Can't Handle the Truth? - Updated

I recently blogged about how the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) rejected an offer of 50,000 free An Inconvenient Truth DVDs. The NSTA, according to Laurie David, expressed "concern that other ‘special interests' might ask to distribute materials, too" and refused to make a "political" endorsement of the film, fearing that taking the offer would place "‘unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters."

According to David, these multi-million-dollar supporters include Exxon Mobil, Shell Oil, ConocoPhillips and the American Petroleum Institute (API)--which once produced a video distributed by API called "You Can't Be Cool Without Fuel."

The NSTA immediately denied David's charges of bowing to its Big Oil backers. But in a scathing HuffPo post yesterday, David writes:

New evidence flatly contradicts statements NSTA has made in defense of its suspect partnerships, and efforts appear to be underway to wipe out online evidence showing that what the oil industry got in exchange was the group's imprimatur on classroom videos, teaching guides, and other "educational" materials that play down threats like global warming and play up the glories of continued oil dependence.

While the NSTA rejected the Truth DVDs on the grounds that accepting them would violate its 2001 policy against endorsements, David points out that the policy "didn't stop them from shipping out 20,000 copies of a whopping 10-part video funded by ConocoPhillips in 2003." The series, which credits NSTA Executive Director Gerald Wheeler as an executive producer, cites only one scientist in its "largely dismissive global warming section," according to David. The scientist is Dr. Robert Balling, "a well known global warming skeptic" who has acknowledged taking at least $400,000 from the fossil fuel industry.

David also alleges that the NSTA-- which claimed it had cut off its relations with the American Petroleum Institute five years ago-- had in fact, not, until the story was publicized in recent weeks. According to David, evidence of persisting ties between the NSTA and the API have been suspiciously removed from both of their websites.

The fact that the NSTA feels it needs to rely upon Big Oil in order to support itself is pretty tragic in and of itself. But what's really tragic is the fact that Big Oil's reach is so expansive that it actually creeps into America's classrooms--working to prevent young people from learning about the enormous global problem that they are going to inherit. If anyone needs to see this film, it's young people, because they are going to be dealing with a world ravaged by climate change.

As if this story isn't shocking--and sad--enough already, get this: Wheeler has admitted that he hasn't even seen An Inconvenient Truth.

Comments (23)

1. She's still feeling rejected....

   Posted by ACook at 12/09/2006 @ 10:06pm

2. Asked it jokingly the FIRST time, but maybe it's accurate...

   if the NSTA DID take those DVDs, and Al Gore begins his run for President next year (as any viable candidate would have to)...

   aren't they engaging in CAMPAIGNING for Gore?

   Posted by Mask at 12/09/2006 @ 10:13pm

3. The real goal of all of this is bigger government on a global scale. Just like the "war on terror," 'global warming" is another scam designed to herd us like sheep.

   Posted by FREIHEIT 12/09/2006 @ 9:51pm

   French FREI: I was saddened to see this post by you.

   Global warming is far from being a scam. It is measureable and is already happening.

   Think about how easy it is to read a thermometer. It isn't rocket science! It is so easy.

   It barely requires effort. And nearly any computer can be set up to read a thermometer as well - making it so easy that it reminds me of that infomercial: "Set it and forget it."

   Then there is the simple task of measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide, oceanic carbon dioxide, carbon equivalents in the atmosphere, etc.

   Global warming is a known fact, established science.

   Please, I beg you, get your head out of the sand before it is too late!!!

   BTW, it is interesting to see this post tonight, since I just saw "An Inconvenient Truth" last night! But I knew about global warming long before Al Gore made his movie.

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/09/2006 @ 10:25pm

4. ILOVEPHYSICS, if Laurie David and her crew wants to get their product to the market (so to speak...) they need to come up with a better marketing plan instead of wasting time on the few groups that aren't interested or impressed. Sometimes you have to learn to go around obstacles.

   Posted by ACook at 12/09/2006 @ 10:45pm

5. ACOOK, you are right, of course, but that isn't the point.

   The point is, we have global warming. It is happening NOW. It is time for people to get their heads out of the sand, quit playing politics, and start working to solve the problem.

   The most frustrating part of the whole issue, for me anyway, is that we ALREADY have all the technology we need to reduce our carbon emissions to pre-1970 levels!!! And we are not doing it :(

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/09/2006 @ 10:54pm

6. Posted by FREIHEIT 12/09/2006 @ 9:51pm | ignore this person

   let's go real sci fi here, what if Bush made the speech where he deplores global warming, and is determined to do something about it. he has done a similar thing with aids, I believe. let's also believe Gore and Laurie David had long ago perished in a crash. would you still be posting the same Verfolgungswahn posts? or would you realize that the millions of scientists, and the millions of people concerned don't have counter agendas, or hidden agendas. in other words what happens when you give the excoriated messengers the benefit of the doubt? how do you think we should respond? you work in a field that is largely based on science, if not entirely. you trust those scientists, their methods. you are familiar with them. you know for instance that a theory in science is already something that can be tested and verified. before that it is a hypothesis. you know all of this. yet you seem to be chasing almost Rese like conspiracies. I see you as a skeptical person, you see, I give you the benefit of the doubt. I would be skeptical of the debunkers.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 12/09/2006 @ 10:58pm

7. The real goal of all of this is bigger government on a global scale. Just like the "war on terror," 'global warming" is another scam designed to herd us like sheep.

   Posted by FREIHEIT

   If that were true, Republicans would've gotten on board with it years ago.

   Posted by Left is Right at 12/09/2006 @ 11:25pm

8. And then there is this:

   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml? xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml

   (be sure to remove the space between the "?" and the "x")

   and this:

   http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece

   Maybe we should continue with research before force-feeding Al Gore's GW hysterics to our youth.

   Posted by usc1 at 12/10/2006 @ 10:35pm

9. Posted by USC1 12/10/2006 @ 10:35pm | ignore this person

   Try this one USC...

   http://www.motherjones.com/toc/2006/11/index.html

   Posted by Lillian at 12/10/2006 @ 10:47pm

10. Posted by LEFT IS RIGHT 12/09/2006 @ 11:25pm

    Spot on!

    Posted by drhammer at 12/11/2006 @ 11:06am

11. From Wikipedia:

    "A 2004 essay in the journal Science [15] reported a survey of abstracts of peer-reviewed research articles related to global climate change in the ISI database. Out of over 900 such abstracts found, none contradicted the view of the major scientific organizations that "the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling"."

    Additionally, a large percentage of those who deny climate change or our human contribution to it are members of, or receive funds from "astroturf" groups which are in turn funded by the petroleum industry.

    I've seen all manner of rationalization and apology here, but I remain amazed by the number of people who are not outraged by the notion that corporate money could trump science in our educational system.

    Posted by drhammer at 12/11/2006 @ 11:29am

12. Questions for the global warming crowd.

    1. How many homes does Laurie David own? My understanding is at least three very large homes. And she flies on private jets. Just how is she more fuel effecient than little ole me that has one home and flies commercial?

    2. So its NOT ok to accept money from oil companies that do have an agenda but is ok to accept fund from environmental groups that also have an agenda. How does that work? Are we common folk just too stupid to hear both sides of the arguement?

    3. Last hurrican season was predicted to be way above normal and came in below normal. if the "experts" cannot predict the weather six months out, how can they do it 20, 50 or one hunred years out?

    4. Finally, since Russia, India , China and the rest of the third world is not goin to cut greenhouse gases why should we destroy out economy in the hope that maybe it will make a difference?

    Posted by vrwc at 12/11/2006 @ 2:15pm

13. VRCW:

    1) It is irrelevant what individual consumers do - the only way to solve this problem is to create market incentives to decrease carbon emissions. Additionally, this ad hominem attack does not disprove global warming, or the need to address the problem.

    2) Environmental groups have an agenda - protecting the environment. Therefore they rightfully highlight the risks posed by the system under which we function. They highlight the dangers of the continuing pollution of our environment. Oil companies have a different agenda. Their goal is to maximize shareholder profits (the inherent goal of any traditional corporation). Therefore they want to keep demand as high as possible. Demand is threatened if a growing consensus of Americans recognize the damage caused by the burning of oil. Consistent with this goal, they work to undermine the science of global warming. If they can sow doubt into the minds of the public, they can protect demand. Oil companies realize they can change the mind of the "common folk" even without a rational basis because the "common folk" are not scientists and will listen less carefully to the scientific arguments presented to them.

    3) Statistical analysis. The larger the sample size, the greater the reliability of the statistical outcome. While it is difficult for climate scientists to predict the outcome of any individual weather pattern, they can reliably gauge the change over time over the globe.

    4) This is no argument to stick your head in the sand. The enormity of the problem is a reason to be proactive, just like the environmentalists you decry are attempting to do. The longer we wait, the more intractable the problem becomes.

    Finally, VRCW, it's important to note that climate science could prove a great boon to the American economy. We are global technology leaders. We are also great at using a capitalist system to spur innovation. These skills are especially vital if we want to solve this problem. If we can unite the political will behind eradication of this problem, we can make huge amounts of money selling our technology to consumers all across the globe. Individual businesses are ready to take conservation technology to the next level, if only our government would create incentives for that action.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 12/11/2006 @ 5:30pm

14. Finally, VRCW, it's important to note that climate science could prove a great boon to the American economy.

    Posted by NATTIEBUMPO 12/11/2006 @ 5:30pm | ignore this person

    I just read that a guy in China named Zhengrong Shi, the seventh-richest man in China and worth some $1.5 Billion, made his fortune selling photo voltaic cells. And, although the price is set to drop some 10% next year, the expectation is that demand will soar and Mr. Shi will become even richer!

    In fact, by all accounts, China may be poised to become the world leader in the production of PVs, with it's percentage of the world's total PV production capacity growing from 1% to some 20% in just 5 short years.

    Posted by Lillian at 12/11/2006 @ 6:44pm

15. NB:

    You'll have a tough time convincing most people when they realize that the IPCC (the same people who brought us GW hysteria) admits that even if every country on the planet signed on and stuck to Kyoto, we might be able to affect temperatures by less than 1 degree by 2050. Maybe. And that's ignoring the whole bugaboo about the hockey stick graph (upon which GW hysteria is based) being proven faulty.

    Posted by usc1 at 12/11/2006 @ 9:00pm

16. I checked the web page that USC1 is suggesting. It reminded me of Reagan's diatribe against killer trees, but the most deceitful part of the attempt to blame cows for all our troubles is that the cows themselves are a relatively small part of the picture. Most of it is the way that they are managed which is one of the many things that needs to be corrected to reduce global warming. After all, the number of cattle worldwide is not much different now than it was several generations ago. In the US, the cattle numbers have fallen dramatically in the last 50 years. So why is the situation getting worse? Because cattle aren't the biggest problem. USC1's article blamed them for only 18% of the problem and that was including all the mismanagement. That means that the other 82% came from somewhere else. Don't be fooled by the statement that animal husbandry causes more global warming than transportation. The big CO2 producers are the power plants, both coal and natural gas. The big methane producers are the bacteria that are responsible for decomposing organic material and are part of the positive feedback cycle involving the tundra, woodlands and other sites which are releasing more methane as the temperatures climb. Rice paddies are a major source of methane production, more than cattle ever thought of being. The tipping point comes when the positive feedback cycle, otherwise known as a vicious cycle, gets going to the point it can't be stopped. Some real climatologists are afraid that the tipping point is 10 - 20 years off. Others hope for more time. Don't bet that we haven't already hit it.

    Posted by danmiller at 12/12/2006 @ 12:51am

17. The types of responses that the antiglobal warming crowd has been making are eeriely reminiscent of the types of arguments that the creationists make defending their faith based position against demostrable facts. If there was ever proof that our educational system has failed, this is it. Critical thinking is subsumed by faith. Logical thought processes go by the wayside. Reminds me of a cartoon I saw with two movie theatres, one showing An Inconvenient Truth and the other A Reassuring Lie. Guess which one had a long line at the ticket window.

    Posted by danmiller at 12/12/2006 @ 01:04am

18. "The real goal of all of this is bigger government on a global scale. Just like the "war on terror," 'global warming" is another scam designed to herd us like sheep."

    This is misapplied conspiracy theory. The War on Terror and the Drug War were brought to us by politicians with a great deal to gain by scaring people into compliance. One is properly skeptical on any political program that kills people.

    Climate Change is not brought to us by a small group of power-hungry scientists. It is the consensus view across the globe over a long period of time.

    Unfortunately, politically attuned people tend to evaluate science as they would politicians. Big mistake. When the scientific establishment speaks with one voice, they are ignored at our peril.

    There are two differences between politics and science. First, reputations are made - and grants won - by discovery and overturning old ideas. These ideas must be tested by other labs before being accepted. Second, the gold standard of science is observable fact, while the standard for the politician is public perception and money in the coffers. One remains rooted to reality, the other gravitates towards manipulation and fraud.

    Who are the skeptics of human-caused climate change? Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson and politicians who have already demonstrated the required criminality to put party and personal welfare above national and global welfare. Big Oil pays better than civic responsibility. To my knowledge, politicians who support Bush's War also oppose efforts to mitigate climate change.

    Posted by thunderclap at 12/12/2006 @ 07:15am

19. DM:

    If there was ever proof that our educational system has failed, this is it. Critical thinking is subsumed by faith. Logical thought processes go by the wayside.

    Good point. Now, is it considered "good" science to tweak your climate computer models until you get the results that you want? Second, is it valid or even accurate to apply those methods to the future? (hint: no and no) But I bet that part of the discussion wouldn't even be broached with students.

    Getting back to the post, would you support allowing the dissenting opinions of climate experts into the classroom as well? I bet Laurie David would not.

    Posted by usc1 at 12/12/2006 @ 09:12am

20. USC1: There are so few dissenting scientists that to let them into the classroom would be a tacit repudiation of the overwhelming majority. There will always be skeptics when it comes to a huge scientific question, so there existence disproves nothing. Did you ever take a science class? If so, you must realize that what drives science is a thirst for understanding. So there may be a conspiracy of scientists to alert the public to global warming, but that conspiracy is driven by a desire to educate rather than a desire to get big bucks.

    Second, in reference to your 9:00 post, the inadequacy of Kyoto is widely acknowledged, and proves nothing.

    Lillian:

    Wow, that's amazing! I think this just goes to show that if we listen to the doubters we will be not only encouraging further warming and the disaster that implies, but also be left behind in the race for technological advancement.

    This is the most effective way we can encourage economic advancement in America. If the USA puts is considerable political muscle behind the issue of global warming, we can spur action. We can create viable carbon markets! We can give investors confidence in the notion that America will pay for carbon reduction. Market theory teaches that once we have demand (for carbon reduction), supply will increase to compensate. Further, the more demand there is, the more efficient the market can become. We can find efficient ways to reduce carbon usage that we can sell to other countries.

    All you doubters are hurting the US economy!!! How in the world will American automobile manufacturers guard their market share unless they are pushed toward efficient technology? The only way to increase our manufacturing industry is to find a new way forward. Toyota is kicking butts because it makes cars the whole world wants. America only makes cars Americans want. If Americans wanted the same cars (efficient ones) as the rest of the world, maybe our carmakers would get the message and revamp their efforts.

    Solar technology, wind power, hydrogen, nuclear - we need to pressure the market!

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 12/12/2006 @ 12:58pm

21. NB:

    There are so few dissenting scientists that to let them into the classroom would be a tacit repudiation of the overwhelming majority.

    So, now you are squashing dissenting opinions? What happened to science being driven by a thirst for understanding? Copernicus is lucky he wasn't born in the 20th century. Speaking of squashing debate, how much have you heard about the faults of the "hockey stick?"

    There will always be skeptics when it comes to a huge scientific question, so there existence disproves nothing.

    Nor is a majority proof of anything. Just ask the global cooling alarmists from the '70s.

    that conspiracy is driven by a desire to educate rather than a desire to get big bucks.

    Don't forget the desire to get approval for more funding. GW scientists are just as guilty.

    Posted by usc1 at 12/12/2006 @ 2:17pm

22. "The entire ruse is an effort to create a new world order. Sorry to sound like Rese, but this is the truth. Both the global war on terror and global warming are pages in the same playbook."

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/12/2006 @ 3:12pm

    Wow! And I though I was paranoid.

    Too bad the "war on drugs" folks can't find irrefutable, overwhelming facts to support their false ideology.

    Too bad "losing" with global warming will destroy all of us, not just the "users" of the fossil fuels.

    Horrible analogy.

    Care to conflate the "war on drugs" with the "war on terror"? Both of these are direct assaults on your civil liberties, not remotely supported by scientific evidence.

    Or is your problem with science, which vindicates global warming, yet provides no support for a "war" on drugs or terror?

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/13/2006 @ 11:53am

23. I respectfully suggest you keep your head in the sand, so you don't drown out, those who are trying to effect positive change in this world.

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/13/2006 @ 11:54am