience with OSU seem to be saying it’s plausible (or in one case confirmed), mostly, and the harshest critics of the claims seem to be farther detached from the events.

    Anything else I could say about certain participants in this discussion would likely just be inflammatory, so let’s leave it at that.

  249. Following is a future scenario for when Anthony finally has to require that climate somehow be included in comments, in at least some remote form or another:

    You’re an ill wind and a Nazi-Liberal bastard that blows nobody any good!
    Oh yeah? Well you and your type are a herd of Commie-Conservative swine and a dark cloud gathering over everything.
    Just what I’d expect from a neo-paleo cyclone of swirling revisionist, recidivist crapola –
    You come a-blowin in here like a smelly old cold front and you don’t even know how it is that we’re used to talking to one another hereabouts!
    There you go, trying to cloud things up again and not talking about data qua data, y’know?
    Why don’t you just blow it on out your –
    Oh yeah? Only thing blowing around here is your gale-force load of positivist collectivist swamp-gas-smellin’ breeziness –
    Oh yeah? Well you’re a tsunami-scale, lying, not-from-around-here skunk!
    What’s a skunk? You’re a rising-tide-level green mamba nancy boy who can’t take it!!
    Waaah!
    Boohoo!
    You and your crowd don’t amount to a fart in a high wind!
    Watch out! You may be skating on thin ice there –
    Oh, you’re saying we’re running out of ice? Yeah, I thought you were one of them…
    No I didn’t. We’re not running out of ice. At least I’m not running out of ice! Or booze either for that matter!
    Me neither. (hiccup) Well, I’ll bet you probably voted for Millard Fillmore! You louse!!
    I know what type you are! You probably voted for Warren G. Harding, you creep!!
    Who the hell were they?
    Damned if I know…I went to public school.
    Well I didn’t go to public school and I don’t remember them either…
    Well, you know, these things tend to go in cycles…
    You mean sort of like climate…?
    Yeah, like the climate.
    Hmm. Maybe you got something there partner. Where’d you say you were from?
    I didn’t.
    Well we can’t talk any more anyhow…
    Why not?
    Cause I think that for now we just ran out of ways to use climate to insult each other.
    Yeah, I guess you’re right. Guess we’ll have to move on. Catch you later.
    Later…

  250. Mark S,

    Your “unsubstantiated” bit I’m not understanding at all. The University isn’t denying all three are being tossed simultaneously by sheer coincidence and in fact they refuse to comment on such. What they will say is they aren’t a malicious bunch which flies directly in the face of “nothing to see here”. Have you even attended a courtroom before and not that fallacy shown on the glass teat? My father would have called this probable cause for investigation and once they start turning over rocks, without the cover of a Democrat power monopoly as has existed in America for the past 2 years, it’ll open up a mass grave. Trust me. The Canadian Conservatives under Brian Mulroney’s power monopoly did exactly the same thing and when it all came to light, that PC party was burned badly.

    I’m certain if I evicted one minority, you couldn’t possibly have anything to legitimately say but if its three apartments I’m clearing, I’d expect having to answer for it. This is also such a case and the AGW political connection makes it doubly so for Andrew to be interested. Very interested. Most people’s weakness is found within their children and any culling of ideals starts therein.

  251. My error at 5:43 AM on 8 March, reading:

    “Regarding three individual tenure-track postgraduate students….

    .
    …should have read:

    Regarding three individual doctorate-track postgraduate students

    .
    Post in haste, repent at leisure.

  252. To Hobo,

    Unlike you, I did not find Dr. Robinson’s performance on the Rachel Maddow Show particularly impressive. Indeed I thought he did not answer many of her legitimate questions (such as the issue of his view on the handling of radioactive materials). Further, my research on Dr. Robinson (and the famous “Oregon Petition”) is less favorable than the glowing bio you provide. The following link provides a bio that is closer in my opinion to reality.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

    Note that his relationship with Dr. Pauling turned very sour and the Institute he founded, with its impressive title, The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, has a small staff with very modest assets. From what I can ascertain the Institute did push the premise that “the dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated”. So I don’t know why Dr. Robinson was so evasive on Maddow’s show when she raised this issue.

    By the way, I would be very surprised if the faculty in the nuclear program at OSU lean toward the left. Also there are other inconsistencies in the statement by Dr. Robinson that bother me. However, as I have said already, I think a full investigation needs to be carried out into these allegations.

  253. Robert E. Phelan says:
    March 8, 2011 at 6:54 am

    This may sound a little harsh, but I have to laugh at the non-Americans who post here expecting America and Americans to somehow be “better” then bemoan that we are not more like them. Johanna, above, seems to think that political values are somehow separable from the moral fiber of the individual. CAGW was never about science but rather is a struggle for souls. Those who refuse to see that likely sold their souls long ago.
    ——————————————————————
    There you go again. Political values define a person’s integrity. You need to get out more, if you truly believe this. There are plenty of nutcases and sleazebags, and good people with whom I disagree, right across the political spectrum, in my decades of experience working in political environments with people who have all kinds of different views.

    Suggesting that anyone who disagrees with your views ‘likely sold their souls long ago’ typifies the approach that makes it hard for people to change their minds on this issue. Few people want to align themselves with a bunch of slavering attack dogs.

  254. charles the moderator,

    This is a huge mistake, with all due respect.

    WND is not a credible organization. And no, the fact that some guy named “Art” said it happened isn’t sufficient either.

    Proof, please. Because I’m a WUWT supporter, and this reduces your credibility even in my eyes.

    I’m certain I’m not the only one who feels that way.

    Christoph

  255. johanna says (March 8, 2011 at 2:46 pm): “Few people want to align themselves with a bunch of slavering attack dogs.”

    Bwahahahaha! Good one, johanna!

    Oh, wait, she’s serious?

  256. I apologize for addressing my last comment to charles the moderator. I conflated this post with the other I was reading in another tab. I should have addressed it to Anthony, of course.

    Still, I stand by what I said. WND lost credibility in my eyes years ago, despite it being largely how I discovered American conservative politics. At some point, though, I realized that a shocking percentage of stories WND pushed were inflammatory BS — emphasis on the “BS” part.

  257. D. Malloy Dickson (March 8, 2011 at 12:57 pm), thanks, I have saved your zingers for future use. :-)

  258. In defense of WorldNetDaily (WND), in general, I would suggest that one must tiptoe intellectually and cross check information independently, never dismissing “conspiracies” out of hand.

    In the mid-1990’s I fell through an intense investigative rabbit hole studying about the death of Vince Foster and the Murrah Building bombing in Oklahoma City. Foster was murdered and, although I have suspicions about why, I do not know who. The OKC bombing was, simplistically, a sting operation with the BATF and the FBI unknowingly trying to lure each other into a crime.

    Neither fact is hard to independently confirm, yet the MSM — and most conservatives as well — refused not only to conduct independent investigations, they regurgitated the government line in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, or ignored the stories.

    I experienced terrifying intellectual dissonance, trusting myself and my ability to evaluate information, yet never reading anything except snarky, dismissive asides in the MSM.

    I finally went to DC and met Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, now the brilliantly analytical intl business editor for the London Telegraph, who wrote a compelling (but mis-titled) book about Foster’s death and the bombing. Hugh Sprunt’s “Citizen’s Independent Report” about Foster’s death is still downloadable and great reading for Baker Street irregulars. There’s much more for those willing to do their own thinking.

    Joseph Farah of WND was around then with a magazine, Media Bypass, (badly edited) with a mix of crazy stuff and religious rants — as well as some informational diamonds.

    Today, I don’t care where Obama was born, but, yeh, I don’t think it’s straightforward, simple. Do I believe the World Trade Center bldgs dropped like perfectly controlled implosions? There’s more to that story than we are being told, but I’m unwilling to devote time to separate the wheat from the chaff. Once upon a time, I was content to stop thinking when the squeaky clean, blue ribbon Warren Commission assured me that JFK was killed by a lone gunman with his “magic bullet:” “don’t look; nothing to see here.”

    Hugh Sprunt lacked the now ubiquitous internet as well as the decade long tenacity of Steve McIntyre, but he is every bit as smart – and correct about the “facts.” WND (and a handful of other “conspiracy” sites) should not be dismissed out of hand, casually. ………Lady in Red

  259. I think I just posted a comment that got lost in spam.

    Pls retrieve it. ….Lady in Red

    Reply: Please don’t clutter the board with requests such as this. If it’s there it would eventually get fished out with or without you asking. ~ ctm

  260. johanna says:
    March 8, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    There you go again. Political values define a person’s integrity.

    Johanna, I’m going to ignore the “slavering attack dog” put-down/slur and try to explain something that I’m pretty sure you will be unable to understand, but which I’m willing to attempt at least once (keeping in mind the Chinese proverb “Who can discuss the snow and ice of winter with the insects of summer?”).

    First, I did not equate political position with “integrity”. Many whom I would describe as enemies scrupulously live by the principles which they openly espouse. Bolsheviks, monarchists, Khmer Rouge, Taliban, National Socialists, creationists, atheists, apartheidists and racists of every hue and description can have integrity, but that does not mean that their principles are not repugnant, wrong and down-right evil. A person’s politics are of a piece with his views on the nature of man, society, earth and nature and the eternal and all of his perceptions pass through these filters. Neo-Malthusians like Erlich, Holdren, GLOBE Int’l, The Club of Rome and the CAGW crowd may hold their beliefs sincerely, but the notions that man is a pestilence on the earth, that his greed, selfishness and short-sightedness are the source of all evil and must be controlled by an enlightened elite toiling for the good of all are an abomination. This is not something to be compromised with.

    CAGW is not about the science, it is about whether humans everywhere will be able to live in dignity, make their own decisions, control their own lives and destinies and be free to reach for the stars. It’s an American thing. You wouldn’t understand.

  261. W. Falicoff says:
    March 8, 2011 at 1:17 pm

    W,
    You can disagree about who came off better on the maddow show, it probably indicates ones leanings. Anyone who thinks MSNBC or Maddow is going to give a republican candidate a fair shake before the election, is definately left leaning. She tried to ambush him with out of context things he wrote many years ago is what i gathered from the show.
    The sprinkling of radioactive material on the oceans probably came from his study of hormesis, in which studies have shown that higher levels of background radiation have good effects on the body. (I know nothing much about it). That may have been the context.

    As far as the site you provide, sounds a bit left leaning. A quick look at what they say about “an inconvenient truth” may give one a clue. You and WUWT be the judge.

    “An Inconvenient Truth” is promoted as offering “a passionate and inspirational look at one man’s fervent crusade to halt global warming’s deadly progress in its tracks by exposing the myths and misconceptions that surround it. That man is former Vice President Al Gore, who, in the wake of defeat in the 2000 election, re-set the course of his life to focus on a last-ditch, all-out effort to help save the planet from irrevocable change. In this eye-opening and poignant portrait of Gore and his ‘traveling global warming show,’ Gore also proves himself to be one of the most misunderstood characters in modern American public life. Here he is seen as never before in the media – funny, engaging, open and downright on fire about getting the surprisingly stirring truth about what he calls our ‘planetary emergency’ out to ordinary citizens before it’s too late.”

    No mention of the fact the movie has been proven to be mostly fiction or controverial in any way. Which way do you think that site leans?

    HOBO

  262. Robert E Phelan said:

    A person’s politics are of a piece with his views on the nature of man, society, earth and nature and the eternal and all of his perceptions pass through these filters. Neo-Malthusians like Erlich, Holdren, GLOBE Int’l, The Club of Rome and the CAGW crowd may hold their beliefs sincerely, but the notions that man is a pestilence on the earth, that his greed, selfishness and short-sightedness are the source of all evil and must be controlled by an enlightened elite toiling for the good of all are an abomination. This is not something to be compromised with.

    CAGW is not about the science, it is about whether humans everywhere will be able to live in dignity, make their own decisions, control their own lives and destinies and be free to reach for the stars. It’s an American thing. You wouldn’t understand.
    —————————————————————–
    Robert, when you say ‘it’s an American thing’, you appear to believe that nobody else on the planet, or in recorded history, has any comprehension of, or commitment to, personal liberty – except Americans who share your particular views as of today.

    While I cordially abhor the Poms when it comes to cricket and rugby, a few chaps like John Stuart Mill and Edmund Burke did scratch out a few thoughts on these issues long before you were born. In England.

    Questions about the autonomy of the individual versus the group have been argued for thousands of years, mostly in non-US countries, which is hardly surprising as the US was not even in existence for most of those debates. But hey – what would those furriners know!

    I think that the Christian doctrine – hate the sin, not the sinner – is also apposite here.

    If you really believe that a subset of the US population has a worldwide, pan historic, monopoly on truth, or integrity, then there is no point in arguing with you. But, I repeat, it is attitudes like yours that inhibit people from leaving the CAGW camp.

  263. KVAL News asked Robinson what proof he has of the university discriminating against his children.

    “I don’t have definitive proof,” Robinson said. “That is what I believe. Basically, I know what happened. I cannot tell you the motives of the people doing it.”

    http://www.kval.com/news/local/117619993.html

    —————————————————————-

    Why would “skeptics” want proof when there is a chance to smear academics?

  264. Apropos my earlier comment about the MSM gaming stories and facts, this filmed interview by a “just-put-on-administrative-leave” NPR executive about NPR’s refusal to cover the conflicting science about global warming (because “we” all know the answer) but only to cover the issue’s politics (so your congressman knows there are crazies out there) is a perfect example of a generalized, demonize-the-arguments with scorn and derision mentality. Most people will trust NPR and MSM and never, ever, think for themselves.

    http://www.breitbart.tv/more-npr-video-we-only-cover-global-warming-deniers-as-political-story-not-scientific-story/

    Always, and whatever: think! ….Lady in Red

  265. Johanna:

    You are probably a nice lady but I was sure you wouldn’t understand and you don’t. You’ve made quite a few erroneous assimptions about what I believe… and it would be a sucker.s bet to wager that my knowledge and understanding of intellectual history is any less than yours. You might be surprised to discover just how much the American experience shaped and inspired those Utilitarian thinkers. Read de Tocqueville and you’ll begin to get a glimmer of American Exceptionalism. Read Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish and you’ll get an idea of what the stakes are today.

  266. anna v says:
    March 7, 2011 at 11:34 pm

    my credibility is challenged, because the probability of having all three students of the same family stopped on a thesis program after two years of graduate work, at the same time, is astronomically small.

    Maybe they mooned the dean.

  267. Hobo,

    It is difficult to find unbiased information on Dr. Robinson’s Institute. The site I provided, granted not totally unbiased, at least provides references to its claimed facts (the size and nature of Robinson’s Institute). I try to obtain information from as many sources as possible. I am fairly convinced that “the Institute” is a very small organization with perhaps a couple actual employees. A view of the Institute’s website confirms that two of the so-called “faculty” at the Institute are deceased (see http://www.oism.org/). Further, several of the other “Professors” are not located in Southern Oregon (an area I lived in for 15 years and regularly go back to visit). I have a concern when the organization states it has a faculty with Professors and appears to have no students. Nearly all that is stated in the link I provided can be corroborated by going to the website of the Institute itself. Does it not bother you that an Institute states it has a faculty with Professors (two deceased) and has no students? This is highly suspicious in my view. If the Institute is really a research organization (no students) then why use descriptive language such as “faculty” and “Professor of Chemistry”, etc. Minimally it appears to me to be trying to viewed as something it is not.

    I am equally troubled by the lax protocols used to generate the “The Oregon Petition”. Independent investigators have found numerous problems with those listed on the petition. Some scientists are deceased. Some cannot be found. Some scientist said they would not sign the petition. A Scientific American (October 2001) study looking into the petition stated: “Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a PhD. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.”

    This is not to say there are not respected scientists who are skeptical of the global warming premise. However, based on the little I can find out abut Dr. Robinson, I would not trust that he (or the organization he is associated with) is an objective source of information, scientific or otherwise.

  268. So Anthony’s “most eggregious lie” is that the hockey stick is broken?

    C’mon, Anthony, I know you’re an honest guy, but surely you can do better than THAT! #B^1

  269. From the website, “Sent his minions to photograph those US temperature stations which he claimed were too close to heat sinks, skewing temperature readings”. Too funny.

    Proud to know I’m one of your “minions”, though the day I start fawning over you… :)

  270. An instant hatefest, this thread. The truth will emerge much more slowly than all the hating, but we’re starting to see a little more to the story. Robinson admits he’s got no evidence, while his kids and Higgenbotham return calls.

    The Register-Guard reports this:

    The three Robinson children haven’t said much — the most definitive statement came on Lars Larson’s talk radio show Tuesday, when Joshua Robinson said “I really don’t know” whether his father’s charges have merit.

    And the University tells what it can:

    The allegations of political influence and the personal attacks on faculty are baseless and false. Since Mr. Robinson began making these claims last fall, university leadership has had ample opportunity to look into them through the Office of the Provost, the Graduate School and the Office of the Dean of the College of Engineering, and can say, categorically, that the allegations and attacks are unfounded and without merit.

    It is regrettable that Mr. Robinson continues to spread these false claims, causing concern where none is due. Despite the significant and ongoing attention that the university has given these matters, he has engaged in a pattern of inflammatory and reckless communication riddled with inaccuracies.

  271. More from the Register-Guard story:

    Robinson went public with his accusations only recently, but has been making complaints to OSU administrators since shortly after the election. It’s unusual for a parent to become so closely involved in academic matters involving graduate students in their 20s and 30s. Robinson demanded the right to choose which faculty members his children would work with, and threatened to activate his network of supporters if OSU did not comply. OSU quite rightly declined — indeed, it would be a scandal if OSU gave in to such demands.

    While much of this matter is shielded from view by privacy rules, Robinson’s accusations are weighed down by their sheer implausibility. Neither DeFazio nor OSU have records that lend credibility to charges of vile and unprincipled conduct. Neither has an interest in acting in ways that would be damaging if they came to light. So far, Robinson’s suspicions say more about the accuser than the accused

    And their treatment here says very much about WUWT.

  272. Grumbling his personal bigotries as usual, at 4:21 PM and 4:34 PM (can’t he at least get his crap in one sack?) Gneiss finishes up with a maunder that

    And their treatment [i.e., Dr. Robinson’s conclusions about the adverse actions taken by the administration of OSU against three of his adult children conducting their doctoral education and research in that institution] here says very much about WUWT.

    .
    Yep. That Mr. Watts and his fellows dare to allow discussion of this subject in this venue says that the editorial policy of this Web site is not in accord with the bigotries and censoring suppressive practices of “Liberal” fascists.

    Like Gneiss .

    Jeez, too bad.

    ===

    Hopkins:
    So it’s up to me, is it? Well, I’ll tell y’ – in all my years I never heard, seen, nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about. Hell, yes. I’m for debatin’ anything. – Rhode Island says Yea!

    .
    — Peter Stone and Sherman Edwards, 1776 (play, 1964)

  273. Tucci78 writes,
    “Grumbling his personal bigotries as usual, at 4:21 PM and 4:34 PM (can’t he at least get his crap in one sack?)”

    You’re easily rattled. Which of my personal bigotries upset you?

    “And their treatment [i.e., Dr. Robinson’s conclusions about the adverse actions taken by the administration of OSU against three of his adult children conducting their doctoral education and research in that institution] here says very much about WUWT.”

    You stuffed a lot of words in between “treatment” and “here.”

    “Yep. That Mr. Watts and his fellows dare to allow discussion of this subject in this venue says that the editorial policy of this Web site is not in accord with the bigotries and censoring suppressive practices of “Liberal” fascists.”

    Hard to know where to start with that one. I’m not a liberal, or a fascist, and I’ve never met anyone who was both. Mr. Watts did not “dare to allow discussion,” he trumpeted Robinson’s accusations under the headline of “climate uglisness.” Robinson’s attack said not a word about climate, but nevermind, the payoff is that he was attacking “Democrats.”

    What I suggested is that Robinson’s attack might not be the whole truth. They are not, that is now coming out.

  274. Gneiss says:

    “I’m not a liberal, or a fascist, and I’ve never met anyone who was both.”

    Do you live in your mom’s basement? Liberals [Progressives, whatever] are following in the totalitarian footsteps of Uncle Joe Stalin and this guy. Obama is their current leader, and he is both. Fascism is state control of business. Like Government Motors.

    The common thread in all the “isms” is totalitarianism. In that regard there is no discernable difference between Stalin, Hitler, or the current crop of “Progressives,” who would like nothing better than progressing straight to a Leftist dictatorship, just like Ugo Chavez is doing right now in Venezuela.

  275. At 6:47 PM on 9 March, Gneiss claims:

    I’m not a liberal, or a fascist, and I’ve never met anyone who was both.

    . Nah. The “Liberal” fascist is the predominant species of modern-day political collectivist, intent upon the violation of individual rights in pursuit of some kind of phantasmagorical putative “greater good.”

    In the case of the AGW fraud, the ostensible pursuit of the “Liberal” fascist is to prevent the selfish individual from imposing a “carbon footprint” upon Mother Earth such that the global climate is disrupted. The actual purpose of the “Liberal” fascist is – of course – the same as it has always been: to command the individual, to deprive the individual of the liberty to think and speak and act, and to plunder the individual’s wealth (however pitiful) and other resources.

    At best, the “Liberal” fascist expression is a tautology used for emphasis, to distinguish this modern collectivist thug from those who are genuinely liberal in their political sentiments and actions.

    In the late 18th and early 19th Centuries, the term “liberal” was brought into usage to denote someone who defended the rights of the individual against the infringements of civil government. In popular democracies, the people taking control of government would do so in the name of the popular majority, and thus the genuine liberal was someone opposed to majoritarian trespass against the life, the liberty, and the property rights of the individual human being.

    In this sense, I’m certainly a liberal. And Gneiss certainly is not.

    Since the early decades of the 20th Century, the word “Liberal” has been employed as a deception behind which the government-über-alles collectivists disguise their malicious objectives.

    Given the comments of Gneiss on this Web site, there’s simply no way to characterize this individual as a defender of individual human rights, and much to demonstrate that he is, indeed, a “Liberal” fascist.

    It should be noted that the term “Democrats” is no longer appropriate for describing the Blue Faction of America’s great permanently incumbent Boot-On-Your-Neck Party, particularly since the 111th Congress, dominated by this cabal, enacted Obamacare despite the enraged and vociferous protestations of their own most loyal voters.

    Henceforth, it is most appropriate to call them the National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP), or simply the “National Socialists.”

  276. If there were honest readers out there who believed that WUWT was about science rather than politics, or its readership consisted of skeptics, this thread would be an eye-opener.

  277. Gneiss,

    WUWT is the internet’s “Best Science” site. Apologists for totalitarians like you don’t fit the definition of being science oriented. You are simply a craven sycophant typical of fellow travelers who have sold their souls to charlatans like Michael Mann.

    The day you publicly demand that Mann must stand and answer Attorney General Cucinnelli’s questions is the day I will begin to have any respect for you.

  278. Gneiss, I agree with you. Comment threads like this one are definitely eye-openers with respect to the readership/commenters on this site and an instructive lesson in “confirmation bias”. It reflects rather poorly on the site in general, imo.

  279. W. Falicoff says:
    March 9, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    Hobo,


    I am equally troubled by the lax protocols used to generate the “The Oregon Petition”. Independent investigators have found numerous problems with those listed on the petition. Some scientists are deceased. Some cannot be found. Some scientist said they would not sign the petition. A Scientific American (October 2001) study looking into the petition stated: “Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a PhD. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.”

    This is not to say there are not respected scientists who are skeptical of the global warming premise. However, based on the little I can find out abut Dr. Robinson, I would not trust that he (or the organization he is associated with) is an objective source of information, scientific or otherwise.

    Another fact about the Oregon Petition that you didn’t include is the way it contained an article that discredited the idea of AGW, which was designed to give the impression, that it was a peer reviewed article, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, citing a fake issue and page number. It was not a peer reviewed article at all.

    You are correct. If Robinson is the only source, what he says should have no credibility whatever.

  280. Kristoffer Haldrup,

    That is a wrong conclusion, and I’ll explain why.

    WUWT allows and encourages all points of view. The fact that the generally well educated people who comment here tend overwhelmingly to reject the catastrophic AGW conjecture is not confirmation bias, it is simply the reasoning and conclusions of most readers of the internet’s “Best Science” site.

    Your comment is mere projection. Blogs like realclimate and climate progress are true echo chambers that censor all contrary points of view. The mutual head-nodders who inhabit those blogs are guilty of confirmation bias, not the readers here. You just don’t like the fact that informed readers don’t buy into the CAGW nonsense.

    The politicization of the CAGW conjecture was instigated by the alarmist crowd when they saw their scientific arguments failing. If you look at the archives from three years ago you will not find any political threads.

    CAGW is scientifically indefensible, so the alarmist crowd turns to politics to save them. As the last election shows, they failed there, too.

  281. Smokey, claiming that this site is the internets Best Science Site is a little like saying that Barack Obama is the best president, a statement with which I think you will disagree;) Just because a popular vote claims something is not the same thing as it being true…just as AGW is not true just because the Consensus Says So. Anyway, my remarks regarding confirmation bias was mainly related to this thread, where a lot of commenters appear surprisingly willing to conclude foul play on very little evidence indeed. A tendency also prevalent in many other threads here and, yes, on several other climate-related blogs such as RC.

    With respect to your last comments, I am heartened by the fact that Science is not Politics — lathough the funding may be, to some extent. So no matter what the results of the recent election in the US, the current drive to better understand our climate and the influence we have on it will continue. It is my hope, that the current understanding will be proven plain wrong, as it seems to point towards some pretty nasty consequences for a lot of people in the less-developed parts of the world. But I fear that the current understanding is pretty much correct, if not in all details.

    I share these fears with my colleagues in the climate-related departments of my university. They have absolutely no desire to see their predictions for the climate come true, as this will lead to a lot of human misery. And they need not resort to any politicization of the climate-realted issues, as every sane politician can clearly see the need for better understanding of the climate system, our influences on it and, especially, its influence on us as human beings.

  282. Kristoffer Haldrup,

    Thanks for your response. If your colleagues have no desire to see human misery, they should be proactive in protesting the demonization of “carbon.” Cheap energy is the best possible way out of human misery for the billion+ people who subsist on less than $1 a day. Artificially raising the cost of energy also raises the cost of food. Current policies are certainly resulting in mass starvation.

  283. Yes indeed, one of the challenges of any climate protocol will be to ensure that the developing world has access to cheap energy. One possible way to go about this would be to lessen the demand for oil/gas in the developed world or, my personal favourite, develop cheap&robust ways of harvesting solar energy directly. Much effort in terms of R&D is directed towards this goal, fortunately. Simply taxing the hell out of CO2 is not likely to help people in rural Africa one bit.

  284. It’s funny how when you read something the second time, you often notice something you missed.

    “From World Net Daily(not the tabloid site World News Daily)”

    The irony doesn’t even require comment.

  285. Let’s try and get a little perspective here. The stories cited by KVAL and the Register-Guard cited by Mike and Gneiss look a lot like hit-and-spin pieces and are hardly evidence. W. Falicoff’s analysis of Dr. Robinson’s institute and the Oregon Petition Project is likewise highly subjective. Many commentors here have cited their own anecdotal experience with “similar” instances. Many of us have no difficulty attributing the possibility of such dastardly doings to our brothers-in-Christ on the CAGW/Progresive side. I think Anthony was right in alerting his readers to Dr. Robinson’s allegations.

    HOWEVER:

    Dr. Robinson’s WND article and his website are long on adjectives and still quite a bit short on specifics. He has recently posted an “update” on his site http://www.oregonstateoutrage.com/
    that includes a communication exchange between the head of the department, Dr. Higley, and his son Joshua. Dr. Higley’s communication makes no mention of termination of Joshua’s participation but does seem to be demanding changes in his committee and direction of study which Joshua is resisting. This could be a gambit to derail Joshua’s study, as Dr. Robinson alleges, or not. I, for one, have simply no experience at this level. Perhaps some of our academics who do supervise graduate students ( I believe our commenter vigilantfish, for example, has such experience) could comment on that. Dr. Robinson has not provided any of the details needed to judge the validity of his story, e.g. statements by the department suggesting the Robinson children would be dismissed, the grounds for such dismissal, the response or counter arguments, Dr. Robinson’s grounds for believing there is a politically motivated conspiracy directed against his children. He cites a warning from Dr. Higginbotham, but provides no specifics of that warning, and Dr. Higginbotham is apparently saying nothing. He alleges that Dr. Higginbotham is being subjected to political assault as well, but offers no details of that.

    I have no trouble imagining the sort of dirty politics Dr. Robinson alleges, but frankly I need more than a call to arms to actually take action and Dr. Robinson hasn’t supplied what I need.

  286. harry writes,
    “It seems implausible that 3 students from the same family with very good grades would be expelled from university without some level of conspiracy. So either the 3 students are acting in concert and in a gross breach of academic standards, or their department is.”

    Unthinkable here it seems, but there’s a non-conspiracy option too … maybe it was never true three students are getting expelled? Maybe not even one of them?

    Joshua Robinson, whose story is the centerpiece of his dad’s accusations, in his own words mentions nothing about getting expelled. Instead he tells what sounds like still a very partial, but more complicated story. From an interview reported in the Corvallis Gazzette Times today:

    Tuesday afternoon, Joshua Robinson talked about the situation in an interview with the Albany Democrat-Herald in the small rented house in Corvallis where he lives with his wife, Fama, and their three sons, 5, 4 and 3.

    He had taken a written qualifying exam for his doctoral program on Nov. 4, 2010. He wasn’t told the score but was told he had “conditionally passed,” meaning he would have to take an oral exam as well.

    Last month he took the oral before a faculty committee and passed, according to a Feb. 16 letter from Kathryn A. Higley, head of the nuclear engineering program. (The letter was released by Art Robinson.)

    The Feb. 16 letter told him he must now constitute his graduate committee and file a new program of study by the end of winter quarter, March 18, “in order to progress in the program.”

    The letter also informed him he must “determine an area of scientific investigation commensurate with the experience and interests of your new adviser and committee.”
    Joshua said his faculty adviser, Steven Reese, who is married to Higley, had withdrawn without finding him a new one, which he believes academic rules require, and no one else was willing to be on his committee.

    He said he had written Higley asking for a new adviser but so far without result. The student handbook of the nuclear engineering department notes that students are ultimately responsible for meeting their graduation requirements.

    Note the November 4 date, which is when dad said the persecution began. In Joshua’s account, that’s just the day he did poorly on an exam. Joshua’s statements that a former advisor is required to find him a new one, but that no one else was willing to serve, should be other hmm points in this story.

  287. Gneiss says:
    March 10, 2011 at 5:52 pm

    Note the November 4 date, which is when dad said the persecution began. In Joshua’s account, that’s just the day he did poorly on an exam.

    Gneiss, I read the article twice, but my reading comprehension skills are such that I’d be grateful if you could point out the section that states that Joshua did poorly on an exam. The oral exam was not a “second chance” thing, or prompted by a poor written performance; most doctoral programs require students to go through both written and oral exams. But I suspect you know that.

    Gneiss, it is precisely because people like you can’t resist adding “spin” calculated to discredit others who disagree with them that makes people like me find scenarios like the one Dr. Robinson is suggesting all-too-plausible. What you wrote was sly and dishonest. Thank you for trying to poison the well.

  288. Robert E. Phelan writes,
    “Gneiss, I read the article twice, but my reading comprehension skills are such that I’d be grateful if you could point out the section that states that Joshua did poorly on an exam.”

    Happy to help out, Robert. “Conditional pass” is a grade in between pass and fail. It means the student is required to take a second exam, oral in this case, before a final decision is reached.

    “What you wrote was sly and dishonest.”

    Not at all.

  289. Gneiss:

    Gneiss, you are even more dishonest than I thought. Doctoral candidates pass two exams… the written and the oral. A “conditional pass” is not somewhere between a pass and a fail where the student is required to take a second exam he otherwise would not have had to take, it means that the student has passed one of the two required exams. Now, go slink back under your bridge.

  290. Robert E. Phelan writes.
    “Gneiss, you are even more dishonest than I thought. Doctoral candidates pass two exams… the written and the oral. A “conditional pass” is not somewhere between a pass and a fail where the student is required to take a second exam he otherwise would not have had to take, it means that the student has passed one of the two required exams.”

    Robert, I’m not dishonest at all, and I don’t assume you are either, but I seem to have a truer sense of reality. Here’s how the 2009-2010 Graduate Student Handbook of Oregon State University’s Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics describes a conditional pass:

    The student passes the qualifying exam with a total score of at least 80% and partial scores (in each of the three subject areas described in No. 5 above) of at least 70%. A student earning a total score between 70% and 80% or any partial score between 60% and 70%, shall stand for an oral examination by a committee of three faculty, appointed by the Chair of the examination committee. This oral examination shall take place within two weeks following student notification of any deficiency. Following this oral examination, the three member committee will report the results to the examination committee where a decision will be made as to whether or not the student has passed the qualifier.

    Slowing it down:
    – You pass if your total score is above 80 and your partial scores are at least 70.
    – You fail if your total score is below 70, or any partial score is below 60.
    – If your total score is between 70 and 80, or any partial score between 60 and 70, then you have to stand for an oral exam.
    – A conditional pass is a result between passing and failing, exactly as I said.

    “Now, go slink back under your bridge.”

    Twice now you’ve called me a liar when I was telling the truth, which was out there all along in black and white. Man up or spin harder?

  291. Gneiss:

    I do owe you a partial apology: the oral exam Joshua took apparently was mandated for a deficiency in the qualifying exam. I do need to point out, however, that the term “conditional pass” appears nowhere in handbook, and the handbook specifies, as you correctly noted, “A student earning a total score between 70% and 80% or any partial score between 60% and 70%, shall stand for an oral examination by a committee of three faculty…” meaning that Joshua could have scored as high as an 89 on the total score and still been required to take an oral exam. I would not consider that score to be “doing poorly”, a term which would impugn the man’s scholarship. In point of fact, you have no evidence that he “did poorly” any more than I would have to claim that he did well. Neither do we have any evidence to suggest that taking the oral followup to the qualifying exam is common or rare among OSU students. Your comment, lacking additional context, is not honest.

    By the same token, the Robinsons have not been, ahhh, entirely forthcoming either and I see no reason to rush to their defense and beseige OSU simply on their say-so. The way I’d been reading the story so far was that Joshua was well past his qualifying exams and that the oral exam in question was the preliminary exam described on page 52 of the handbook (which is available here: http://ne.oregonstate.edu/current/PDFs/GradHandbook2009_2010.pdf
    if anyone is of a mind to look for it), so Gneiss was correct about the place of the oral exam in the scheme of things. He doesn’t have to slink back to his bridge yet.

  292. Robert:

    As Gneiss has shown quite clearly,his interpretation of the rules for that particular department appear to be correct. You state the following:

    most doctoral programs require students to go through both written and oral exams

    Doctoral candidates pass two exams… the written and the oral.

    I have no idea what most doctoral programs do, but there are no overarching rules on this…Different departments do different things. In my physics grad program, there was only an oral qualifying exam. (And really, that was only much of a hurdle if you had done poorly in your courses; they always had the students go out of the exam room twice…once before they started and once after they finished so they could ostenstibly make their decision. But most people said…more seriously than jokingly…that it was the first time that you stepped out of the room that they decided really whether you were going to pass or fail.)

    I have heard of other departments where there is only a written exam. It appears that the particular department that Robinson’s son is in has a two-tiered system where there is a written exam and then the additional hurdle of an oral exam for the ones who didn’t totally bomb the written but didn’t do that well either. You have to investigate the particular department’s rules to see what their rules are, as Gneiss has done.

  293. Joel, thanks for your input. I actually did go looking for the “OSU Graduate Student Manual” (or whatever the hell Joshua called it in his letter to his chair) but I was searching the graduate school web pages rather than the department web page. Even with Gneiss’s hint it took another 30 minutes to locate the @#$%!!! thing, and it took a little bit of in-depth reading to realize that Joshua had just passed his qualifying exam after nearly four years of study…. so perhaps I am more reading challenged than I thought, ’cause Gneiss got that one right as well. Where I believe Gneiss is wrong is in casually tossing out the statement that young Joshua “did poorly” on the exam (which was actually more than one) and that “conditional pass” was somewhere between a pass and a fail (the handbook never once uses the term “conditional” and the word “conditionally” only once – I actually suspect that “conditional pass” was Joshua’s term rather than one used by the department) all of which has the effect of impugning Joshua’s scholarship. As I mentioned in my previous comment, he could have scored an 89 total on the exam series but just barely missed on one of the components and been required to take the oral…. not exactly a robust description of “did poorly”. We also do not know if being required to take the orals is common or rare… if Joshua was the first in 20 years, that might say something about his level of scholarship, but again, we just don’t know and OSU would have quite a few good reasons to not enlighten us on that matter (I mean, picture it, Joel, a department admitting “well, most of our students just aren’t well enough prepared to pass their qualifying tests first time around….”).

    Gneiss does not know young Joshua’s scores.
    Gneiss does not know how young Joshua’s scores rank compared to others like him.
    Gneiss did not speculate… “hmmmm, is there a possibility young Josh did so poorly on the written exam that his father felt compelled to pull the ‘politics card’?”… rather he simply stated that young Joshua did poorly on the exam, and a year from now people who have never investigated will remark, “oh yeah, Joshua Robinson. The kid who did poorly on an exam and his dad made a big stink about it…”

    So yes, I still think Gneiss is basically dishonest (though not a liar). He made something sound like a statement of fact when he had no evidence and impugned the character and ability of a person. Yes, skeptics have done much the same… hell, if I do that, please call me on it… but keep in mind that I am one of the few skeptics on this thread that have pointed to the lack of ….. substance?… backing up Dr. Robinson’s claims. Facts matter.

  294. Robert E. Phelan writes,
    “meaning that Joshua could have scored as high as an 89 on the total score and still been required to take an oral exam. I would not consider that score to be “doing poorly”, a term which would impugn the man’s scholarship. In point of fact, you have no evidence that he “did poorly” any more than I would have to claim that he did well. Neither do we have any evidence to suggest that taking the oral followup to the qualifying exam is common or rare among OSU students. Your comment, lacking additional context, is not honest.”

    That’s some fancy dancing, Robert.

    I said that the conditional pass was a grade between pass and fail. That was true.

    You said that it was not. That was false.

    You accused me of lying. That was false too.

    I showed that you had made false accusation. I wondered if you would man up or spin harder. And look what you chose.

    Carry on.

    REPLY:
    You can use the term “man up” here when you use your full name like Mr. Phelan does. Otherwise you are just noise in that context. – Anthony

  295. Anthony, thank you.

    Gneiss: do you really want to insist that OSU has a “conditional pass” status that is defined in the OSU handbook? If anyone cares to check, it can be accessed here:

    http://ne.oregonstate.edu/current/PDFs/GradHandbook2009_2010.pdf

    I’ve already apologized for the insinuation you lied. Your description of the oral exam as a sort of “makeup” for a deficiency in the written qualifying exam is correct and my interpretation was wrong. Your assertion, however, that Joshua Robinson “did poorly” on the exam, in the absence of his actual scores and how those scores compare to those of his peers, is defamatory. If you had framed your remarks as speculation then it would have fit in with so much else on this thread, but you didn’t. You took a cheap shot and I think you know it was. That is dishonest.

    Oh, and Gneiss, when I screw up here and am called to account, it is under my own real name. Just sayin.

  296. Robert E. Phelan says:
    March 9, 2011 at 12:26 am

    Johanna:

    You are probably a nice lady but I was sure you wouldn’t understand and you don’t. You’ve made quite a few erroneous assimptions about what I believe… and it would be a sucker.s bet to wager that my knowledge and understanding of intellectual history is any less than yours. You might be surprised to discover just how much the American experience shaped and inspired those Utilitarian thinkers. Read de Tocqueville and you’ll begin to get a glimmer of American Exceptionalism. Read Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish and you’ll get an idea of what the stakes are today.
    —————————————————————–
    Firstly, I am not ‘a nice lady’. I am a poster on this site whose statements or views have nothing to do with being either ‘nice’ or a ‘lady’. If my username was ‘johan’, would you say that I was “a nice man”?

    Secondly, I have read the authors you cited, and broadly agree with your take on them.

    Thirdly, while there is undoubtedly something called “American Exceptionalism”, and it is an admirable and robust stream of democracy, it is not a Received Truth. I do not for a moment believe that the form of democracy in my country is perfect. The word ‘perfect’ does not appear in our constitutional history, unlike in yours.

    During the British Empire, many Britons were deluded into the view that their idea of the world and how it should operate represented the height of civilisation. The problem was not that their ideas were wrong (as they sometimes were) , but the assumption that they should be imposed because they were right. I suppose that this is a characteristic of all empires, including the US one.

    Having visited the US, I never cease to be amazed at the monolithic public image (exemplified in your posts) as opposed to the astonishing, extraordinary and dynamic reality. Unlike England, China, Spain and other previous imperialists, the US is constantly infused with new ideas from people all over the world. It is a restless beast, constantly chafing, never satisfied, perhaps always seeking the perfection or happiness that were promised in the Constitutional documents.

    That is great. But, stepping over the line by saying that no-one understands liberty except Americans (actually, a subset of Americans) is at the heart of many failures in the wider world. That mentality carried into the climate debate is counter productive as well. The notion that people have to convert to being Republicans (even if they live outside the US) to disagree with CAGW is self defeating. Constant derision of ‘liberals’ and ‘lefties’ is not the way to get people to consider changing their views. Similarly, trumpeting that the US is the only democracy of any worth in the world is not the way to win sympathy, let alone respect.

  297. johanna,

    I agree with just about all of your comments – except this one:

    “The notion that people have to convert to being Republicans (even if they live outside the US) to disagree with CAGW is self defeating.”

    First of all, IANAR. [Or a Democrat, for that matter.] My view is that Climategate/Copenhagen was a turning point, where the AGW debate became highly political. The CAGW beast was badly wounded and lashed out using politics.

    In other words, they started it. But when someone declares war on you, you can’t just cede them the battlefield, you have to fight back. And the more the green beast loses the CAGW debate, the more political its response will be.

    I agree that the U.S. isn’t any special democracy. I’ve seen massive voting fraud up close. Too many groups have learned to game the system. The U.S. isn’t the EU – yet.

  298. Johanna:

    If your were Johan I would say your were a nice man. If I haven’t said it before, I also think Smokey and even Willis Eschenbach, prickly as he can be, are both nice men, as is our long-suffering host Anthony. Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt are definitely NOT nice men. “Nice” is a question of character and character matters.

    Like Smokey, I find a lot to agree with in your postings and, like Smokey, IANAR – but I think I am still a registered Democrat – more to do with local politics than anything else….

    You keep ascribing to me things I don’t believe and argue against things I’ve never said. You keep trying to define things in a kind of liberal/conservative democrat/republican dichotomy that just plain is not accurate. My original point was that a lot of commentors wanted the Americans to be more like Europeans, but that if the Americans were more like Europeans we wouldn’t be Americans and the kind of leadership you are expecting from us wouldn’t exist. My point also is that the American perspective is a unique and valuable contribution and it is one that transcends the labels of party. There is a significant segment of America that recognizes that our parties and our democracy are being hijacked, but you are not comfortable with that segment. CAGW is but one front in a struggle over this hijacking. It is very political, but not in the terms you understand. The Marxists, and later the Frankurt School, developed the idea of “false consciousness”, the failure of the oppressed to recognize their commonality of interests with other oppressed groups, adopting instead the justifications of their oppressors. Interpreting my remarks as some kind of narrow, ignorant, partisan Republican point of view rather confirms my point.

  299. PhD candidate cut off from his own thesis equipment as political payback against his father, GOP candidate Dr. Robinson. See:

    GOP candidate says son suffering political payback

    Claims professor seized doctoral project from award-winning student
    Posted: March 18, 2011 9:10 pm Eastern © 2011 WorldNetDaily

    A Republican congressional candidate who claims his three doctoral-student children at Oregon State University are suffering political payback, says one son was barred this week from access to a four-year-old Ph.D. project that has earned praise from two top research institutions and an award.
    . . .Joshua Robinson won an OSU award for his construction and development of a prompt gamma neutron activation elemental analyzer that is attached to the OSU nuclear reactor. The project also has received enthusiastic praise from scientists at two prominent U.S. research facilities, according to Art Robinson.

    On Thursday, however, Joshua Robinson tried to enter the OSU reactor bay to work on his project but was reluctantly informed by a reactor operator that he had been barred from entry under orders from Professor Steven Reese, Art Robinson stated on a blog he has established to publicize his charges, called Oregon State Outrage.
    Later, Reese confirmed to Joshua Robinson he had been banned from continuing to work with the apparatus he built for his graduate work or even to be in the room where the project is located, the blog post states.

    Joshua Robinson, according to his father, built the equipment with his own hands, including engineering drawings, machine-shop work, welding and assembly.

    This is the worst abuse of power I have heard of in American science. Please call/write.

    See Oregon State Outrage and links above.

Comments are closed.