Here is how modern anti-science propaganda works. Just read edit history of linked wiki page on SourceWatch.

Arthur B. Robinson, head of Oregon Institute is labeled there "an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research".

One science historian, author of a well-researched and well-reviewed book on Amazon, objects and tries to edit the entry: "he is a thoroughly reputable scientist... he does not have a 'long history' of controversial engagements...".

His words are erased by some Diane Farsetta, who sits on the board of SourceWatch and writes for AlterNet. She has not written a book on the subject. But she has time and she has an agenda.

So the entry is back to personal slander and innuendo. Enjoy the 'facts'.

Uh... everyone in this debate has an 'agenda', not least of whom, the organization in question.

Just make sure you know you're reading a wiki:

>SourceWatch is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or engage in casual review, they have no legal duty to do so and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever.