Art Robinson, of Oregon Petition fame is running for Congress. Peter Sinclair has Robinson's interview by Rachel Maddow. Robinson comes across as more than a little nutty -- rather than elaborate on his views on hormesis (radioctive waste is good for you!) he just insisted that quotes from his own writing were lies in some unspecified way.
Also of interest is Sinclair's latest Crock showing a simple experiment to demonstrate the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere.
- Log in to post comments
I have been reading up on mr Robinson for some time due to the name lol. He seems ok to me, little eccentric maybe but with good intentions ;)
I strongly recommend the Maddow-Robinson interview, a classic.
I strongly recommend you all put on a jacket here in NSW and and Vic.
It seems 'global warming' has struck again ?! :-(
Damned un-predictable it is too.....
[More Global Warming](http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/16/3040181.htm)
Oh, yes, it's great ... "you are lying about me by reading my own words back to me!"
And Maddow takes great care to sidestep the quote-mining issues raised by Robinson (by quoting ever-larger portions of her source).
Oregon. My home state. Fruitcakes. May they always live and prosper but ... not in Salem, not in DC ...
Oh yes, that was great. I also watched her followup report - which focused a bit more on the mysterious money sources, but was still worth it for the "this is what he wrote" retakes.
The man is completely barmy.
OMG, that is a really classic interview. What a nut.
Thanks Tim. As my wife said today, this is more about anti-intellectualism than anything else.
But Douglas! He's a scientist! He went to CalTech! He reminds us multiple times throughout the interview!
Amazingly, Art claims that his opponent is shipping money offshore to a tax haven in New Zealand. First time anyone's called NZ a tax haven.
Peter Sinclair's piece brings together some elegant demonstrations of CO2's infra-red absorption capacity.
One really is forced to wonder at the cognitive dissonance (or the sheer unadulterated ignorance) that leads the numpties to deny the 'effect'.
Let's see them argue their way out of it after watching this video.
OK, well all I can say is that is the first time I have listened to this Art Robinson person.
And my immediate impression is what an obnoxious arrogant person.
NZ? Tax haven? Shipping money there? OK, as an antipodean, I have to say that this constitutes empirical evidence that Robinson is quite certifiably insane.
NZ probably just sounded like a plausibly exotic setting for the fantasy. Thoughh you do wonder at the worldly experience of someone who thinks that of NZ.
What is this thing you call the speed of light? I'm a scientist, I am!
Or it would be if the great American public hadn't already voted equally nutty fruitcakes into office.... As it is, I just feel nauseous.
Bernard J (#8)
A falling stone breaks head does not mean that a falling sand (made of stone) does the same.
The same with CO2. In the experiments in the video, you must have only 0.038% of the bottle filled with CO2, not the whole of it. As a result, the experiment is the misrepresentation of the reality. The greenhouse effect due to CO2 exists, but it is minuscule.
Do you know what the mass of CO2 is in a column of atmosphere with a cross-section of 1 metre2?
Do you know how one might relate this mass of CO2 that is in the chamber through which the infra-red camera was recording the person on the other side?
Do you understand what the implication is for the effect that the atmospheric content of CO2 will have on the radiation balance to and from the planet?
Stop standing under falling stones.
Do you know how one might relate this mass to the mass of the CO2 that is in the chamber through which the infra-red camera was recording the person on the other side?
[Must remember to preview]
I thought the Maddow interview was great. No matter how she twisted the truth and preloaded her questions she could not rattle this guy. He stuck to the truth and attempted to give answers even though she would not let him complete them. I was awakened to a degree by this interview that I have sent money to the Robinson campaign, he is the man I want in Congress to defend my rights against those like Maddow. Vote Robinson, vote for America.
But they simply do not suffer it. The 'dissonance' is the uncomfortable feeling they should, and we would, get when holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The wiring of the denialist nutter brain somehow prevents it.
And then along comes farmrdave to demonstrate that cognitive dissonance.
Any sane, rational person can readily see how rattled Robinson was from his incoherent sputtering and dissembling, from his disavowal and denial that the quotes were his, from his "speed-of-light" denial of the satellite link delay, from his constant efforts to duck and avoid Maddow's questions, from is constant inept attempts to stick to his own talking points, from his arrogance, condescension and patronization.
Not that Maddow was at all objective in the way that she posed her questions, mind you, but then I hardly expected her to be. Her shtick is, after all, political theater.
> NZ probably just sounded like a plausibly exotic setting for the fantasy. Thoughh you do wonder at the worldly experience of someone who thinks that of NZ.
That's where Middle Earth is. And Mordor. The Ring? Made of gold? Hello? WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!1!
Why are the two global warming phases (1910 to 1940 & 1970 to 2000) are identical after 60-years of human emission of CO2 in the second phase shown in the following plot?
Could it be the case that, according to the data (not the greenhouse theory, which is a valid theory) , according to the experimental observation, the effect of human emission of CO2 on global warming rate is NIL?
Re: 16 farmrdave
I thought the Maddow interview was great. No matter how he tried to evade the truth and her awkward questions about his crack-pot ideas he could not rattle this gal. He stuck to [evading] the truth and repeatedly attempted to avoid answering anything substantive.
He is the Tea-Party loon that Koch wants in Congress to defend Big Oil's rights against the American Public. A vote for Robinson, is a vote for Koch.
Posted by: farmrdave | October 16, 2010 10:45 AM
Spealking of knuckle headed right wing teabaggers, on the other side of the Atlantic, Delingpole, riffing off a comment about the currently eagerly believed '(literally) trillions of dollars' meme, [finally plays his hand](http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058598/global-war ming-fraud-the-tide-begins-to-turn/)
"Itâs no coincidence that by far the most popular comment was this one from Cheshirered: âIt is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.â
Says it all in one paragragh. Are you listening, Mr Cameron, Mr Huhne, Mr Clegg, et al? Or perhaps you âscrupulously honestâ politicians deliberately choose not to listen, eh? In which case youâre as bad as the rest of âem who are in on this outrageous racket.
Is it just me, or do I feel a Tea Party style revolution coming on?"
Anyone who has spent time fighting in the internet trenches against the enemies of science knows that substantial numbers of humans do not incorporate logic into their system of thought: embracing mutually exclusive ideas troubles them not in the slightest. A brief sojourn in WUWT comment threads provides abundant examples.
I wonder if many in Maddow's generally lefty audience had any clue as to Robinson's vast nutball CV? I wish she had spent more time fleshing the man out for the accomplished crank he is.
That would have resulted in accusations of (wait for it) ...
It's one of those things that bug me. The whole point is that the CD sufferer is supposed to feel discomfort, whereas we know that they obviously don't. No discomfort = no dissonance.
Another common misuse is of the "sour grapes" accusation: it's not as if the fable is obscure or hard to understand.
The Republicans didn't bother putting anyone serious up against DeFazio because he's got such a lock on the seat. The polls have been closer than anyone would've guessed back during the primary season, but DeFazio will win unless everyone in Eugene decides not to mail in their ballot (much of the district is rural and goes Republican).
"Fraulein Maddow, I'll hef you know zat I wrote Mine Camp nearly ten years ago, and you quoting pieces bek hout of context is unconscionable. Ja, I see vot you are trying to do here - make me own it when it was all so long ago.
But you forget one thing: democrats are very bad und are funding hobbits in New Zeeland. Ze voters will see what you are trying to do here und take account. Do not worry on zat score,Fraulein Maddow.
Mike, so 0.038% CO2 can only have a miniscule effect?
I'm guessing that the effect of the ozone layer which is a far lower concentration than CO2 (it's normally measured in parts per billion) in our atmosphere is truly and laughably insignificant, and that some other unknown mysterious process is what actually blocks most the harmful UV radiation from reaching Earth's surface.
Is it some sort of new law of physics that anything which is not a "miniscule" effect is limited to a certain number of decimal points?
This is great. I'm sure I remember some debate from a year or so back where someone was saying that CO2s heat radiating behaviour couldn't be shown in a bottle. Now that there's video of it someone comes along to say that the proportions aren't the same so it's invalid.
Some people wouldn't accept anything but a twin earth to conduct experiments on (and then they'd say "Oh but it's probably something to do with having both our planets in the same orbit. The variables have not been isolated enough to draw any real conclusion")
This guy is not firing on all cylinders.
The incumbent Peter DeFazio is one of the best US reps on climate, too. Glad this one is fizzling.
No proof will ever be enough for a denialist. That's what makes them what they are. What makes it funny is that they will accept any alternative, no matter how bizarre or nonsensical, before they will admit that it might be greenhouse gases that have caused most of the recent warming.
Not to be to overtly pedantic; The lack of a lapse rate in the experiment makes the experiment more of a "Does CO2 interact with longwave radiation?" then "Does additional CO2 cause warming in the atmosphere?"
farmrdave is Art Robinson's media advisor? Or is farmdave actually Art himself?
Radiation hormesis is certainly controversial but there is some evidence for it. For example this paper: http://www.jpands.org/vol9no1/chen.pdf published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
From the abstract:
"An extraordinary incident occurred 20 years ago in Taiwan. Recycled steel, accidentally contaminated with cobalt-60 (half-life: 5.3 y), was formed into construction steel for more than 180 buildings, which 10,000 persons occupied for 9 to 20 years. They unknowingly received radiation doses that averaged 0.4 Svâa âcollective doseâ of 4,000 person-Sv.
"Based on the observed seven cancer deaths, the cancer mortality rate for this population was assessed to be 3.5 per 100,000 person-years. Three children were born with congenital heart malformations, indicating a prevalence rate of 1.5 cases per 1,000 children under age 19.
"The average spontaneous cancer death rate in the general population of Taiwan over these 20 years is 116 persons per 100,000 person-years. Based upon partial official statistics and hospital experience, the prevalence rate of congenital malformation is 23 cases per 1,000 children. Assuming the age and income distributions of these persons are the same as for the general population, it appears that significant beneficial health effects may be associated with this chronic radiation exposure."
JPANDS [is not a reliable source](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/jpands.php)
That is certainly putting it mildly. JPANDS is a hive of [crackpottery.](http://tinyurl.com/yj8kjzo)
> Now that there's video of it someone comes along
> to say that the proportions aren't the same ...
You must have the bottle the EXACT SAME SIZE as the EARTH ....
I think of Richard HofstadterÂ´s point about the paranoid streak in the general public coming in waves leading to "Liberty League" in the 30ies, John Birch in the 60ies and now to the "Tea Parties" - I think he says that there will always be a solid group of people willing to believe any crazy conspiracy theory against some perceived "elitist" threat, and that these waves are always sucked up by the Republican Party. Maybe I am just another elitist (somehow secretly part of the plot, too), but honestly, how can any sane person see this interview with Robinson and not think that this guy is completely bats*** crazy???
Makes one feel sorry for the American public who is letting themselves be fooled by that kind of people.
Tim, they also got it published in "Dose Response" in 2007 (twice the same story...).
Of course, some have already pointed out that the people living in those buildings were on average much younger than the average population of Taiwan. Bad control group!
Others had this to say:
Longer time to pregnancy
INCREASED cancer risk, but only in the young population (and this study did correct for age)
That Robinson guy freaked me out. Scary to think that people would actually vote for someone like that.
Art Robinson gets the quote of the day: "I can't even get out a sentence." This, after several hundred of them spoken over top of Rachel's questions.
Great interview Art, just kinda hard for ole Rachel to rattle him. Good guy, let's hope the people in Oregon vote him in.
re: #35 quakkoa
back to Rottnest island, it's safeer there.
Recall that Jane Orient is the Executive Director (and media contact), for AAPS, and she is also on the Faculty of OISM.
At least she is alive, unlike the first two. But perhaps, one of the Robinsons are psychic and can keep in contact.
In the hierarchy of poor journals, JPANDS is clearly even worse than Energy&Environment.
that leaves the interesting comparison of JPANDS and JSE (Journal of Scientific Exploration), which I've nikcnamed a "dog astrology journal", although quotes from that are very important to Andrew Montford's arguments in The Hockey Illusion. I described this in some detail in a Wikipedai *talk* page.
In a talk thread usually seeing 20 edits a day, discussions suddenly ceased, followed by a determined series of attempts to:
a) Edit it out entirely, from a *talk* page, not a main page. The series of reasonings were amusing.
b) These were foiled by our Wikipedia-late lamented champion Stoat now banned from such for a while.
c) No one ever answered the substance, which after all is alleging *fabrication* or misrepresentation, since Montford claims a source (Lindzen) did something he did not. Eventually, the section got archived a way ... but Wikipedia does not forget.
On balance, both JPANDS and JSE are awful, but the former is in some sense predictable from the politics. The latter doesn't seem that way, and it at least offers amusement and innovation. I mean, its ESP, UFO, etc material is pretty standard, but nowhere else have I see sheep suffocation studies and dog astrology.
"kinda hard for ole Rachel to rattle him"
If by "rattle" you mean respond to any of her questions, then yes he didn't rattle at all.
The only way he could have had a better performance in the eyes of PottyBratriot is he spent the whole time with his fingers in his ears going "I can't hear you", but he should pick up that trick by the time he graduates from grade school.
The recent warming is identical to the previous warming 60-years before as shown in the following plot!
Are you a "true sceptic"?
Good name for a band.
Further on the topic on radiation hormesis, the French National Academy had this to say:
"We feel that the importance of hormesis should not be overlooked. Hormesis has been reported in 40% of the animal experiments, moreover, the biological bases of hormesis now seems to be understood, and its existence is beyond question."
This is somewhat at odds with the report issued by the the US National Academy so make of that what you will.
I certainly don't have an expert opinion to offer, but it does certainly seem that this in not simply an issue of quackery.
>*I certainly don't have an expert opinion to offer, but it does certainly seem that this in not simply an issue of quackery.*
Controversial theories would generally not be assisted by being included in Art's news letter, when they sit along side [fabricated stories like this](http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/ate/s41p1357.htm).
So random chance would imply that a figure of less than 40% does not rise above the level of random noise and no reasonable person would give too much credence to any paper offering such proof as significant.
> The same with CO2. In the experiments in the video, you must have only 0.038% of the bottle filled with CO2, not the whole of it.
But the atmosphere is opaque at CO2 frequencies and a bottle at 0.038% isn't.
Of course, you could fill it with water and CO2, which would reduce the ppm, wouldn't it, mikey?
> Not that Maddow was at all objective in the way that she posed her questions, mind you, but then I hardly expected her to be.
When you're questioning someone, you are NOT meant to be objective. You're meant to be hostile, adversarial. It is how you get the nitty gritty out.
If you're not adversarial, you'll only throw softballs, and that's not a news interview, that's a party political broadcast.
"So random chance would imply that a figure of less than 40% does not rise above the level of random noise and no reasonable person would give too much credence to any paper offering such proof as significant. QED."
Really? I should think matters are a little more complex than that. I will try to post the URL again as in the previous attempt, the underscores in the URL were removed.
The paper is mostly concerned with validity (or otherwise) of the LNT model for low radiation exposure.
Dose-effect relationships and estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low doses of ionizing radiation
Alas, I believe that the CO2 experiment is an example of "wrong method, right answer". The experiment isn't picking up on CO2's radiative properties, but rather its convective properties. See the paper "Climate Change in a Shoebox: Right Results, Wrong Physics" (http://www.tufts.edu/~rtobin/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf).
(the infrared camera experiment is fine, of course, just the temperature change experiments have this flaw)
(and the Climate Change in a Shoebox paper is not any kind of contra-AGW evidence: they use first principles to calculate the amount of warming one would expect, and show that it is a lot smaller than the warming that is observed in the jar: then, they show that using argon creates the same kind of temperature jump that using CO2 does, implying that it isn't a radiative issue but rather a convective/conductive issue)
Re #35, per Wikipedia, the JPANDS study did not control for age. Another study did control for age and they found increased cancer morbidity associated with the radioactive building in Taiwan:
> Alas, I believe that the CO2 experiment is an example of "wrong method, right answer".
Fair enough. Believe away.
But you're wrong.
It doesn't display why the saturated gas argument is wrong, but it isn't trying to do that, and the insistence that it should is why some believe what you do.
It is proving that CO2 absorbs IR and not visible light.
Go have a look at the flame in the visible.
It is not dimmed at all in the visible.
However, it IS dimmed in the IR.
This is the entirety of the Greenhouse Gas Effect.
Are Rachel Maddow and Marc Morano related, or merely graduates of the same un-finishing school ?
The moral of the interview clips would seem to be that the Faux TV style manual is strangling the media tree.
"Fair enough. Believe away.
But you're wrong."
Please re-read my comment: I specifically said that the temperature change experiments were "right answer wrong science" and that the IR camera experiments were just fine.
Again, the Tufts experimenters showed that argon had the same _temperature_ effect as CO2 in this kind of set-up.
I'm not arguing against AGW - heck, I'm a co-author on a number of climate modeling and IAM papers - I'm just pointing out that the particular experiment highlighted in the first couple minutes of the video is not picking up the radiative effects of CO2 but rather the convective/conductive effects. Which is not to say that there aren't real radiative effects - namely, a doubling of CO2 leads to almost 4 W/m2 of radiation, which, coupled with positive feedbacks, leads to a likely 2-4.5 degrees of warming (but maybe more), which is likely disruptive to many natural and human systems and potentially disastrous for the next generation of humans...
And yet, the experiment is, in my opinion, wrong. And we should all encourage good science and discourage bad science.
Why do you think matters are more complex than being able to show a statistically significant effect? The paper dates from 2005 and what have scientists had to say about it since it was published? Is it still considered valid and, if so, by whom??? Who cites it?
>*In the experiments in the video, you must have only 0.038% of the bottle filled with CO2, not the whole of it. As a result, the experiment is the misrepresentation of the reality. The greenhouse effect due to CO2 exists, but it is minuscule.*
Mike your experiment also misrepresents reality, as to replicate the effect of our CO2 you'd need enough bottles to stack 10km into the atmosphere.
Its the total volume of CO2 that produces the so called Greenhouse effect, not the % volume.
The experiment demonstrates the mechanism not the degree.
Maddow is a person I find very easy to dislike. Reminds me of why I can't stand Beck as well.
Please reread mine as well as your own, M.
It is only "Wrong science" because you are misrepresenting or at the least misattributing the experiment.
And your second comment there did nothing to disavow that.
> I'm not arguing against AGW - heck
I'm not saying you are. I'm saying you're wrong on what the experiment is showing.
It is showing that CO2 is opaque to IR and transparent to Vis.
The need to attribute any more than that to this experiment is fallacious and you still cling to it despite being informed of the error and therefore I feel no need to attempt to educate someone who does not wish to learn.
M, I see [your point](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/art_robinson_interviewed.php#co…). Thanks for the tip.
jakerman: Thanks for reading and understanding my point
Wow: I'd tell you to watch the video again, but I can't seem to find it now. In any case, the first 2 minutes of the video clearly showed a demonstration talking about a TEMPERATURE effect, which the demonstrator attributed to a radiative effect, but the demonstrator was wrong. There is a radiative->temperature connection, but not in that particular experiment.
The IR camera experiment directly measures the radiative effect, so is correct.
> In any case, the first 2 minutes of the video clearly showed a demonstration talking about a TEMPERATURE effect
Which would confer from a proportion of energy being retarded in its release.
But the proof isn't that this experiment proves AGW but that you can get warming if your source and your emission are treated differently by the system.
As happens with the ~3000K match flame and the ~300K surface inside.
I still fail to see where the experiment is wrong science except by failing to grasp that maybe your insistence in what the experiment is showing is other than it is.
Maybe the difference is I'm looking at the demonstration and going "Yeah, I know what they're trying to show" whereas you're going "I don't think they're showing what I think they are".
Remember too that these are for people who aren't 100% precisionists. This is for people to whom "average" means mean, mode or average. If you explained to them what *precisely* you're showing, you'd lose them the same way as if you explained why what they wanted was "expectation value" not "average".
Let me try one more time:
Experimental setup: lamp points at two flasks, one with air, one with carbon dioxide. The flask with carbon dioxide warms more than the one with air. Experimenter 1 says "demonstration of greenhouse effect because CO2 absorbs more IR than air"
Experimenter 2 comes along, and says, yes, CO2 absorbs more IR than air, but that isn't WHY flask #2 is warmer. Flask #2 is actually warmer because CO2 is denser than air. Experimenter 2 tests this hypothesis by filling a third flask with argon, which has no IR absorption. Flask #3 is also warmer than the air-only flask, by about the same amount as the CO2 flask.
Therefore, Experimenter 1 is showing "wrong science" because the explanation for WHY the CO2 flask is warmer is NOT the IR properties of CO2, which is what is being claimed.
So, basically, this is like taking a block of wood painted black, and a block of metal painted white, and placing both on top of a giant block of ice. After measuring the temperature of the two blocks, Experimenter 1 says "aha, the wood is warmer than the metal! This demonstrates that black surfaces absorb more IR than white surfaces!" Experimenter 2 points out that wood and metal conduct differently, and so the real reason that the wood is warmer is because it is wood, not because it is black. In this case, Experimenter 1 is "right answer, wrong science".
Similarly, in the video, the reason the CO2 flask warms more than the air flask is because CO2 has different convective properties than air (in part because it is heavy), so claiming that it is because CO2 has different radiative properties is wrong. The argon experiment done by Tufts demonstrates this for at least one experimental setup (it would be like adding a second wood block painted white, and showing that this second block is also warmer than the white metal block: this means that the difference in T isn't a radiative issue, but a conductive issue)
> Flask #2 is actually warmer because CO2 is denser than air.
What density was the CO2 before you shone the light?
Or did shining the light on it cause more CO2 to exist?
Wrong science, wrong answer.
Who says #3 is warmer?
>Who says #3 is warmer?
[Wagoner et al](http://www.tufts.edu/~rtobin/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf) (PDF).
[Some discussion at moregrumbinescience](http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2010/08/designing-good-experime…)
I don't know who's right.
Wow: Why don't you read the paper I linked to, which might answer some of your questions? Or are you just having fun trolling?
M, I've been there, done that with Wow.
I haven't had time to read back and see which of you is right this time, but it doesn't matter what I (or anyone else) say. Wow will continue to believe he's right even if most other people think he isn't.
I was lucky enough that some regulars here stuck up for me when Wow got a bit nasty (he really pissed me off TBH). Our discussion hardly progressed. It was frustrating. And, with me having posted a clear question, it seemed Wow saw fit to suspend the discussion there. Doubly frustrating.
I guess me point is don't expect Wow to really take on your points. If I could be so bold as to offer Wow some advice, it might be that he could entertain the notion that he may occasionally be wrong. And if he's not wrong, maybe people have misunderstood because of the way he expressed himself.
> Why don't you read the paper I linked to
I was under the impression that no link existed.
Stu, waste of space.
Oh, and thanks for answering on my behalf there. Saves me the trouble.
I'm a waste of space, or my reply? Why don't we finish our discussion in open thread 53? Dave R has even provided a paper to facilitate discourse.
> I'm a waste of space, or my reply?
Added sweet fa except another snipe.
Why didn't you complain about Eli who also didn't get your problem and saw an issue with your immediate come-back?
Because Eli is respected.
Attack the weak, hmm?
Wow is never wrong Stu, just ask him. He will tell you in no uncertain terms. He is omniscient.
Wow, since you couldn't be bothered to look for yourself, here is the "link" to the paper M referenced many posts above...
Keep being your miserable, arrogant self Wow. It is endlessly entertaining.
First of all, Rachel Maddow came in with her claws out for Art from the beginning. She had no intentions to hear what his ideas and plans were and as soon as Art got "wind" of her intentions, he put a wall up and didnt give her a chance to continue her slaughter and played it out until she was finally done. Good for you Dr. Robinson! She was rude, embarrassing, and the questions she was asking would had taken longer to answer than for the time she was given for this interview in the first place. Rachal, IF YOU ASK A QUESTION, SHUT UP AND LET PEOPLE ANSWER TO THE END. DONT INTERUPT AND CUT PEOPLE OFF!! Go Dr. Robinson!!
_INTERUPT AND CUT PEOPLE OFF!! Go Dr. Robinson!!_
This must be a spoof. No sane intelligent person can see anything other than Robinson refusing to answer simple questions and instead going off on extended accusatory rants. It is the job of an interviewer to interrupt an "answer" if it is not an answer to the question!
Robinson clearly had no intention of answering any questions: he was there just to rant and to talk over any attempt to get him back on topic.
Once again Rachel has proven to everyone with even a little common sense that she has No desire to inform & educate the public on the issues on hand. If she were truly attemping to get to know MR. Robinson as a canidate as she claimed repeatedly, she would have posed at least ONE question relavent to the campaign on hand (i.e. jobs, economy, education). Its obvious that Rachel does not have the level of integity or intelligence to call herself a journalist. I quote from another.
Professor or at least Dr., surely?
I live in the UK. My judgement is based entirely on that one interview.
What makes you so ready to defend Robinson anyway?
Kim, it's obvious Robonson is a fruitcake, and the more his fruitcakery is probed, the more defensive and evasive he becomes until he's an incoherent mass of evasive defensiveness.
His mystery financiers don't care that he's a fruitcake, because they know that his wholehearted embracing of fruitcakery makes him a stranger to reality and a willing puppet for them.
Do you see where this goes, and what questions you need to ask yourself, Kim? Do you really want someone like Robinson the Proxy controlling any aspect whatsoever of your future life?