The plot thickens.
Our story so far: Laurie David, a producer of Al Gore’s movie "An Inconvenient Truth", called the National Science Teachers Association, which represents 55,000 science teachers in the US (note: I have been a member of NSTA and do workshops at their meetings), offering them 50,000 copies of the DVD of the movie. NSTA rejected the offer. David then writers a scathing and damning editorial in the Washington Post, asking why NSTA would accept money from ExxonMobile but not free DVDs from the "other side". NSTA responded by saying they do not send out third party materials, which has been its policy for many years.
Now, the august Science Magazine weighs in. It’s an interesting summary of events, and it sounds like SciMag leans toward the NSTA view, but it’s hard to say.
In my last post about this, I asked three questions:
- Was Ms. David informed [by the NSTA] about the NSTA policy of not supporting outside organizations?
- Was Ms. David informed that the NSTA would help her advertise the DVDs to their members?
- If the NSTA is not influenced by sponsors, then why did they make the statement about "unnecessary risk" to their support?
Interestingly, from the SciMag article, it does appear that the answer to Number 2 is "yes". The NSTA did offer to help Ms. David advertise the DVD to its members, but she elected to leave that out of her OpEd in the Post.
It is implied that the answer is the same to Number 1 as well. This casts Ms. David in a very poor light. It sounds to me at this point that she was ticked at the NSTA, and broke a cardinal rule that most people on the ‘net learn via discussion boards: don’t post angry. You’ll pay for it later.
But this still leaves Number 3: why did the NSTA tell her that sending out those DVDs would jeopardize their funding from sponsors? It sounds very much like that means they didn’t want to upset their oil industry funding. This puts a bit of a pall on the NSTA.
I cannot ignore the overwhelming irony here. In the global warming "debate", there are obfuscation, spin, and outright lies being tossed around just to sow confusion and to protect interests. While I cannot say anyone in this kerfuffle is lying, there does seem to be some hiding behind words going on. Accusations of bad behavior and undue influence are getting to be distressingly familiar.
So who’s at fault? What’s going on? We’re still short on answers here. What I want are the original emails. I think it’s about time we see them, too.
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Interesting.
I think the above shows that many of the BA’s recent critics are wrong. He is uni-skeptical about these things. One ’side’ doesn’t get a free-pass.
Oh - and where did the BA learn the word ‘kerfuffle’? This is worrying. If he knows that word, then maybe he knows what going for ‘a Jodrell’ means too (from yesterday’s asteroid discussion).
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:02 pm
I see the discussion board posting bug has been splatted. Thanks.
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:08 pm
i think this is a case of bad stuff all round.
December 4th, 2006 at 3:36 am
BA is ’sounds’ like you are leaning towards the NSTA view, but you have such a hard-on for bringing down the ‘evil oil companies’ that you can’t stand to let them (or anyone associated with them) win a single argument. I’m pretty sure the line about unnecesary risk refers to something other than “protecting our supporter’s profits” which is what you insinuate here.
Ms. David is obviously trying to play the role of “stifled scientist” and is trying to make it seem like her points are more valid because of it. The fact is the NSTA denied her request in accordance with their written policies and she had no reason to expect this encounter to end any differently than it did. End of story.
December 4th, 2006 at 4:13 am
Schower:
Why the venom?
And why the certainty that you understand the whole story?
It seems to me that the only point of view the BA is pushing is that we ought to find out the truth first before we leap to conclusions.
Is that too much to ask- or should we condemn first and ask questions later?
December 4th, 2006 at 6:57 am
Actually Schower I get a completely different perspective when I read the posts BA has made. It seems to me that he wants very much to get to the bottom of this debate to see whether or not a *science* organization he has supported is supressing information in order to passify some sponsers that have an obvious position in the global warming argument.
I should think this is very important, if the NSTA is favoring one side of an contorversial issue because of funding purposes, then perhaps it is not putting all the information out to it’s members and/or failing it’s mission statement, and support should be withdrawn.
And BA has made his points questioning the integrity of Laurie David quite clearly.
Just my .02$
December 4th, 2006 at 8:11 am
2 points for use of the word “kerfuffle.” For the record, it sort of bothers me that nobody knows for sure what’s causing the environmental changes that are going on or if it’s even normal, but it doesn’t seem to bother any of the people that are debating it in public.
December 4th, 2006 at 8:22 am
The first person I ever knew to use the word “kertfluffle” was Spider Robinson.
I don’t know if he coined it, though.
December 4th, 2006 at 8:41 am
schower said:
>I’m pretty sure the line about unnecesary risk refers to something other than “protecting our supporter’s profits†which is what you insinuate here.
I’m pretty sure it means something else, too. I’m pretty sure that Phil thinks it means “if I send out info on Global Warming that criticizes the oil companies, my oil company supporters may pull their contributions.” That’s quite different from “If I send out info on Global Warming, it will hurt oil company profits.” The two might be linked, but one is a little more centered on how it affects the NSTA, which is admittedly the NSTA’s key responsibility (the welfare of the NSTA).
December 4th, 2006 at 10:21 am
Irishman, that is it exactly. The quotation from NSTA in Ms. David’s original OpEd made it seem like one reason the NSTA did not distribute the DVDs is that they did not want to risk the millions of dollars from the oil companies.
I do not want to “bring down” the oil companies. What a ridiculous assertion! But they people who run them sure do seem to be pretty evil, and they have major enablers in Congress (like Ted Stevens, who went ballistic when other Senators wanted the oil execs sworn in when they testified).
We currently need oil to make this planet run. You’d have to be nuts to deny that. But that doesn’t mean it has to be done the way it is now.
December 4th, 2006 at 10:42 am
IMHO these polarized made-for-theater “documentaries” are kind of shady entities that should be approached with EXTREME caution. Many of them use just the tactic we’re hoping [i]wasn’t[/i] used here:
They find this tiny sliver of fact: example not being alowed to distribute the movie thorugh the NSTA…
…and turn it into a huge thing that it’s not.
It’s sort of like pointing out a politician is pro war, then critisizing him for not sending his own kids to war (you nasty evil man) but then not mentioning he doesn’t even HAVE kids, and he DOES have a nepheu in the army AND in the war.
With all the utter utter crap on the silver screne these days, i’m supprised people give so much credit to these documentarys that have a spotty track record, are in the company of pure (and usually flagrantly innacurate) productions, and have done little to nothing to earn any assumed accuracy.
Please use care when viewing made-for-theater documentaries!!!
December 4th, 2006 at 10:58 am
“…made-for-theater documentaries”
As opposed to “made to never be seen documentaries”???
December 4th, 2006 at 11:16 am
Don’t worry, kingnor. The “care” of separating the good, bad, and ugly science has already been taken for Gore’s movie. There is no way the people in the climate field wouldn’t pass a very critical eye over such a well-known documentary. And for an atmosphere-related piece, it’s very good. A lot better than those “crockumentaries” (in Chuck Doswell-speak) that indicate that no tornado is interesting unless it’s at least an F7…
December 4th, 2006 at 11:49 am
The Inconvenient Truth really is a fascinating film, but I’m still astounded by the reaction to it. Now an energy company in Scotland is paying for thousands of schoolchildren to see it. Read more here
December 4th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Mother Jones Magazine, V31, no. 6, Nov-Dec ‘06 has a very interesting feature article by Julia Whitty which addresses several of the above issues: why do some scientists think not all data should be released to the public; what kinds of people in the U.S. either believe or disbelieve the current climate change science; what role does the media play in either making the science public or in failing to do so, among others.
Also mentioned is “John Schellnhuber, distinguished science adviser at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the U.K., who [in 2004] identified 12 global-warming tipping points, any one of which, if triggered, will likely initiate sudden, catastrophic changes across the planet.” I had never seen those points before, and I haven’t yet seen the Gore-hosted documentary. However, I think that GW is a reality, and that we humans are playing a huge role in advancing the climate changes, based upon what I’ve read so far. I suppose that the exact mechanism(s) driving the current climate change are open to revision; I just don’t think the FACT that the planet is warming and the basic REASON for the change is in doubt: it IS, and it is US causing it.
December 4th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Jamie said:
“…nobody knows for sure what’s causing the environmental changes that are going on or if it’s even normal….”
Two things here, Jamie: (1) Most of the scientists carrying out the work investigating this phenomenon agree that human activity is making a significant contribution to global warming. But don’t take my word for it. Find out for yourself. Go and read the scientific periodicals. Then you will be able to express an informed opinion. The “no-one knows for sure” line comes straight from the GW sceptics. It is another incarnation of the “teach the controversy” tactic. (2) Whether it is “normal” or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is (a) the potential impact it will have on humankind, and (b) we are able to do something about it now (e.g. use less energy and hence burn less fossil fuel).
Incidentally, did you know that global warming was first reported in the mid-1970s? It has taken 30 years’ more research for some governments to take it seriously, and some governments are still trying to pretend it won’t happen. Hence the title of that documentary.
December 4th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
The “nobody knows” meme is code for “we don’t know because we have a certain political agenda to advance, or we don’t want to know and therefore we don’t want YOU to know.” It’s all very convenient to sweep this stuff under the political rug, but reality will come back to bite those who seek to suppress honestly done science that shows results we should be paying attention to.
December 4th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
seen the movie yet, BA?
December 5th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
If you have access, take a look at its entry in the OED. It descended from “carfuffle” by way of “curfuffle,” and dates back to at least 1813.
December 13th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
I believe that NSTA is afraid that Exxon Mobil will not keep in their funding. I do not agree with this. They are hiding truth from the public and, in particular, their children. I would not want to be lied to as a kid nor would I want someone to lie to my children. It is not so much that people are weighing in the economy and earth, but the economy and the future of our children. By doing this, they jeopardize too much. With this much data being poured into the world of science and media not putting it out to the public, we are going to hurt ourselves. We are brainwashing the future by lying to them. We do not have to believe the truth, but that does not change it.
December 13th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
I thought this was an interesting teacher response on how this film is used in the classroom:
http://ascd.typepad.com/blog/2006/12/a_controversial.html#comment-26518473
April 29th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Part of the answer for global warming lies in something that often happens in science: we have a story that is widely accepted, but it is a story that is actually incomplete and poorly tested. To some extent the, the so-called human causes of global warming has gained acceptance through the failure of alternatives rather than through its evident correctness.