Politics and 'An Inconvenient Truth'

Frogbeater writes "The producer of 'An Inconvenient Truth' is accusing the National Science Teachers Association of being in the pocket of Big Oil because she can't get preferential treatment for her film. The entire situation is turning into a 'if you're not with us, you're against us' yelling match. Regardless of the viewpoint, is it even possible that science can remain apolitical? Has it ever been?" The Washington Post makes things out to be less than above board: "In the past year alone, according to its Web site, Exxon Mobil's foundation gave $42 million to key organizations that influence the way children learn about science, from kindergarten until they graduate from high school ... NSTA's list of corporate donors also includes Shell Oil and the American Petroleum Institute (API), which funds NSTA's Web site on the science of energy. There, students can find a section called 'Running on Oil' and read a page that touts the industry's environmental track record -- citing improvements mostly attributable to laws that the companies fought tooth and nail, by the way -- but makes only vague references to spills or pollution. NSTA has distributed a video produced by API called 'You Can't Be Cool Without Fuel,' a shameless pitch for oil dependence."

Comments

Random questions and comments

[UbuntuDupe]

-Hypothetical: Let's say you run a business, and people start making what you believe to be baseless accusations about the environmental impact of your business. What do you do? NO, WAIT: You can't fund anyone who tries to scientifically demonstrate the invalidity of the accusations, because that taints the research, right?

-I remember seeing in science class a movie produced by Exxon about the Valdez oil spill. While it was propaganda, I also remember the teacher pointing out all the flaws and telling everyone that it was Exxon's propaganda. "Oh, look at this part, where they act like everything's all peachy now."

-Oh, so *now* you care about teachers' associations getting political. Just not when they oppose any whiff of school choice.

-Should no research into oil be funded by oil companies? Even basic research into hydrocarbon chemistry? That seems to be the implication.

-To answer the question: yes, science can remain apolitical, as long as it rigidly adheres to the scientfic principles of reproducibility and transparency. That's what makes science science: Even if someone refuses to believe you, it doesn't matter. Other people can perform their own corroborating experiments. Even if someone believes it to be all voodoo, you can then go out and continue to make valid predictions that result in useful services. And then anyone is free to propose alternate theories that match the data better.

When the above isn't possible, science can become political. When you can't make a thousand copies of the earth, causally separate them, randomly vary emissions, wait a hundred years, and run a regression, people have all the room the in world to reject your theories since it can't have the repeated empirical validation science relies on. When you can't engineer an entire planet's existence, start a weather system, wait a billion years, and see complex organisms evolve, you again don't have the repeated empirical validation science relies on. BEFORE YOU FLAME ME OR MOD ME DOWN, I'm not trying to dispute global warming or evolution, but rather, just pointing that you can't come up with the plain-as-day prediction and validation you can in other areas.

Re:Random questions and comments

[thatguywhoiam]

-To answer the question: yes, science can remain apolitical, as long as it rigidly adheres to the scientfic principles of reproducibility and transparency. That's what makes science science: Even if someone refuses to believe you, it doesn't matter. Other people can perform their own corroborating experiments. Even if someone believes it to be all voodoo, you can then go out and continue to make valid predictions that result in useful services. And then anyone is free to propose alternate theories that match the data better.

So what happens when the other party refuses or is incapable of 'performing their own corroborating experiments'? What if they tell you that God has decreed that this science is wrong? What are you supposed to do with that?

Re:Random questions and comments

[aicrules]

You are a complete idiot for disputing global warming or evolution...I think you are not just pointing that you can't come up with the plain-as-day prediction and validation you can in other areas.

BEFORE YOU FLAME ME OR MOD ME DOWN, I'm not trying to dispute global warming or evolution, but rather, just pointing that you can't come up with the plain-as-day prediction and validation you can in other areas.

...oops...sorry, ignore that first part. Very well thought out message!

Re:Random questions and comments

[SatanicPuppy]

This is always the counter argument..."As long as we hold true to our principles it doesn't matter where the money comes from."

This is fine as long as everyone does hold to their principles, as long as there is someone there to point out that, in fact, X, Y, or Z piece of propaganda is propaganda.

History is rife with examples of corporate special interests skewing research about their products through carefully chosen grants and commissioned studies. Lead, Tobacco, DDT, Oil; hell, you even get a lot of it in government sponsored hydro power, because if the people who make dams run out of places to put dams their jobs go away.

It's real easy to say, "We can keep our principles and take their money" but history shows that that's just not true. You take their money, you drink their kool-aid, you sacrifice your principles, and you produce biased research.

It's like a politician saying, "Just because this lobbyist gave me a million dollars, doesn't mean I'm going to vote the way he wants me to." Come on. You're only fooling yourself.

Re:Random questions and comments

[UbuntuDupe]

That's my point -- you don't need their approval. You make predictions routinely. They are correct routinely. You apply these predictions to perform something useful routinely, that maybe this zealot actually uses routinely! What does it matter if he does or doesn't endorse it? The fact that you are performing a useful service (predicting the fall of objects, building structures, etc.) suffices as evidence that the science is valid enough for those services to be performed (by tautology).

When you have no service to perform that relies on this science, then you have no real-world check.

Re:Random questions and comments

[spellraiser]

... people start making what you believe to be baseless accusations about the environmental impact of your business.

I disagree with the assumption that the oil companies truly believe that global warming is a nonexistent threat. Remember big tobacco? They persisted in denying that cigarettes causes cancer, etc. all the while knowing full well that this was false.

A quote which is attributed to Friedman goes: "The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders." Taken to the limit, this means that a company will take any action neccessary to secure and guard profits.

I'm one of the people who believes that this is exactly what most big corporations do. Call me cynical, but I think a lot of empirical data supports this theory.

Re:Random questions and comments

[Frumious Wombat]

We do what we've always done; use indirect measures and accumulated evidence to reduce our uncertainty, then make extrapolations based upon the reproducible data. Go to your nearest university library and look up Tom Ray's work on the Tierra simulator, or read a few physics journals to find out what goes into those climate models that you're implicitly rejecting. (hint: lots of physics, parameters derived from measurements as appropriate, and endless validation runs) Other people are free to use the same equations, write their own simulation, and if they aren't deliberately feeding the models misinformation, will converge to a result within some confidence interval similar to yours, presuming you did your job correctly as well.

I make my living as a computational chemist, and while I know that we're neglecting many terms in our solutions, reproducible results come back, that agree to varying degrees of confidence to experimental results. Furthermore, we understand how to improve those results, and make rational time/accuracy/resource trade-offs to get the answers we need to the precision required.

In short, while I've never directly observed an oxygen molecule, accumulated indirect evidence has caused me to believe in them. It has also led to the conclusion that removing them from my immediate environment is bad. Same for your examples. Come up with a reasoned set of arguments that explain why a couple thousand physicists or biologists are all wrong, send out some papers and get yourself slotted into a presentation at a conference, and have at. You're free to try, and that's what the process is all about.

Re:Random questions and comments

[jstomel]

As someone who has been trained in scientific ethics I can answer your questions. Research funded by industry into the effects of that company will be viewed as valid if the following conditions are met. 1) The scientist performing the research is independent of the company. He can be funded by grant from the company, but must be independent of it's internal organizational structure and to hiring/firing pressures. 2) Said scientist must have free reign in his choice of methods and staff. 3) Results must be published in peer reviewed independent journals regardless of what those results show and without editing/review of the company funding the research. 4) The results must be repeatable by independent labs. and finally, 5) Said scientist must not receive any personal mony or "bonus" from the company at any point before or after the research. If these conditions are met then the research is generally considered to be unbiased. Many companies follow these guidelines as a matter of course, especially drug companies. But we're not really talking about companies funding research, are we? We're talking about companies being able to buy the beliefs in which your children are forcefully indoctrinated by the state. And that's wrong.

Re:Random questions and comments

[yankpop]

I think you're missing the bigger issue here. There is not necessarily any problem with the oil industry doing their own research, and disseminating that research to teachers. It becomes a problem when they are allowed to buy access that other groups don't have. In this case they've been treated as loving benefactors, and the teachers have willingly accepted their message along with their cash. But when another group tries to offer a different viewpoint, they are labeled special interest and shut out of the process.

What's the real difference between what the offerings of the oil companies and the film-makers? Both have a vested interest in the issue, and both have done substantial research on the subject, research that merits careful consideration. But one is welcomed and the other is marginalized. The only difference, obviously, is cash.

It would be different if this were a fringe environmental group advocating a return to the stone-age or something, but it's not. It's a very conscientious group trying to advance a carefully researched opinion. They're not even asking for equal time. They just want to make their material available, presumably allowing individual teachers to decide how to present the information.

Underlying the whole issue, as the author points out, is that the teachers aren't really bad guys here. They've been forced into a corner by dwindling budgets, and its now so bad that corporate sponsorship trumps curriculum content. That's frightening.

yp.

Re:Random questions and comments

[fistfullast33l]

That's my point -- you don't need their approval. You make predictions routinely. They are correct routinely.

The problem with this argument is that you assume your predictions come true the majority of the time. In many cases, environmental science especially, this assumption is not true. So what happens when you make your predictions and those predictions are wrong? While I think that his book on environmental theory was a bit of a sham, Michael Crichton definitely had a good idea when he proposed that scientists should be separated from donors - all research grants should either be anonymous or via the government, which as NASA and NOAA would attest, is never biased.

Re:Random questions and comments

[UbuntuDupe]

Come up with a reasoned set of arguments that explain why a couple thousand physicists or biologists are all wrong,

To be "wrong" means their model doesn't match the real world. And that's my point: it doesn't matter how complex and cool and difficult to understand your model is; all that matter is, does it make valid predictions? Your focus is on whether someone can reproduce the model's result rather than whether the model matches reality:

Other people are free to use the same equations, write their own simulation, and if they aren't deliberately feeding the models misinformation, will converge to a result within some confidence interval similar to yours, presuming you did your job correctly as well.

If the model were making valid predictions (the same model, that is), you could parade an endless list: our model predicted this climate change in this region, and this increase this this kind of weather activity. No, not the past. I mean, predict it *now* and see if it bears out in the future. But obviously, you aren't getting that, or it would be used ad infinitum to shut up global warming skeptics.

Again, my point is not that the models themselves are without basis, just that it is difficult if not impossible to do the empirical tests that will determine if they are valid.

Re:Random questions and comments

[fastcoke11]

4) The results must be repeatable by independent labs.This seems to me to be a reason why all labs should be independent (that is, free of direct funding from groups interested in selling said results to the public to their benefit). Why do we have a possibly compromised lab doing work that is just going to be repeated by an independent lab? Why don't we just cut out the middle-man?

Re:Random questions and comments

[MoralHazard]

Taken to the limit, this means that a company will take any action neccessary to secure and guard profits.

You totally misunderstood Friedman's point, probably because you never read Friedman, but instead took the quote out of context.

First of all, in the section of his book where he makes the quote you pulled, he's not talking about how companies do behave, he's talking about how he thinks the should behave. Friedman argues that corporations engage in all kinds of frivolous charity, making donations to causes and such, and that they should stop. Instead, corporations should return those profits to their shareholders, and let the shareholders make charitable donations as they wish.

Second of all, Friedman didn't believe that corporations should take any action necessary to secure profit. His understanding of corporate responsibility is the commonly-accepted, rational one: corporate businesses, like all businesses, individuals, non-profits, clubs, or other human agencies, should obey the law equally. In other words, if corporations take less-than-optimal actions, and they're not breaking the law, you need to change the law, not the corporation.

Your interpretation is akin to saying that Winston Churchill was a big supporter of Hitler--it's the exact opposite of the facts.

Re:Random questions and comments

[jadavis]

more interest in pushing their political agenda than teaching science

If I read that out of context, I would guess you were talking about the environmentalists.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Re:Random questions and comments

[UbuntuDupe]

Well, I guess when all else fails, there's the strawman.

None of the models can tell you with a high degree of certainty what the temperature in a given city will be on a given day, or the average on a given week,

I didn't set this standard, an in fact, was careful not to. If you follow the advice in my sig, you'll see that what I actually said was "you could parade an endless list: our model predicted this climate change in this region, and this increase this this kind of weather activity." Note the level of generality I was expecting out of the model.

Most useful scientific models do NOT match reality 100%.

Another standard I didn't set.

Elsewhere you're stating my position while thinking you're disagreeing with it.

(well, you do have to wait a while to find out if the predicted global average temperature for 2006 matches reality, you know what I mean?)

Yeah, I do know what you mean. Exactly what you mean. You can't claim a model is valid until it's had some ... validation. Like, put your neck on the line, and THEN see if you're right.

My point was that there is a lot of data you have to gather to claim validation -- data that doesn't exist yet.

And even though you're dismissing models that accurately predict past events.. they are very good tests for the simulations.

No, they're not. They're proof that you curve-fitted to the past 80 years. Whether that curve is *right* ... well, that takes future data.

Data you don't have.

If you can just get over the emotional reaction of defending your life's work, you'll see that I'm just pointing out the necessary things you have to do to validate the model. Until the model can consistently predict, there's no reason to endorse it, for the same reason you want to wait to actually see planetary motions before endorsing Kepler's theory. It's great if you have a theory for the past data, but true science requires being able to predict the future.

It's amazing -- I'm just stating basic scientific principles and you're probably going to accuse me of spreading doubt.

Re:Random questions and comments

[Frumious Wombat]

No, my argument is how well do our models reproduce reality. Models that fail that test are discarded. White-earth models of the 70s were the result of not enough factors and too large of grids. Current models with smaller cell sizes, better hydrodynamic codes, and more atmospheric factors included (reflective aerosols, additional greenhouse gases, etc) can reproduce climate trends, within certain error ranges, rather well. If you read the primary literature, you will see that given a suitable start point (parameters chosen from historical data, ice cores, tree growth patterns, etc.), you can reproduce climate trends leading to now rather well. That data is being presented, those models are out there and validated, and the skeptics are hiding behind, "well, you haven't sat around watching first-hand for a few thousand years, so your model is untrustworthy." If you read the primary literature (or you've spent any time doing simulations in physical science), you'll know that these results come both with error bars, and with internal checks and validations. Again, from chemistry, using a variety of codes based upon different numerical approximations to the underlying physics, if you want molecular structures or vibrational frequencies, we can get those within a percent or less. Relative energetics, about 4-12 KJ/mol, if we are willing to spend the time, farther away but with a known error range if not. We can also compare them with real-world data from a variety of sources, which demonstrates the generality of the models, as models based upon widely differing approximations (plane-wave DFT, localized orbital post-Hartree-Fock perturbation theory, etc) converge to results which agree with each other and the available experimental data to within measured precision. Once again, science is a process, and it deals in probabilities. There is some percent chance (large by current estimates), that we are contributing to global climate change, and one of the results will be a rise in sea levels. There is some chance (small) that there is a teapot orbiting Neptune (with apologies to P. W. Atkins for stealing his example). Therefore, policy-wise, I would worry about preventing flooding in coastal cities, but not necessarily worry about whether to take Earl Grey or Darjeeling on a trip to Neptune.

There are two issues: what do we accept as close enough to correct to believe and use to make further predictions or policy recommendations, and to what extent do we act? The issue becomes, do we do nothing, or do we take reasonable (i.e. presuming the results in the range of greatest confidence) action? Shutting down all carbon emissions is extreme, especially in light of the role played by methane and other gases. On the other hand, preparing coastal cities at very low elevations for raised sea-levels and increased storm-surges is not. You may say that it's only computer fictions reproducing historical results (from a starting configuration, may we add, not from adjustments along the way), but that will be cold comfort to the bankers on Wall Street who get to pump out their offices from the storm surge the simulations predicted 40 years before, but you wouldn't act on because "the models only reproduced historical trends, not current events".

Again, these simulations are based on the same physics used to predict wind-resistance in cars, aerodynamics of new airplanes, stresses that bridges can withstand, and behaviour of new microchips. You will notice how many events such as that on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge have occurred since finite-element modeling came into widespread use by civil engineers. The models aren't perfect, but they reproduce reality to a sufficient extent to use them to make predictions, with those predictions having confidence ranges associated with them. Unfortunately, what gets reported in the general press lacks those ranges, and only reports what is most sensational and will sell the most media. Spend some time looking at how any of these simulations (climate, hydrodynamic, q

Re:Random questions and comments

[WhiplashII]

As a scientist, I am sure that you have studied statistics - but you may have fallen into a common trap of those with a scientific mind. That is, to create a model based on past data and then to believe it when it makes predictions wildly divergent from said past data. When the model is making predictions that are outside of it's experience you are in a danger zone.

For example - I know that the complex models you describe are missing at least one critical element: Methane has stopped increasing for unknown reasons. Methane is an important green house gas, and not modelling this behaviour may invalidate the model. Why did we not forsee this? Because the model was based on past data, which has never included humans farming at the level we are today. Are they completely invalidated? Who knows!

Your branch of science is much further developed - because people made predictions based on past data, and then verified those predictions! Even then, the predictions are not always correct, even after a millenia of improvement. (For example, rocket fuel formulations almost never work exactly as predicted - they are all on the edge of stability, and without actual testing you cannot know which side of the edge they are on).

Making models and running past data through them until the output matches is not science. That approach suffers from a form of survival bias - you keep changing the model until it matches, but that doesn't mean you can predict the future.

The stock market exhibits the same behavior. Many people come up with algorithms to predict the markets using past data. They all fail when run on future data. It's just not science!

Re:Random questions and comments

[bogjobber]

I would suggest, if you haven't already, to read the book The Corporation or watch the movie of the same name. It makes some very interesting points. It is definitely "biased" but it provides sound arguments and generally doesn't devolve into Michael Moore like mudslinging. One of the main points I got out of it (and from other places) is that you really can't treat corporations like people.

Corporations, especially the huge multinationals, are amoral and any individual person is not responsible for the actions of the corporation unless they act illegally. That is where they differ from the rest of society. The entire purpose of the corporation is to create wealth for the stockholders while removing any personal responsibility from either the stockholders or the employees of the company. Most of the time this is in the best interest of society, but when it goes wrong it goes very, very wrong.

Your claim that corporations should be treated the same as other things in our society is just flat out wrong. When corporations act unethically (which is a huge difference than illegally), more often than not it is because the people involved are just doing their job. Many, many scientific studies have shown that people will put away their personal beliefs and do some very bad things if they believe what they are doing is part of their duty or some authority has authorized it. An obvious example is the experiment where people believed they were torturing a man by shocking him but did so anyway because of the doctor telling them it was ok. This is even more true when the acts aren't as morally repugnant and the decision making is further removed from one person.

Regulating everything equally throughout society with respect to corporations is just not possible. Corporations are given special exemptions by law, and it follows that they should face special regulations. If we really wanted everything to be "equal" we would create laws disallowing people from forming corporations. That way they would have to take personal responsibility for the way their companies act. That, of course, would be financial suicide. Conducting business should not be an unbearable risk for people. It should, however, benefit society, and that is why extra rules are needed to keep corporations in check.

Re:Random questions and comments

[hey!]

Yours apparently is "makes money from".

You could only thing that if you didn't read very carefully. A report can be considered an unbiased authority if it has gone through the process of independent review by people of different opinions. As I noted, it could well have been paid for.

I believe that you have a bias on this issue (just like everyone else), even though you have basically nothing at stake other than your ego (just like everyone else).

But you make my argument for me. People as you say cannot totally rid themselves of their personal biases. It's not even necessarily desirable that they do so. What makes privately published study A less authoritative than a journal published study B is the kind of scrutiny it was subjected to. Private publications are reviewed to ensure they reach the conclusions desired by their publishers. Journal published articles are reveiwed for completeness, accuracy, fairness, and ability to stand up to adversarial examination. Both studies could be funded by the same organization and reach the same conclusions, and it still would not matter. A would be less authoritative than B.

For me, bias is best described by: you would not change your desired outcome even if the experiment had the opposite result.

This is not a verifiable standard, because it is premised on observations that can only be made in situations contrary to fact. It's usually best to look at the statement, not the person making it, and certainly not a hypothetical projectsion of that person's behavior in situations that haven't happened.

I'd suggest that attributing authority to a statement is proper if (a) if it hsa been subject to independent scrutiny and found reasonable and (b) no more authority is ascribed to it than contrary statements that have survived equal or greater scrutiny.

Re:Random questions and comments

[AK Marc]

If a corporation does, it's because the people running it and owning it have decided, AS HUMAN BEINGS, to engage in that behavior.

Well, given that it is illegal to take actions that reduce shareholder value and the "moral duty" of a corporation is to increase shareholder value, I would argue that it is the moral imperative that corporations lie. Well, not exactly lie, but that they say whatever they think will best help their bottom line. If it happens to be true, then all the better. If it is a lie, then it doesn't matter. It isn't about corporations being capable of lying, like any other organization. It is that corporations are the only organization that is set up in a manner where lies are apparently encouraged. Add to this that they have many of the protections of "people" but few, if any, of the drawbacks, then you have amoral entities encouraged to lie and harm with few, if any, consequences to their actions.

So saying that corporations can be unethical, or that corporations should be more tightly controlled and watched, is silly because it singles them out. If you feel that a behavior is harmful and should be regulated, just have the guts to make the statement that it should be regulated throughout society.

And I find that statement just silly. If I were to lie repeatedly to people to get them to buy something I'm making that ends up killing them, I will be unable to sell that or anything else after I'm tossed in jail for negligent homicide. When's the last time a corporation was banned from interacting with society? I'm guessing never. There is no "jail" for a corporation. When Ford saw that Pintos were going to kill people and purposefully sold something they predicted would kill people, that is a criminal act on the part of the corporation. Ford should have been shut down 100% for 5 years or more if they had the responsibilities of people. Since they have many of the rights confered to them, but few of the responsibilities, they do need to be singled out. They are completely different from people and above the law for the worst offenses, so greater regulations make sense.

Science + Money = Politics

[sycodon]

Where there's money involved, so too will there be politics.

The domain of politics is isomorphic...

[Junior J. Junior III]

...to the known universe. In other words, *everything* has a political dimension to it. Politics is unavoidable.

What needs to be avoided is not politics but the temptation to distort scientific findings and inquiries to match preconceived ideas that support entrenched political interests.

We're pretty terrible at that. But it might not take a genius amount of forethought to understand that putting Al Gore's name on the movie doesn't help to de-politicize the issue.

I mean, duh.

Re:The domain of politics is isomorphic...

[saltydogdesign]

But it might not take a genius amount of forethought to understand that putting Al Gore's name on the movie doesn't help to de-politicize the issue.

If it never becomes a political issue, it will never be addressed. The science is what it is, but once the science has been done, politics necessarily enter the scene. And what better person to put forward a political argument than a politician? They may be stinky, and we may all hate them, etc., but I'm sorry -- global warming researchers haven't got the clout or political savvy to move the issue where it needs to move. Perhaps Al Gore doesn't either, but who are you going to get? George Bush?

Reminds me of a film about Oil spills from Exxon

[Billly Gates]

A decade ago while I was in highschool I saw the film believe it or not but the teacher had the courage to tell us that Exxon had invested in the movie before we watched it. It went on how great the ecosystems were and despite the oil spill Alaska had the best salmon catch in history the following spring. THe teacher mentioned that this was an actually bad thing as those on the top of the food chain were negatively affected. Also we all laughed while the film had a diagram of most of the oil evaporating and doing little harm in Valdez. What was bad was that Exxon was not mentioned in the credits at all. Only the wetlands coalition as a major sponsor.

For those who do not know, the wetlands coalition is madeup of oil and gas companies despite the decietful name.

I swear...

[Otter]

If people just turned out the freaking lights when they left the room, it would cost them essentially zero effort, save them money and make a genuinely useful contribution to the environment, whatever the details of global warming turn out to be. It's like some people can't imagine any useful activity that doesn't involve denouncing someone else.

oooh, I have an idea...

[clambake]

Make a documentary about it!

Science?

[spikev]

I'm not saying they're not right about the NSTA being in Big Oil's pocket, but An Inconvenient Truth didn't have much in the way of science in it as far as hard numbers go. And without numbers, all of Al's pretty graphs don't mean anything. If my body temperature increases .000000001 of a degree, steadily year after year, I don't think it would amount to much. I'm not saying the science in An Inconvient Truth is wrong, it's just that the movie doesn't give any hard numbers to relate it to. I'm sure they're out there, but if I'm a science teacher and I'm going to spend valuable teaching time showing a movie, I want everything to be put together for me.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[MECC]

She's not complaining about a 'lack of preferential treatment' - she's citing that the National Science Teacher's Association rejected an offer to provide free copies of the movie to classrooms, for fear of losing money from Exxon.

From the above link:

The producers of An Inconvenient Truth have offered to supply American classrooms with 50,000 copies of the movie free of charge. That offer has been rejected by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the nation's leading science education teachers group, citing a risk to funding from key financial supporters.

One of those supporters is Exxon-Mobil.

Or if that's not enough, how about this from NSTA directly:"Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters."

Me - 1
/. Editors - 0

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[defile]

This is real inconvenient for left-wing environmentalist nuts (all of them live in cities, obviously, which are the least environmental of surroundings imaginable, but hey, let's just disregard that).

I guess by "least environmental of surroundings" you could mean that there aren't any lush forests, but while they are soul crushing, living in New York City is a more energy efficient way to live according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_New _York_City:

New York's uniquely high rate of public transit use and its pedestrian-friendly character make it one of the most energy-efficient cities in the country. Gasoline consumption in New York City is at the rate where the national average was in the 1920s.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[moheezy]

1: As Gore points out in the movie, most of the "scientists" who don't believe in Global Warming are either those who have no right to speak(Non-Ecologists) or are astroturfing. 2: Actually, you might want to look into Fusion and even Solar power. 3: You crying about their crying about Global Warming *also* does nothing for the current situation. 4: I remember reading this somewhere but A disk a couple of miles wide in diameter between the Sun & Earth(LaGrange Point) will produce enough energy to power the world. Just a thought.

This isn't new.....

[LordPhantom]

.... Seriously folks, there have been big corporations and governments trying to influence the way schools go with everything from computers to food. Advertising brought into schools to get kids to buy things. Special interest groups spending money on things schools need to get a new generation of consumers interested in them.

Try:


* Discounts from Apple, Microsoft, etc on computers (I'd link, but I'm going to go with this as a given...)
* Coca-Cola
* Book It (Pizza Hut)
* A growing trend of commercialization of sporting events and buildings
* Large amounts of money being spent by religious lobbies to support Creationist teachings in schools....
* Large amounts of money being spent to promote evolution as a science teaching in schools
* Politicians getting involved in the above 2 items
* Politics derailing attempts to get anything done about improvments in materials and course work.

Where there is money and future political mindsets involved, people will spare no amount of money and/or stupidity on all sides of a debate. It's really too bad that politics and ideology wars have to get in the way of doing what schools should be doing, give the kids the ability to think for themselves instead of telling them what to think.

Question about 'inconvenient truth' marketing...

[doug141]

A week ago slashdot had a story about the inconvenient truth DVD was out, and to go buy it, and about how noble Gore is. I realized, the movie was in theaters first, then the DVD came out, and it hasn't been on tv yet. Isn't that how you maximize profits from a movie? If I was all noble and I made a movie I genuinely felt people needed to see to save the earth, wouldn't I just give it to PBS on day 1?

Re:Hey, dummies!

[SatanicPuppy]

Sure, because all science education is beneficial to the oil companies.

All companies act in their own interests, and while oil companies need geologists, etc, they also stand to make a hell of a lot of money on increased consumption of their product. When oil prices spike, that's the oil companies making more for the exact same quantity sold. At the same time, if they can discredit this or that research that says they should be forced to implement this or that safeguard, that lowers their operating costs. Likewise research about atmospheric carbon; if people take that seriously and start putting an extra tax on gasoline to lower the consumption, that's the oil companies seeing a drop in sales.

In their ideal world, we'll stay addicted to their product until the last drop is sold. Any science that threatens that, they're going to work like hell to discredit.

Pro-big oil apologism

[91degrees]

It's not right that all science teaching is geared to the environemntal message. Yes, the Big Oil companies have done some questionable things, but the nature of our society is that we debate these points. The environmental lobby is hardly a tiny group of zealots these days, and it's not like they're totally without blame for spreading misleading propaganda. We should not allow all our science information to come from any single source. And there's some truth to what the oil conmpanies say. For good or bad, oil is essential to our society. Cars need it to run. Most machines will stop working without oil based lubricants. Oil is used for all sorts of purposes.

There can even be some largely apolitical justification for oil companies to be sponsoring science education. They are the largest employers of geologists, and oil probably account for a substantial portion of professional chemists. It's simply in their direct commercial interests to fund science. And if they do this, it's a good thing for everyone.

Likewise, with the lobbying against environmentla regulations - The adversarial system is not limited to the courts any more. Should politicians enact any and all possible environmental legislation no matter how small the effect without any concern at all for the costs to the oil industry?

2 comments

[SageinaRage]

Two things I was thinking of while reading this:

1. By passing on some free material, I wonder whether the teachers are trying to promote having a single 'correct' view on things, as opposed to showing multiple different views, to show both differences of opinion, as well as differences in research. This to me seems pretty dangerous, as it makes the assumption that one thing is definitely 'correct'.

2. The author of the article's main problem seems to be that the movie isn't being accepted despite being OBVIOUSLY right. It's this attitude of smug correctness, even when from what I can tell global warming is not universally accepted even among scientists, which hurts their position.

Re:Inconvenient Truth is convenient bubkis....

[oh_my_080980980]

Just to add and what a cursory review can turn up:

Junkscience.com

The most visible public activity of TASSC [The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) was an tobacco-industry-funded lobby group which promoted the idea that environmental science was "junk science", which should be replaced by "sound science" more favorable to corporate interests] was its support for the Junk Science website run by Steven Milloy, who describes himself as the "Junkman". Milloy denounces research on environmental issues such as climate change, pollution and public health as junk science if it produced results suggesting a need for public intervention or regulation. He promoted the idea of sound science, interpreted in practice to mean science favorable to corporate interests.

Adverse publicity about Milloy's links to Phillip Morris were followed by his departure from the Cato Institute, where he had been an adjunct fellow, at the end of 2005, and the removal of links to junkscience.org from the Cato website. However, Milloy remains influential as the science columnist for Fox News.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advancement_of_Sound_ Science_Center

Re:Reminds me of a film about Oil spills from Exxo

[mc6809e]

Also we all laughed while the film had a diagram of most of the oil evaporating and doing little harm in Valdez.

Why would you laugh? An oil slick really will evaporate over time. It happens every day in the Gulf of Mexico where oil literally rises to the surface from the sea floor.

Immediately after the laughter, your science teacher could have made the important point that the results of experiments often conflict with what our intuition suggests.

Environmentalism has become anti-science

[MikeRT]

Allow me for one to say that I am sick of the "Christians are anti-science" bullshit that the left loves to harp on while giving the environmental movement a free pass. You will notice, if you are honest, that the areas where even the most fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible conflict with modern scientific work are in areas that Christians have an **ethical** objection to the way that life is manipulated or ended or in how things came to be on some level. The environmental movement on the other hand is generally wildly antagonistic to everything from GM foods to many promising alternative energy sources to nanotechnology.

If there is any group that can be called anti-human, anti-science, it is the "true believer" segment of the environmental movement. No other politically active group is so thoroughly terrified of every promising area of research and development, so violent in opposing science (animal rights groups bombing research labs, for example) and so quick to limit the quality of life of the majority of the human race.

Re:Environmentalism has become anti-science

[Red Flayer]

You will notice, if you are honest, that the areas where even the most fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible conflict with modern scientific work are in areas that Christians have an **ethical** objection to the way that life is manipulated or ended or in how things came to be on some level[1]. The environmental movement on the other hand is generally wildly [2] antagonistic to everything from GM foods to many promising alternative energy sources to nanotechnology.

Are you serious?

[1] So it's an ethical objection that causes a lot of the Christian fundamentalists to say the Earth is 6,000 years old, and all animals were created by God as-is? What exactly is the ethical objection, there?

[2] Hogwash. Some environmentalists are diametrically opposed to some areas of research. Most environmentalists are much more temperate in their approach to questionable technologies. Most scientifically educated environmentalists believe that above all, we need to know the implications of our behaviors before we can make an ethical decision on what behaviors are appropriate. This is the obejction to GM foods (where we don't know yet how far-reaching some of the implications are), ditto for nanotech. As to nuclear, I believe you are right about a lot of the environmentalists, who are unaware of current research and programs that are much safer and cleaner than the nuke plants of the 1970s.

At any rate, you totally dismiss the ethics of environmentalism in your post. I, for one, would rather that people followed ethical behavior patterns due to a rational analysis of the merits and demerits of a behavior (such as -- does this behavior run the risk of causing harm to others), than choice ethical behavior patterns based upon the utterances of a few men issued a couple thousand years ago and their modern interpretations (such as, thou shall not have sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex).

Either way, there are zealots on both sides, and it's as much of a mistake to lump garden-variety Christians in with extremist Christian pedagogues as it is to lump typical environmentalists in with extremist environmental pedagogues.

Re:Environmentalism has become anti-science

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Allow me for one to say that I am sick of the "Christians are anti-science" bullshit that the left loves to harp on while giving the environmental movement a free pass.

Well, technically, christians, by definition, ascribe to a non-scientific belief or system of beliefs. Environmentalist, however, are by definition advocating a goal, not ascribing to a belief. There are certainly people in both camps that are more or less disposed to adhere to the scientific method, but christians go in with one strike against them.

I think it is fair to say, however, that a significant number of influential christians are very anti-science. That is not to say that christians in general are, but where you see fundamental attempts to undermine science or legislate behavior that ignores the facts and theories determined by the scientific method, you're often dealing with one religious lobby or another.

Bickering over what culture has more extreme anti-science elements, however, is useless. It is just a variation of the "at least we're not as bad as china" argument. I think eliminating unscientific arguments at the onset is prerequisite for reasonable decision making. At that point it becomes clear that while there are plenty of unscientific arguments out there, the scientific method does indicate that global warming is happening, at a faster rate than can be explained by any proposed natural causes. The correlative factors that give the most promise for explaining the phenomenon indicate a human action and carbon dioxide emissions are the most probable candidate of all theories thus far proposed. A person acting rationally, therefore, must act with the knowledge that it is the most probable way to effect change and should be addressed as such.

Maybe because they admitted to it?

[benhocking]

How in the hell can anyone be stupid enough to think that there is a political motive behind "Big Oil" giving to science education? I don't think Welsely Mouch from Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged would be that moronic.

Maybe because the NSTA themselves admitted it? As a previous poster pointed out: "Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place 'unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters.'"

How in the hell can anyone be stupid enough to think that's NOT a political motive? ;)

Nothing to see here; move along, children

[Paladin144]

There's certainly nothing to be concerned about here. Sure, the increasing prevalence of corporate influence in every sector of our lives is astonishing -- astonishingly profitable. That's why the economy is in such great shape -- because we let the corporations do whatever they want. Look how far it's gotten us! We've got highly edumacated students, a brilliant president and a society that values truth... as long as it doesn't get in the way of profit, which is how things should be!

The omnipresence of major corporations is not a bad thing -- it makes things so much better. Imagine if we didn't give corporations the keys to our kingdom. Who would be in charge then? People? Voters?! Pshaw! We need the benevolent hand of Wall Street to guide us to the promised land of low, low prices.

Now, let's all rejoice in Big Oil's concern for the welfare of our children. It's obvious that they know what's best for us, and they obviously have our best interests at heart! After all, they are oil men, and oil men are the most caring, compassionate and kind people ever to walk this green earth (although they actually hover a few inches off the ground).

It is a blessing that corporations care for us so much that they intervene in our daily lives. We can only hope that they will one day bring their bounty to slashdot.

____________________
This post brought to you by the Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft loves you. Microsoft made Vista from little bits of love and crafted it into a generous helping of goodness, just for you. Microsoft makes operating systems just like your mother used to. Microsoft cares about your bits. Microsoft would like a few minutes alone with your children. Buy Vista!

Re:Reminds me of a film about Oil spills from Exxo

[ductonius]

Also we all laughed while the film had a diagram of most of the oil evaporating and doing little harm in Valdez.

That's actually what happens, you know. Most of the lighter fractions of crude oil (the majority of the oil, that is) evaporate very quickly leaving behind the sticky tars and such. One of the most ecologically sound methods of getting rid of an oil spill is to light it up (since that's what were going do with the oil anyway), but that can't happen after the lighter fractions evaporate since the tars need 'help' to burn.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[jmorris42]

> in other news NSTA rejects KKK film for fear of angering everyone. whats the difference?

No you hayseed retard, Algore's movie is the TRITH, says so right there in the title. Rejecting it means science teachers are against the Truth. My god (little G, don't send me to the camps) if one of the Democratic Party's core groups are rejecting Global Warming Theology what is the world coming to. What the hell was the point of taking Congress.

I'm off to pout on DU. :(

Environmentalism as Religion

[bill_mcgonigle]

This is a good read about environmentalism as a religion, a speech by Michael Crichton to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in 2005.

Before the crowd starts jumping up and down, his speech contains errors. So does An Inconvenient Truth. But his theme has merit - science should stand alone whereas Al Gore asks people to pray for environmental change.

We really need to teach schoolchildren facts, the skills to consider and weigh evidence, and enough wisdom to know when someone is blowing smoke up their dresses. An Inconvenient Truth isn't the right tool for scientific education, though it's a great propaganda piece, artfully assembled, and gets some things right. A proper school curriculum can cover all of the things Gore gets right, and then the things that he's omitted for 'time', e.g. solar activity and global warming on other planets, the effect of water vapor on the greenhouse effect, natural cycles of warming/cooling, etc..

Let's not assume our children are too dumb to learn about science or think like scientists.

They can then spend some time teaching the children about ways to conserve resources, get towards carbon-neutral economies, and cut back on their own energy uses. These things will have real environmental and economic benefits but only millions of small impacts, no big splashes which work out nicely for Big-Media political coverage.

The conspiracy theorists are going to have a heck of a time, though, reconciling the fact that the NEA isn't lapping up the film from a guy who will be a Democratic contender in '08.

Little Environmentalists

[Dachannien]

When I graduated high school years ago, our Chemistry II class used a college-level textbook. The education I got from that class was good enough that I sailed through freshman Chemistry in college.

The year after I graduated, I went back to visit a few teachers I considered to be friends, including the chemistry teacher. She told me with some disgust that the school board had decided to replace the chemistry textbooks for both Chem I and II, and she handed me one of the books so I could see what the problem was. Instead of college-prep chemistry, most of the textbook was filled with text and pictures (rather than equations and homework problems) about protecting the environment. The quality of the actual chemistry education provided in that book was so low that I suspected that many students would have insufficient background for their freshman-level chemistry classes they'd be taking next year.

In other words, Big Oil isn't the only lobbying group that attempts to influence high school education.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[jandrese]

Carbon exhaust is causing climate change. Okay.
1) there is no scientific consensus on this
2) I seriously doubt that consensus will be forthcoming withing less than 10 or 20 years

I assume by "consensus" you mean everybody who calls themselves a "scientist" agrees? I think that will take longer than 10 or 20 years. If you mean the mainstream scientific community, then the consensus has already occurred. You will see people occasionally raise doubts about certain aspects of it, but the base is sound and excess CO2 is defiantly warming the Earth.

When you think about the scales involved (the US alone emits around 1.5 Billion (with a B!) tons of CO2 a year[1]), and the fact that only about half of that gets reabsorbed by the biosphere[2], coupled with the fact that we know CO2 causes a greenhouse effect (this has been replicated in high school science labs), and there really isn't much room for doubt that the Earth is warming due to human influences.

1. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/each- countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html 2. http://www.john-daly.com/co2-conc/ahl-co2.htm

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[Psykosys]

The difference is that the NSTA would reject the KKK film because it's a KKK film. The NSTA's response to the Inconvenient Truth plan suggests that they seriously considered distributing it, but then bowed to financial pressure.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[Qzukk]

in other news NSTA rejects KKK film for fear of angering everyone. whats the difference?

Are the Black Panthers a major financial supporter of the NSTA?

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[div_2n]

whats the difference?

You'll have to remind me what science the KKK deals with. You know, the "S" in NSTA?

Difference

[wytcld]

The difference is that climate scientists at the very top of their field - in terms of number of peer-reviewed articles published and positions held - vouch that An Inconvenient Truth is 99%+ accurate in portraying the current state of climate research.

Meanwhile, films that proclaimed the virtues of burning fossil fuels - nothing more than public relations - were distributed in past years under the guise of "science" education.

But I suppose to you a scientist and a Klansman both look the same, what with their white cloths? Except that you figure the Klansman prays to Jesus and the scientist is in league with the Prince of Lies? I'm sure you know your Klansmen; but you don't know jack about scientists. Nor do our students, being raised on crap rather than best data.

Re:Difference

[ArcherB]

The difference is that climate scientists at the very top of their field - in terms of number of peer-reviewed articles published and positions held - vouch that An Inconvenient Truth is 99%+ accurate in portraying the current state of climate research.

Aren't these the same climate scientist that said we were going to have a record hurricane season this year. What was the number I read? "One in Six Americans Could be Directly Impacted by 2006 Hurricane Season " But we are supposed to believe them when they say that the film is 99% correct on long term forecasts when they can't tell me if it is going to rain today or not.

Yeah, these guys may be the top of their field, but being on top of a bunch of people who don't know crap doesn't say much.

Re:Difference

[bluekanoodle]

So as one who believes in rigorous scientific analysis, you'd be willing to reference where you got your statistics from? Just curious.

Re:Difference

[MightyYar]

Mods, don't diss this guy for making a personal attack and then reward the parent with an "insightful" rating for doing the exact same thing. Mod points aren't for people that you agree with - they are for posts with content. I hope I get to meta-moderate your ass.

Re:Difference

[MightyYar]

I know very little about climate science (my total exposure is what I gather from Scientific American and some other rags), but I would point out that you are comparing two very different things. In the case of global warming, they are trying to model the amount of CO2 contained in the entire system (Earth), whereas in hurricane prediction they are trying to model a very complex process in a very specific region of the system (the Atlantic seaboard). They also know exactly what happened to their model - an unexpected El Nino - and when they plug that into their model, it more closely matches what actually happened this season.

I suppose that you could argue that some unforeseen event will occur that dramatically throws off the CO2 model, and most climate researchers would probably agree with you. However, I'm not really into depending on a natural disaster blocking out sunlight. We should probably do something about this ourselves.

One could also argue that we're going to run out of stuff to burn pretty soon, so all of this is just academic anyway :)

And in a billion years, the sun's intensity will increase - rendering the planet uninhabitable no matter what we do, and no matter who controls congress (the otters?). Happy thoughts, happy thoughts.

Re:Difference

[Pentavirate]

Just a thought having nothing to do with whether global warming is true or not....

The difference is that climate scientists at the very top of their field - in terms of number of peer-reviewed articles published and positions held - vouch that An Inconvenient Truth is 99%+ accurate in portraying the current state of climate research.

Do you think that scientists that have a vested interest in global warming (ie reputations, grant money, etc.) might support a film that furthers their cause?

Science isn't researched in a vacuum. Nothing is apolitical.

Re:Difference

[ErroneousBee]

The methane level 'predictions' you talk about are actually methane level 'projections'. In the absence of any data indicating how methane sources respond to climate change and changes in land use they pretty much have to just take a stab at the methane release rate, and they incorrectly projected a continuing rise.

Methane is not as dire a global warming gas as you characterize it. It oxidises in the atmosphere. I would guess its atmospheric 1/2 life somewhere in the range of 6months-2years (CO2 has an atmospheric 1/2 life of about 30 years). There is more on the impact of methane at realclimate.

BTW, almost everything you say is innaccurate:

• scientists that can predict the next millenia's weather to three decimal points ... they predict between 2 and 6 degrees of warming, and express what this means for the weather in very vague terms (increased storminess, etc).
• didn't forsee the recent unexplained drop in atmospheric methane levels ... read the literature. Theres loads of dissenting opinion on how much the various sinks and sources contribute, and how they change according to climate change and land use.
• drop in atmospheric methane levels ... Wrong, levels remained constant.
• Methane is a worse greenhouse gas the CO2! ... Methane is oxidized quite rapidly, so a 1 tonne release of methane does not have the long term effect a 1 tonne release of CO2 would have. (Ive seen similar, even more wrong, arguments about water vapour)
• You can make all sorts of dire predictions if you assume that things will remain constant. ... You can make all sorts of dire predictions if you assume things will change too. This statement is more meaningless than innacurate.
• The problem is that in the real world, nothing is constant. ... apart from the physical constants, and the laws of physics, and human stupidity.
• GIGO ... really?

Unless they have different ideas than you do...

[benhocking]

Can you guess where the maximized profits are going?

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[kjart]

Also there is no real environment in just about every city.

Exactly - this seems like an argument against having large, sprawling cities though. As per my example, Los Angeles is extremely spread out and certainly doesn't seem to have a smaller environmental impact compared to New York. I would think that you would want smaller, denser cities to lower the overall footprint. You also gain, as per the GP, in energy efficiency due to public transport, etc.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[zootm]

I think the difference would be that this could be indicative of a trend whereby private funding of institutions effectively gives those providing the funding the right to censor and/or alter the educational material being provided to those being educated. The KKK example is different because it's not the funders who are being given the right to decide the materials available.

If McDonalds were to pour funding into schools, you might expect (with the same logic) for education about the unhealthiness of fast food to "fade away" from textbooks; this is much the same as that situation.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[YrWrstNtmr]

You'll have to remind me what science the KKK deals with.

Genetics.

biased article summary?

[alex_guy_CA]

I know /. is not a news outlet, but the level of bias in the summary "..because she can't get preferential treatment..." is pretty offensive.

It seems to me from reading TFA that the producer does have some type of legitimate gripe. Just take this sentence FTA "Still, maybe the NSTA just being extra cautious. But there was one more curious argument in the e-mail: Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." One of those supporters, it turns out, is the Exxon Mobil Corp."

Who's getting rich from environmentalism?

[BTWR]

Everyone always loves to say how the Big Oil guys keep getting richer by denying global warming, etc. Now, I know *someone* is making millions off of environmental activism. Anyone know which companies or which people? It'd just be interesting to see...

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[SatanicPuppy]

As opposed to the god fearing midwestern farmer. That's a man of the land! He knows all about the environment, read about it in the good book! Practices non-sustainable farming, just like all them folks in the bible! He don't believe in no damn "no till" farming! Only a bunch of hippies'd come up with crap like that.

Fertilizer, pesticides, and drainin down the aquifers, that's how god meant man to live! Top soil blowin away? Hell, boy, you think we're gonna run outta dirt? Go back to yer city!

Face facts, jackass. There is no place in this country where people are really living "with the land". Cities are actually nice and efficient, because they cram all those people and services into a tiny area. Sure they produce pollution, sure they use a lot of energy, definitely a hell of a lot more than in the 20's, but don't pretend that everyone in this country doesn't use more power than people in the 20's, and cities don't produce more pollution than the same number of people living outside a city would produce...Quite the contrary.

And it's a widely proven fact that the worst thing for nature is too much contact with man. Wildlife in the area around Chernobyl has rebounded since the disaster, and is more healthy now than it was before the meltdown. The demilitarized zone between the Korea's has healthy game populations, despite being paved with fricking landmines.

So all those people crowded together in that city are far far better for the environment than the same number of people spread out equally around the country. It's not that they're isolated fron the environment...city folks just love to go out and spend time with nature! It's that the environment is isolated from them...And that's a good thing.

Crude is not a single element it is a mix

[aepervius]

You have inside crude a mix of very light organic element, and some downright long chain. Some part of it will indeed evaporate over time (the lighter element). But i think the Tar and most long chains, what most people think when picturing crude, will not evaporate over time. And most probably this is the first to fall down on the bottom of the sea to be decomposed :

how crude behave with time

So scientists == anti-science?

[benhocking]

I'm not sure who you're calling "environmentalists", but I know that I self-identify as one. I also have 3 science degrees, and am working on a fourth. I don't think you could sanely call me anti-science. Also, when it comes to anthropogenic global warming, every single last climatologist who does not receive money from fossil fuel companies is in agreement that it is real, and that it will be a major problem for humanity if something is not done about it.

Of course, I'm not 100% against GM foods (although I appreciate caution), I'm in favor of informed uses of nano-technology, and I think that nuclear power (i.e., fission) is the best option we currently have for dealing with greenhouse gases. So maybe I'm not an "environmentalist" by your definition - but I still recognize that global warming is a real, anthropogenic, threat.

Re:So scientists == anti-science?

[kilgortrout]

I'm glad to see the environmental movement has rethought its position on nuclear power. Thirty years ago the movement opposed nuclear power with the same zeal they now reserve for global warming issues and they were, by and large, successful in stopping the construction of any new nuclear power plants in the US. Of course this ironically led to an increase in the emission of green house gasses from the conventionally powered plants that were built instead of the nuclear plants.

I wonder were the movement will be in another thiry years.

Know-Something Party

[Doc Ruby]

"Science" is completely "apolitical". It's a-everything, because it's an abstract systematic behavior, not a person.

Scientists, on the other hand, can't be apolitical. They're humans, so they're going to be political to some degree, even if negligibly. More than two people in any society means politics. But apathy and disenfranchisement are political conditions, especially useful to those with power who make arbitrary decisions for their own reasons.

American politics does vast amounts of work according to decisions derived from facts about the way the world works. Especially the way that it works physically, as we know from physics, chemistry, biology, even astronomy. Those facts are supposed to determine the decisions we make, and the facts about those facts, to whatever degree of confidence we know we have.

Scientists are obligated to participate in politics. Not just like any other people in a democracy. But because they don't have the excuse that they don't know what will happen when the politicians do what they say.

Certainly scientists are much more appropriate to our Constitutional democratic republic than are, say, religious ministers. The Constitution specifically directs the government to "promote science", and specifically prohibits the government for "respecting an establishment of religion". Our government is crawling with religious establishment professionals. While its scientists increasingly get edited, silenced, ignored, fired, scapegoated. Scientists need to organize better to protect their interests in science. And we need them to do so, to protect our interests in science, and in them.

That's why I recommend people join SEA: Scientists and Engineers for America, even if you're not a scientist (it's free and open). Or join any more specific technical association in your discipline, then vigorously work to make policy hear your science. If you're a scientist, your work is already surely contributing to some corporate political action / lobbying industry. You should make sure that the facts you produce are being represented at least as much as the money you make for them.

Think of it as an experiment, in a lab made of people. Think of a political hypothesis to describe the way your country works best, then test it with the equipment. Share the results with the rest of us.

Scientists and politics

[wytcld]

I'd like to ask those of us who actually socially know a number of scientists: Are your scientist friends political? Frankly, of the scientists I know (I'm not one, but I attend some pretty hard-core conferences every year), very few concern themselves any more with politics than they do with religion - which is to say, hardly at all. Oh, there may be the "politics" of their standing within their university departments, which they grudgingly pay some attention to, or the "politics" of writing grants that the NSF or DARPA or whoever will actually fund their research; but they really are much less concerned with the circus of party politics and posturing than are most of us out here in the "real" world - a world they by preference have left behind to concentrate within their own disciplines.

One of my friends conducts research in Antartica each year. His research has been misused by CATO and the like, who like that it shows that more snow is falling in certain regions, and ignore that this is consistent with models of overall global warming, instead making happy talk about "more snow!" But even this misappropriation of research doesn't draw my friend into politics. He just accepts that the daily world most of us live in is tainted by trash propaganda, and takes refuge within the circles of his scientific colleagues, for whom truth matters.

The notion that scientists are all primarily political, slanting their findings for political advantage, is promoted only by those who are trying to deny the findings of science - for political advantage. It comes from both the deconstructionists on the far left, and the neocons on the far right. They'd each love to reduce scientists to their level, so that facts can no longer inconvenience the absolutist ideologies they promote.

So why are we entertaining this slander of scientists her on Slashdot. I know there are more engineers than scientists here, but are that many of us, as engineers, that removed from the purer realms of science?

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[w00f]

I think it's funny (read: sad) that slashdot has such a leftist slant to it. Sadly, when someone makes a comment that outs the truth (see the post I'm commenting on) it gets modded as a 'troll'... interesting.

    What's really sad is that politics is the root cause for everything you see on the news, everything you learn, and everything you hear.

    Now - to comment on the original issue presented. I think it's incredibly ironic that the NSTA refused to distribute a film which would villify some of its main contributors. The hardest thing to understand for us here is this - Exxon and the NSTA's other 'contributors' have a vested interest in us consuming fossil fuels, as they sell and research them. There are also very few alternatives. So consider this... if the current donations dry up as a result of the NSTA accepting this DVD (let's take it as a hypothetical), where does the NSTA get its funding. Right, tax dollars from the government, wait... we would have to re-shuffle the budget to get funding for that from the government, right? Does that mean our taxes go up? Does that mean that something else (some other pork-barrel project) gets less funding? And who makes this decision?... that's right - the government officials who are lobbied by big Oil... how's that for a twisted circle of life for you?

    What's the solution? I don't have an answer... but it's interesting to point out all the issues with finding it. I will finish with this statement - humans being what we are - it's impossible (read: improbable) to get a donation made from a corporation (or an individual) completely selflessly and without any self-interest expected back... except of course in the form of tax dollars :)

science / politics

[Russ Nelson]

"Climate change" is about science. "Global warming" is about a political agenda which is indifferent to the science.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[friguron]

With all respect, solar energy needs to be the future... http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[ArcherB]

you are correct. A KKK film is a bad example. Let's say that Michael Moore wanted to give out copies of his box set that includes "Dude, Where's My Country", "Bowling for Columbine", and "Fahrenheit 911" to classrooms. If they refused, would they be "in the pocket of Big Bush?"

And before you say that Michael Moore is full of sh1t and AlGore's film is "The Truth" (as "inconvenient" as it may be), weren't we supposed to have like 15 hurricanes hit New York this year?

Missing the point

[Trails]

A lot of people are missing the point. This isn't about choice, or scientific debate, or agreeing to disagree.

The NTSA have themselves stated that they turned this down because they were concerned about their funding, instead showing a movie that is at least if not more bent in the opposite direction.

They said they're afraid of losing money. They never said they thought Inconvenient Truth is a crock of shit or that Gore is a snake oil salesman. They simply said if they do this, they may lose money.

This isn't about principles, this isn't about debate, and it isn't about educating kids. They've been bought and they admit it plain as day.

Re:apolitical...

[MightyYar]

Polls pretty much consistently show that about 30% of Americans are "conservatives" who always vote Republican and about 30% are hard-core Democrats who may or may not be "conservative". The rest of us are more up-in-the-air. I think that the reason Slashdot seems to be so lefty is that academia tends to be lefty. We, being nerds, tend to be fairly educated. In other words, we are a very small cross-section of the world and do not represent the broader political reality at all. Further, we tend to be smart and are used to often being the smartest one around, so we tend to be jackasses when other people express an opinion that does not agree with our own. This is accentuated by our relative lack of social grace. :)

Note that these are all gross generalizations, and nearly everyone reading this will take exception to some specific thing that I said... one guy will claim that he never finished high school and another will claim that he's not socially awkward, as if that really matters when discussing generalizations.

It's not the editors.

[Grendel Drago]

That's not from the edit summary, that's from Frogbeater's story submission. Now, the editors may have picked that particular summary in order to piss off Slashdotters because we'd all point out how baldly inaccurate ("preferential treatment"?!) it was, so they'd get scads of comments. It wouldn't be the first time, but it's not quite the same as the editors themselves saying anything quite so stupid.

Re:It's not the editors.

[Rei]

Agreed. This slashdot summary is so twisted that it strains the concepts of "journalistic integrity". And yes, Slashdot, by posting and summarizing content that proports to be factual, you're practicing journalism. By posting articles but twisting the facts about them, you're practicing shoddy journalism. NTSA wouldn't even accept free DVDs of material that has been widely commended for its scientific accuracy and is already part of the science curriculum in several countries, while it accepts ludicrously biased material from its energy-industry sponsors.

I think the message from the NSTA is a big "We're For Sale" sign. Note to the Christian Coalition: Buy now! For a few million dollars, you can get them to start distributing pamphlets talking about that great flood that wiped out our dinosaur enemies 6000 years ago.

The Fear Card

[Spud Stud]

The Fear Card has been played by the Bush Administration in destroying civil liberties and has always been a favorite tool of environmentalists. When somebody is trying to scare you, it's time to guard your wallet/Constitution.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[DavidShor]

Moore movies are political commentary. This movie presents scientific facts in a understandable matter. The science happens to have political implications, as does most science.

Not "difference", but "dopeyness"

[PopeRatzo]

The latest dishonest meme is that those who don't believe there is global warming are merely expressing their "valid difference of opinion". We see the same nonsense from the Creationists, as if any crackpot pseudoscience is just a valid in the marketplace of ideas as experimentally validated theory that an overwhelming number of scientists hold in accord.

Further, I've noticed a troubling trend in the community of self-described "conservatives". It now appears that to be considered a conservative, you must predictably hold certain absolute beliefs. For example, if you believe that say, pollution is a bad thing, you are not a conservative. Or, if you believe the Iraq War was a mistake, you cannot possibly be conservative. If you believe that women should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to carry a fetus to term, you're no conservative, yet to be conservative you must believe that all limitations on public smoking or gun ownership are very bad.

The thing that makes this a problem is you will notice some clear conflicts within these beliefs. Absolutely no regulation on guns, but lots of regulation on abortion. No limitations on smoking, but absolutely no naked breasts in video games.

I know liberals who are against abortion, who are extremely religious, who smoke like chimneys and who are against pornography. There are even liberals who are in favor of military action in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein. But find me a conservative who wavers from the established dogma established by the National Review (Dems are the "Party of Death"!!!) and I'll show you a person who's being singled out as "not a real conservative".

When you have to hold such dogma in political thought, it means your arguments are weak.

Re:Not "difference", but "dopeyness"

[derubergeek]

The latest dishonest meme is that those who don't believe there is global warming are merely expressing their "valid difference of opinion".

Really. And here I was thinking that the latest dishonest meme is that anyone who questions the veracity of the global warming claims must be some Bible thumping redneck from one of those ignorant red states. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[ArcherB]

And what scientific field is Al Gore in again?

Re:apolitical...

[WhiplashII]

we tend to be smart and are used to often being the smartest one around, so we tend to be jackasses when other people express an opinion that does not agree with our own.

And, of course, the definition of "smart" that is used here is "agrees with me..."

Re:Question about 'inconvenient truth' marketing..

[Pedrito]

"If I was all noble and I made a movie I genuinely felt people needed to see to save the earth, wouldn't I just give it to PBS on day 1?"

Did it occur to you that: A, PBS doesn't exactly have the biggest audience of all the networks. Second of all, the people that generally watch PBS are probably educated enough to have a pretty good idea that Global Warming is for real and that man is causing it.

So, let's assume for the moment, that the target audience isn't the people who already know this stuff, but perhaps the people that don't. So, putting it in the theater will help give it a wider audience than it might otherwise get on PBS.

And you're bitching about this not being noble, but they're trying to GIVE AWAY tens of thousands of copies to schools FOR FREE and the schools won't take them.

Look, you say what you want, but Gore truly cares about this issue. He spent about 20 years of his life in congress and the senate doing everything he could to bring it to peoples attention. This has been his #1 issue for just about his entire career. Show me anyone in politics who's tried to do something more noble!

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[WhiplashII]

weren't we supposed to have like 15 hurricanes hit New York this year?

Yeah, isn't it funny how a 1 degree change in a decade makes so much of a difference? Now, every weather event is Global Warming. It's hot - global warming. It's cold - global warming. It's windy - global warming.

Let me ask, can you tell the difference between two temperatures separated by 1 degree?

Perhaps if you breathed into a paper bag for a sec

[ScentCone]

Both the dust and the el niño effect were likely caused by global warming

No, the el niño is periodic thing that's been happening for a very, very long time, and is considered a natural coupling of the ocean and atmosphere with a predictable recurrance. Whether any larger change in global temps has anything to do with how it interacts with other weather patterns is a separate issue, and not at all clear. But it is not "caused by global warming." That's complete BS. Likewise, the dust from Africa exists because the Sahara desert has been there for 2.5 million years. Dust storms blowing out to sea are completely expected, and happen all the time. We're just now getting the regular use of imaging tools and computer models that help us to understand how readily that hot bowl of dust impacts Atlantic storms. The Sahara is as dry now as it was 13,000 years ago, but has gone through numerous huge fluxuations in wetness and vegetation unrelated to "global warming" as that phrase is now used. Unless, of course, you consider the last ice age - things were cooler, then, and the Sahara desert was much larger, drier, and dustier than it is now.

What about the 2005 hurricane season? It was also global warming that caused that.

What are you talking about? We have a hurrican season every year, and we're in the middle of a cyclic 25-30 year peak, which has been going on for thousands of years and is most likely tied to solar variation. Further, the number of storms reported in 2005 include storms that never came ashore - seen (and thus counted) by satellites that we've only recently had at our disposal. During a previous cycle (say, 100 years ago?) the dozen or so Atlantic storms that we saw stay out to sea might also have been there (or been more frequent), but they'd never have made it into the statistics that we now generate because they would have gone unobserved.

Take a deep breath, how about.

Self correcting problem

[flatulus]

I am a regular Slashdot reader, so I get to see all the "scares" that fly by on a daily basis. What amuses me most is the juxtaposition of "global warming" and "oil depletion".

Hey - we are running out of oil in the ground. As demand further outstrips supply, the price of gasoline will climb, and climb, and climb, and... Consumption will naturally fall as supplies fall. How can you consume what you cannot get?

Global warming freaks try to get us all in a tizzy about how we are destroying our planet with - fossil fuel consumption? (which I believe is the single largest factor contributing to greenhouse gases, right?)

The global warming freaks can huff and puff about how we're killing ourselves, but:

a) The world can't just STOP using fossil fuel, without a total collapse of modern civilization

and

b) Like it or not, the world cannot continue to consume fossil fuel at increasing rates, and will in fact have no choice but to reduce consumption, eventually reaching zero.

So does anyone really believe that anything meaningful can be done to curb global warming (with respect to fossil fuel consumption) that isn't already going to happen whether we want it to or not?

What I think we should be serious about is sequestering a percentage of fossil fuel production and make sure it is set aside for those industries that produce secondary products that are not possible without petroleum - e.g. pharmaceuticals, plastics, various advanced materials.

You might be able to build a clean-burning coal-fired automobile, given the NECESSITY of doing so (in the not-so-distant future), but can you imagine the difficulty of doing so with no plastics?

whatever....

Re:Self correcting problem

[Darren Hiebert]

Most of the fossil fuel consumed is in the form of coal, not oil. Yes, oil is necessary for vehicles, and they do generate a lot of carbon pollution.

Yet, while oil is starting on the decline, the world has enough coal to last hundreds of years. And most power generation is fueled by coal.

To get one's arms around the magnitude of coal consumed, let me cite this statistic, relayed to me by someone who works at a power plant near Nebraska City. That plant burns 780,000 lbs. of coal per hour, equivalent to 68 train-car loads per day.

Downside to a TV release?

[doug141]

It seems he could reach more people by making the movie free on TV. If, as you suggest, he's interested in targeting a theater-going, dvd-buying, and money-paying demographic, he could STILL reach more people by making the movie free on TV as well as all the other stuff. Is there ANY downside to making the movie free on TV, other than cutting into profits?

The Environmentalist Religion

[rjschwarz]

I think most people believe global warming is probably real. After all there is evidence that Mars has been warming up as well over the same period of time. There is also evidence that volcanoes spew out some nasty stuff that can warm up the planet. The question is should we screw up our economies when man is probably not even close to the biggest source?

Give it away for free on iTunes

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not give it away for free on iTunes. By pass the teachers and let the students download it onto their computers or video enabled iPods.
Al Gore is on the board of directors of Apple, I'm sure he can work something out with Steve Jobs. All Apple has to do if foot the bill for storage and download bandwidth.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[hswerdfe]

maybe you should actually look into some climate research.
No, Global warming did not predict 15 hurricanes hitting NYC this year.
Some Scientists be believe that one of the effects of warmer global temperatures could be more and stronger hurricanes.
This is one effect that may be caused by global warming. There are other effects that Might be caused by global warming including :
  * more drought
  * more floods
  * desertification
  * loss of productive farm land
  * more extreme weather changes in local areas
All of these effects are predictions of what might happen because of global warming based largely on data and simulation. Some effects are more widely accepted then other effects.

but what is OBVIOUS is that
  1. we now have more carbon in the atmosphere then at any time in well a really long time.
  2. CO2 is a green house gas
  3. Global temperatures are starting to go up

If Carbon emissions are left unchecked by 2050 we will have twice the pre-industrial age level of carbon in the atmosphere. and there is a good chance we won't be be able to slow them down fast enough to avoid massive temperature increases. Every time in earths history the climate has radically changed the dominate life form on the planet became extinct. Guess what species is the dominant life form this time.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[harl]

Both the dust and the el niño effect were likely caused by global warming.

Evidence please.

Full quote

[Sapphon]

there is one and only one social responsibility of business-to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.

From "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits", The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970
copies here or here (annotated)

Global Warming "Freaks"?

[bodland]

What is a global warming freak?

What is the opposite, earth destroying selfish bonehead?

The fact you pointed out that fossil fuels are going to run out is key. If we don't start to change our behavior in regards to fossil fuel consumption (which we "freaks" are already doing) then the earth destroying selfish boneheads are in for a shock. So are we to provide exceptions for those fools who believe that they deserve to consume more than a fair share of global resources?

Think about how to balance fuel consumption and global warming while you row your boat down fifth avenue to work.

Global warming minimizers are quick to forget that a huge percentage of the earth's population live not far above sea level. And it seems possible that those levels are going to be significantly higher in the coming century at our present rate of consumption.

Do what you can do now. Reduce, recycle, buy more efficient transportation or use mass transit when possible, use renewable energy sources...is this so difficult to do? Make plans for the future, set an example for children to follow. Living heavy with all the toys and the lights on does not set the example.

That's not funny.

[mosb1000]

You can mod that funny, but eugenics was considered a scientific endeavor at during the '30s when the KKK was at it's peak. Many people simply took it as fact that white people were genetically superior to other races. It is an apt comparison, though most people wouldn't agree because global warming is "real" and eugenics is "fake".

Re:That's not funny.

[letxa2000]

True. The comparison will be much more valid in about 70 years when I firmly believe the current chicken-with-its-head-cut-off scaremongering about human-induced climate change is going to look every bit as silly as KKK eugenics does now. The probability is nearly zero that we have a sufficient grasp on the global chaos that is our atmosphere in order to make the policy recommendations that some of these people advocate. I suspect that in 70 years (and probably only 20 or 30), we'll look back and laugh at the current nonsense much like we laugh at the "coming ice age" science of the 70's or eugenics of the 30's or drowning witches of a few centuries ago.

I'll get flamed, I'm sure, but it's amazing that some people go crazy about the freedoms we have supposedly lost under Bush but aren't even phased by the implications of some of the solutions proposed to deal with the global warming "threat." Absolutely amazing.

Bzzt - wrong!

[enodo]

There is no "global warming" on Mars. There *have* been some isolated incidences of regions on Mars that are warming up, over the course of 3 Martian years or so, but to infer from that that anything like a global warming trend of the type seen (and predicted) on earth is invalid.

As a reference, see the discussion here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

The case for anthropogenic global warming is extraordinarily solid, and is based on lots and lots of observations of different effects, combined with modeling based on principles of physics. These talking points are just hot air.

You forgot "industry shill".

[Grendel Drago]

No, no, not bible-beating rednecks, well-heeled industry shills! And that stereotype exists largely because there's a well-documented conspiracy to debase science and muddy the waters on behalf of said industry. (There's an analogue for creationism as well.)

You're welcome to question global warming, just as you're welcome to question the theory of evolution. It gets old when the same tired crap is thrown out time and again, designed not to advance anyone's understanding of anything, but to sow public confusion and doubt.

Advertisement, shocked, shocked I am!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Regardless of the viewpoint, is it even possible that science
> can remain apolitical? Has it ever been?"

Science is one thing. Science portrayed by a power hungry politician blatantly and obviously using it to try to gain the presidency is quite another. We won't even bother getting into left-wing politicians in the late '60's onwards getting into ecology^H^H^H^H^H^H^H environmentalism because it gives them a secondary argument to massively control business when the usual class warfare rhetoric starts to fail (accurate description regardless of the science, which is what most people put on blinders about).

I support not putting this ad for Al Gore to school children.

Damn right there's a difference.

[Grendel Drago]

Do you think that industry-created "think tank" fronts are in any way comparable to scientists working on grants? Have you considered that a scientist who fakes evidence and fudges numbers to garner reputation is taking a tremendous risk of being utterly discredited and never trusted again, while these "think tanks" can do so with impunity, secure in the knowledge that the funds will keep rolling in?

Your attempts at drawing a moral equivalence are feeble, and were I a working scientist, I'd probably be offended.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[fotoflojoe]

Most science videos shown in schools have some celeb host who is irrelevant to the field.
Hello, I'm Troy MacLure.
You may remember me from such science film classics as:
Don't eat that Uranium!
And:
Honey, I shrunk the Amazon.

Let me save you some time

[Pentavirate]

Summary of discussion:

Blah blah blah Global Warming is true and you're stupid blah blah blah

Blah blah blah Global Warming is not true and you're stupid blah blah blah

Utter bullshit

[snowwrestler]

I've pointed this out before, but I have yet to see any rigorous evidence for the assertion that scientists gain anything by somehow promoting a theory they do not believe is true.

It's classic FUD--an unfounded, unsupported ad hominem attack that draws attention from the substantive issue--the science itself. I could understand it if there were some evidence that scientists had anything to gain by promoting a movie they agree with. For example there is no question that oil companies have a financial stake in maintaining the status quo usage of fossil fuels, just like tobacco companies have a financial stake in the number of people who start smoking every year. But there's no evidence that all the climate scientists will be super-rich in a couple years if only the public would learn about global warming.

Do you think that scientists that have a vested interest in global warming (ie reputations, grant money, etc.) might support a film that furthers their cause?

Do you think you can get away with totally unfounded assertions just because you used a question mark?

Super Cereal!

[fernandoh26]

The producer wants everyone to know that she is SUPER SERIAL about her film. No matter what she tries, no one is taking her SERIALLY!

I don't know about the rest of you, but this is a SERIAL matter.

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[wanerious]

rom your point of view, what is the difference between effective and cheapest? From a standard economics point of view (another field of engineering, not science, IMO), the cheapest (well, least expensive all in) is always the best solution. Why is this not the case here?

I have two answers: one, the most obvious, is that an effective solution removes the need for further iteration and repair which may cost more over the long run. Related to this, you may argue that this is really what you mean by the "cheapest" solution --- the cheapest in the long run. I would not disagree with this on the surface, but it assumes that we know the *reasons* why other approaches will not be, in the long run, as cheap. This evaluation of the "whys" is something that you and other engineers would apparently like to avoid.

And the issue of "cheapest" is not obvious. What is the metric used to determine cost? Lives? Property? Dollars? Evaluating the impact of warming and migrating populations on these observable effects takes careful consideration and the application of scientific methods.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[Ironsides]

And what scientific field is Al Gore in again?

That's easy. Political Science.

Check the attribution of both pieces...

[kenh]

Not to say it is anything other than above-board, but the producer of "An Inconvienient Truth" wrote BOTH pieces cited - they are not separate sources that reinforce each other, they are the same argument repeated. There is nothing wrong with the producer sharing her thoughts/opinions as widely as possible, but the original poster seems to have missed they are both by the same author (and the latter is on the Op/Ed pages, not the "news" section.

For those unfamiliar with edited, printed newspapers - there is a difference between the two sections.

Well, what were you saying, then?

[Grendel Drago]

You were replying to a poster who claimed that while An Inconvenient Truth is backed by an overwhelming consensus of scientists, the industry films that the NSTA has accepted in the past are nothing more than propaganda. You claimed that scientists have just as much of an axe to grind as industry shills, and would support their own form of propaganda in order to acquire, as you said, "reputations, grant money, etc.".

If your purpose wasn't to discredit the scientists who have endorsed An Inconvenient Truth as just as biased, and therefore morally equivalent, to the fake "science" groups who have been donating to NSTA, what on earth were you saying?

Re:apolitical...

[criscooil]

...nearly everyone reading this will take exception to some specific thing that I said...

I don't agree with that.

Your definition of "propaganda" is wrong.

[Samrobb]

Asking Google to define:propaganda turns up:

• information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause
• Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation aimed at serving an agenda. At its root, the denotation of propaganda is 'to propagate (actively spread) a philosophy or point of view'. The most common use of the term (historically) is in political contexts; in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments or political groups.
• Any media text which seeks openly to persuade an audience of the validity of particular beliefs.
• The promotion of specific ideas or views, often political in nature.

And dictionary.com says that propaganda is:

1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.

So, really, by definition, propaganda is any deliberate attempt at advocacy. The format and genre of "An Inconvenient Truth" may be that of a documentary, but it is definitely a piece of propaganda.

What?

[RexRhino]

Since when is a movie designed to promote the political career of a politician proper viewing material in schools? What next, force kids to watch campaign commercials? Why not require them to "volunteer" to support Al Gore's next political campaign (or whoever he endorces) in order to get full credit?

Sorry, even if your propoganda is being pushed out of schools by the oil companies, just because the oil companies are doing it for their own selfish reasons doesn't mean that keeping propoganda out of schools is a bad thing.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[vought]

And what scientific field is Al Gore in again?


Bono's not a sociologist. What's your point? Angelina Jolie isn't a social worker. What's your point?

How many scientists working on issues of critical importance are household names? And how much weight does a well-known name give to scientific or social crises?

While every politician has his shortcomings Gore's interest in and message about global worming is not a political one - though it does have repercussions in the political arena.

I fuckin' hate when people use Gore's political career as a cloak to cast doubt on the facts about global warming - it shows how well the right wing noise machine in this country has done at convincing otherwise intelligent people to disbelieve experts and those who speak for experts about real facts.

New title for the movie:

[SonicSpike]

"An Inconsistent Truth"