Note: The tally of the votes for the Weblog awards is not yet final. When it is made final, I’ll post about it then. Until that time, something that might make you wonder what’s going on as much as it has me:
The plot thickens.
A very brief synopsis: Laurie David, a producer of "An Inconvenient Truth" told the National Science Teachers Association she wanted to give away a copy of the DVD to each of the NSTA’s 55,000 members. The NSTA declined, citing several reasons. I posted about this first here, and then followed up with this, and then again here.
At that point I didn’t think the evidence either way was enough to sway me. But that’s changing.
New revelations have put the NSTA in a bad light. Ms. David posted a rebuttal to the NSTA comments on the Huffington Post.
U Dream of Janie is a blog I read (with some NSFW content), and Janie is a little (OK, a lot) ticked about this situation. She makes a lot of cognizant points, and they are not in favor of the NSTA.
Go ahead and read it, then come back. It helps if you read what she says first.
In her blog, Janie noticed something that I saw as well: the initial NSTA response to the Washington Post OpEd was edited shortly after it was posted — and by "edited" I mean parts were removed. I noticed immediately, because a quotation I cut and pasted from their response is no longer there. Here it is, from my original blog post about it:
Gerry Wheeler, Executive Director of the NSTA, responds to the controversy on the NSTA website:
NSTA policy states that the association cannot endorse any outside organization’s products and/or messages to its members. Therefore, we do not send any such products and/or messages directly to our members, regardless of the source.
This entire passage was later removed from the NSTA website. Why? I have to admit this is really odd and even suspicious, given what I said about this passage again from my original post:
If the Washington Post OpEd had mentioned that in the first place, there wouldn’t have been such a stir (in fact, the entire OpEd would have been unnecessary). Was this policy made clear to Laurie David, the author of that OpEd? I wonder. If so, why didn’t she mention it in her article? And if not, why not?
Janie feels the same way; this passage, if true, alleviates a lot of suspicion. Having it removed, however, makes things more suspicious than they were in the first place.
Janie is convinced the NSTa is up to no good, and I will say with these new revelations that I am leaning that way myself.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:01 am
Things that make you go hmmm…
From David’s blog:
Now NSTA is arguing that distributing An Inconvenient Truth to teachers would violate their 2001 policy against endorsements. But that policy didn’t stop them from shipping out 20,000 copies of a whopping 10-part video funded by ConocoPhillips in 2003.
……..
Wheeler says this is OK because NSTA had editorial control of the project. If that’s true, then maybe he can explain why the only scientist cited in the largely dismissive global warming section appearing in chapters six, nine and ten of the teaching guides is Dr. Robert Balling - a well known global warming skeptic who has acknowledged taking more than $400,000 from the fossil fuel industry (others say the figure is higher).
December 18th, 2006 at 5:23 am
Here’s a later piece from the NSTA about this,
http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1165955105181500.xml&coll=7
December 18th, 2006 at 9:37 am
jrkeller, I think those are adequately rebutted here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-david/crooked-curriculum-oil-c_b_35829.html
And this from the email exchange posted by Ms. David:
Things just seem very fishy from NSTA’s side.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Fishy indeed. I have not seen the Conoco-Phillips piece, but if it makes a statement about GW that seems to contrast to the Gore piece, then one would have to wonder about the leadership of the NSTA and whether THEY are being a little to political about a science issue.
Are there any members of the NSTA here? What type of materials do they typically disperse to their members?
On the other hand, this-
“Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.”
from the Janie link quoting the Gore website seems a just a little imflammatory, and that type of fear mongering is not really something I think is valuable.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Wow. Thank you so much for the link love, Dr. BA.
Also, I wanted to let you know that I just answered an email from Jeff Medkeff, and I need to thank you for sending him in my direction as well.
I’m anxious to hear back from him.
As an aside, let me just give the link to the imported post at our new blog. Comments may be left there.
The NSTA Is Feeding Us A Line
seaducer:
The dust up is about the DVD. The Al Gore website is about the DVD. The quote is the tagline of the DVD.
It’s particularly relevant or it wouldn’t have been there.
Is there some science you’d care to rebut with, or just a random dispersion on my piece?
December 18th, 2006 at 11:38 am
The huffington blog was published before the oregonlive.com Op-ed so I would say that it really doesn’t rebuff that piece.
Conoco-Phillips stuff was published in April 2003, so I doubt it was published to rebuff Al Gore.
My gut feeling is this,
The NSTA feels that this is a political film and shouldn’t be shown in a science class and in someways I would have to agree with that. In the openning minutes Al Gore states, “Hi, I am Al Gore. I used to be the next President of America” He’s wrong about that and why should this be in a film about global warming.
Also, if I read the Conoco-Phillips NSTA press release correctly, Conoco-Phillips paid to have the film distributed to NSTA teachers while Laurie David would not.
If NSTA were to distribute this film it was easily cost them $100K, probably more.
On the flip side, I think Laurie David is mad that the NSTA won’t take the movie and distribute it (at NSTA’s cost) and that’s why she’s up in arms.
I’ve said this many times before if this is such an important topic (and I believe it is) distribute it free via the internet.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
And yet, jr, every single issue addressed in that oregonlive Op-ed was just a repeat of what the NSTA said in its press release.
It was pre-rebutted by the earlier Huffington piece.
I don’t think anyone at all is claiming that the Conoco-Phillips stuff was done to rebut Al Gore’s video.
As for “The NSTA feels that this is a political film and shouldn’t be shown in a science class”, science is not (or at least should not) be beholden to political or private interests. Reality is what it is, and no amount of pouting about it will change that.
It is sad that science is being spun to suit the whims and wallets of big oil companies.
Hey, I’ve got a good idea! If we want to know something about the world’s climate, how ’bout we step outside of Exxon’s board room and ask the community of climate scientists?
December 18th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
JanieBelle,
I think you mis-read me, I wasn’t trying to break down your blog, or the science involved. It doesn’t sound good for the NSTA, but perhaps there is still another take on it. I gather that among the functions of the NSTA is to distribute knowledge to teachers so that they can keep their curriculum current. A challenge when you consider something as fast moving as climatology, alot of new information all the time, and a TON of crap out there. Yu could easily bury your members under a load of garbage and so you must discriminate on the content.
I read that blurb you quoted from the website as-
” The world will come to an end in 10 years if we don’t do something NOW”.
It was written that way on purpose, and the purpose is fear mongering. Something that politicians are very attracted to.
As I understand it the jury is still out on just what the future holds with regards to the warming trend, how it will affect us and whether anything can be done about it. “The Inconvienient Truth” may be well grounded in evidence, I don’t know, I haven’t seen it. BUT that tag line makes it sound like a load of BS from a known BSer, and perhaps the NSTA didn’t want to bury their members under any more junk science than they have to.
At any rate, I have no problems with the science behind GW, or your piece about the David vs NSTA debacle. I just saw that statement and thought there might be more to the NSTA’s decision, that’s all.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Point taken, and I apologize for getting a bit testy.
It would seem that I misread the intent of your comment.
Let me just point out though, that at no time did the NSTA point to the science (or even a lack thereof) of the DVD as a reason for their refusal.
To me, that speaks volumes about their intent.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
I took seaducer’s post to mean that the Conoco-Phillips stuff was done to contrast Al Gore’s video.
Again I’ll reiterate my point. When the movie opens with, “Hi, I am Al Gore. I used to be the next President of America,” you’ve got a political film or at least the makings of a politcal film. Honestly, how many people on the right do you think are going to watch more than that or take this film seriously? These are the people that he needs to convince or at least get thinking about this problem.
I’ve have even a better idea. Let’s get congress to fund a conference of the leading members of the community of climate scientists (exclude the politcal and new hogs) and let them decide what to do. I think they could do this under the guise of fact finding and avoid needing presidential approval.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Can’t anyone who wants to see the movie just, like, rent it?
This seems like much ado about nothing.
>> “science is not (or at least should not) be beholden to political or private interests”
Maybe someday it won’t be. I wouldn’t hold my breath, though. Cripes, Western civilization took centuries to accept the concept of the number zero.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
No worries, it takes more than that to offend me, I am a bit slow, lol
And I too would feel better if the NSTA had pointed to that quote, or the one jrkeller mentions, or even the science content of the movie in their opening defense. That they didn’t smells bad, and doing so now would appear more like damage control and less like their original M.O.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
“Can’t anyone who wants to see the movie just, like, rent it?”
Of course they can. As I said before, if this is such an important topic, give it away for free. I’m sure that by now it has made a profit.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Oops! I fixed the link, Janie. I drafted this up before you moved your blog!
December 18th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
The NSTA talking about “unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters.†sounds like the classic gaffe = acidentally telling the truth.
As to fear-mongering, there’s a difference between science and politics. Describing something as fear-mongering is speaking in political terms and trying to impose a political metric on a scientific question. In the world of reality, the bottom line is: ‘Is it right’? Whether or not the dire picture presented in the film and on its website is ‘fearmongering’ matters less than whether or not it is right. As an example, not many now care whether or not Churchill was fearmongering before WW2 when he was warning of the threat of Nazi Germany, since he turned out to be right.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
I like it a LOT!
Indeed. No breath holding here.
Exactly.
Thanks, Dr. BA!
The REAL Inconvenient Truth is that I decided to move my blog just as I had something worth saying! Film at 11.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
“When the movie opens with, “Hi, I am Al Gore. I used to be the next President of America,†you’ve got a political film or at least the makings of a politcal film.”
It’s a joke, son. Now, Al Gore isn’t going to be a hit on the stand-up circuit with material like that, but it is an opening joke. Even scientists giving talks have been known to open with a joke. And a joke is what you have when someone can’t come up with more than that opening line as evidence that ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ can be dismissed as merely a political film.
December 18th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
“As I said before, if this is such an important topic, give it away for free. “
It seems that’s what they were trying to do and they were looking for help targeting their giving where it would do more good than simply mailing a copy out to everyone on the planet. Afterall, Big Oil and Big Coal have more $ than do Big Solar and Big Energy Conservation, even if AIT has made a profit.
December 18th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
If Owl Gore wasn’t so far out in left field, I might be concerned about the NSTA and their response. Gore is no more credible about Global Warming than he was about the internet. He has no credentials at all. His movie is strictly alarmist propaganda.
December 18th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Just FYI, if this story interests you, Science Is Taking Another Beating will positively chap your buns.
Mom says that if I keep this up, someone’s gonna wind up offering me a (*gasp*) job!
Ack!
December 18th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Seems a corporate entity can slip subtle (and not so subtle) political messages into news and educational media with ease. Video news releases, commercials disguised as news, are accepted as the norm and there’s a lot more corporate sponsored ‘educational’ material than the 2003 Conoco-Phillips piece out there.
These ever increasing encroachments into our information stream are bad enough. But apparently not good enough for the massively funded PR departments of those corporations. In addition, those same corporations actively seek ways to discredit and block distribution of any information that contradicts their party line.
I encourage all of you to watch the repeat of the PBS program, Independent Lens, “Democracy on Deadline: The Global Struggle for an Independent Press”, which aired in November and again last night. It will be shown twice on Thursday, 12-20-06 or check your local station for the program. While they didn’t address corporate interference with the free flow of information, they did address government interference with it.
Program description (emphasis mine):
“Israel, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, Sierra Leone and the U.S., this program shadows working journalists and champions of independent media as they work to make — and keep — their societies free.” If you were under the impression the US has a free press, this program might change your mind.
It is freedom of information, but also access to information that really keeps people free. We may still have freedom of information in this country, but we do not have free access. Those in power have gained increasing control over the information flow in this country by an insidious assault that goes unrecognized by the majority to this day. (This is the most important reason we need to fight to keep net neutrality but that’s another story.)
We should not be lulled into complacency just because we are free to find all or most of the information that’s out there. The bulk of society are passive listeners. Those in power in corporations and governments around the world, including in supposedly free countries, know maintaining power and influence over the free flow of information is critical to maintaining power itself. We know how important control of information has been for the leaders of the not so free countries of the world. Yet we haven’t noticed the control of information becoming ever more concentrated in the hands of a few in our own country.
Here is an incident offering a glimpse of our reality. One which is dismissed by many as the saying goes, “It can’t happen here.” Not if we stop it. But it can if we don’t convince the public there is an assault on the flow of information before the flow is completely shut off.
I remain optimistic. Blogs are wonderful! Bill Moyers is back and Kenneth Tomlinson is gone. Independent Lens, Frontline, NOW, and POV are still on the air. Democracy Now! is broadcast from hundreds of locations. And the media in the US are reporting on themselves and their failure to do their job as investigative journalists especially in the lead up to the Iraq War.
The insidious control of information by corporations however still marches on. The NSTA needs to decide if it is a teacher’s organization, or a corporate sponsored one. Science is not a field based on opinion and philosophy. You can’t change global warming by stifling information. Were I leading a science organization, I would appoint a task force to look at the science and not allow political influence to filter the evidence or the report. From there I would decide if things such as the Conoco-Phillips educational material and “An Inconvenient Truth” were appropriate to promote. How you promote it keeping within the bylaws of the organization wouldn’t then be likely to garner this negative attention.
December 18th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
And what are your credentials, J Greer?
December 18th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Mike says:
“As to fear-mongering, there’s a difference between science and politics. Describing something as fear-mongering is speaking in political terms and trying to impose a political metric on a scientific question.”
I think that is exactly what they are doing, and I think it waters down whatever credibilty they have.
Mike says:
“Whether or not the dire picture presented in the film and on its website is ‘fearmongering’ matters less than whether or not it is right.”
I disagree. The vast majority of people out there, the ones who have to start yelling at the people who can effect a change in order for there to be any progress will see the quote, and maybe the “joke”, and realise that Bush in no friend of climate science but IS a friend of the oil industry, and dismiss it all out of hand. Then it doesn’t matter “if it’s right”, because it won’t be heard.
And FWIW I think that quote is wrong, I don’t think the “vast majority” of scientists think we are on the verge of a “catastrophe”. I think there is cause for alarm, but cooler heads and statements are needed, because most people are sick and tired of the alarmist bs and are starting to think science is nothing but gobble-dee-gook.
December 18th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
“It’s a joke, son. Now, Al Gore isn’t going to be a hit on the stand-up circuit with material like that, but it is an opening joke. Even scientists giving talks have been known to open with a joke. And a joke is what you have when someone can’t come up with more than that opening line as evidence that ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ can be dismissed as merely a political film. ”
I might agree with that, if I didn’t hear him say that all the time. He has said it far to many times for me to believe it is just a joke with him. Again, if you want to target the people who are skeptical of global warming and of Al Gore why even mention it?
December 18th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
sorry if this repeats, i think it ate my last reply…
I think you should be concerned with the NSTA respose, regardless of your opinions on “Owl Gore” jgreer. Gore may be out there, but he may also have stumbled onto something ugly at the NSTA.
December 18th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
“It seems that’s what they were trying to do and they were looking for help targeting their giving where it would do more good than simply mailing a copy out to everyone on the planet. Afterall, Big Oil and Big Coal have more $ than do Big Solar and Big Energy Conservation, even if AIT has made a profit. ”
If they wanted to, they could easily make it available to all, by putting it and the companion book (electronically) on the net for free and let anyone and everyone who wants to copy it do so for free.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
I like it, jrkeller.
Free is always the right price for information.
December 18th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
Al Gore, like other people in government, had a reason for being a political animal. I very much doubt it was just for power. He is an intelligent man, concerned about social ills and GW is one of the biggest. Make no mistake: it IS a SOCIAL ill and the solution requires we recognize our responsiblity for the consequences of our contribution to GW. At least Al Gore is trying to inform people of the problem while at the same time he positions himself as a viable alternative to “business as usual” in our government. Is there a political slant to the movie? Of course, because the solution must inevitably be a political one. Who else you gonna vote? Jeb Bush?
Gary 7
December 19th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
You mean what he said about the internet, or what was said about what he said about the internet? There is quite a big difference you know, and what he said was factually correct, much like An Inconvenient Truth apparently is.
December 19th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
Here’s what Al Gore said about the internet,
“During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”
The entire transcript is here,
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/index.html
This statement always reminded me of those professors who like to take credit for their graduate students work, while their input was minimal.
December 19th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Errata:
I encourage all of you to watch the repeat of the PBS program, Independent Lens, “Democracy on Deadline: The Global Struggle for an Independent Pressâ€, which aired in November and again last night. It will be shown twice on Thursday, 12-20-06 or check your local station for the program.
That would be Thursday, 12-21-06.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
3:00 AM (KCTS)
Thursday, December 21, 2006
3:00 AM (DT)
Thursday, December 21, 2006
3:00 AM (KYVE)
Which really is very late Wed night, so I guess my Thursday the 20th confusion was subliminally correct.
December 20th, 2006 at 8:12 am
Let’s see what some people with knowledge on the subject says:
Source
Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn have explained Al Gore’s contrubutions here.
While it is impossible to say that any one person is responsible for the internet, Gore did indeed make important political contributions to its creation.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:16 am
If you go to imdb.com and if you are a registered user, the site automatically tells you when and on what channel this will air locally.
This pbs site
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/democracyondeadline/film.html
December 21st, 2006 at 12:21 am
Thanks jr.
December 23rd, 2006 at 6:24 am
A Convenient Give Away…
Participate.net is giving away 50,000 copies of An Inconvenient Truth to educators. Free copies go to the first 50,000 teachers to sign up, one DVD per teacher.
……
December 23rd, 2006 at 1:58 pm
I love it. Can’t get through the NSTA filter, just go around. It also dispels any claim of expecting the NSTA to pay for distribution, unless that was the reason for approaching the organization in the first place.
December 23rd, 2006 at 2:13 pm
That is a great website!
http://www.participate.net/
And this page from it, http://www.participate.net/educators/
has the following:
Thank you for visiting the educator’s section of our An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) website. We’re very happy you’ve chosen to do so.
We realize that teachers are under incredible pressure and severe time constraints. As a result, we’ve made sure that each of our lesson activities is aligned with curriculum standards you are asked to meet in your classroom. AIT in the Classroom is designed for high school science classrooms such as Earth Science, Environmental Science, and Physics, but the materials can also be used in Civics classes, middle school science classes and offer Service Learning opportunities as well.
We’ve also broken up the AIT in the Classroom curriculum into distinct downloadable PDF files to 1) make the downloads smaller and faster and 2) enable you to download only the lessons you want to use. Of course, if you want the entire program in one file, we’ve made that possible, too. Your choice.
This site also serves as a resource for you to share ideas with other teachers. To get started, simply register and download the curriculum. Be sure to come back and share your comments, ideas and suggestions through the blog.
* Tier One – The Green Mile to School (672 KB). For this one-day lesson, students are challenged to examine their personal activities and estimate their own impact, while finding ways to reduce damage to our environment.
* Tier Two – Think Globally, Act Locally (894 KB). The stage for this week-long program is set by viewing a series of DVD chapters that detail the science of global warming and culminate with a focus on the Kyoto Treaty and on the U.S. cities that are taking matters into their own hands.
* Tier Three – Small Steps Mean Smaller Footprints (1.2 MB). This semester-long program is highly project-based. After discussing climate change and renewable energies, students will interact with large sets of scientific data and draw conclusions from those interactions. Focusing on their conclusions, students will take action to present their findings to local government representatives, community members, or the PTA.
* Full Curriculum - AIT in the Classroom (3.3 MB).
While donations for Participate.net are solicited, the goals are to disseminate information which corporate controlled media does not. You may have to prove you are a teacher to download the above AIT programs. I didn’t check and you do have to provide evidence you are a teacher to get the free DVD. However, those skeptics who stated above that if Gore and AIT producers wanted to get this info out they should make it free on the web perhaps didn’t look to see if it indeed was available.