Nov 28 2006
Prev/Next Posts: « New Horizons spots Pluto! || Randi, skepchicks, Skepticality, and me »
NSTA responds
Earlier today, I wrote about the National Science Teachers Association rejecting an offer to distribute DVDs of "An Inconvenient Truth" to its members.
Gerry Wheeler, Executive Director of the NSTA, responds to the controversy on the NSTA website:
NSTA policy states that the association cannot endorse any outside organization’s products and/or messages to its members. Therefore, we do not send any such products and/or messages directly to our members, regardless of the source.
If the Washington Post OpEd had mentioned that in the first place, there wouldn’t have been such a stir (in fact, the entire OpEd would have been unnecessary). Was this policy made clear to Laurie David, the author of that OpEd? I wonder. If so, why didn’t she mention it in her article? And if not, why not?
Wheeler goes on:
What was not mentioned in the op-ed is the fact that during conversations with Ms. David’s representative we suggested making the DVD available via alternative means of distribution (e.g. by providing a mailing list of our members to producers, announcing its availability in our publications, etc.). It appears that these alternative distribution mechanisms were unsatisfactory.
Hmmm, this casts a lot of doubt on David’s article now. Her whole point is that 1) NSTA refused to help her with the DVDs, and 2) the NSTA is influenced by the oil companies. How strong is that first point?
There still, however, is the question of the oil companies swaying NSTA policy:
Let me specifically address the programs outlined in the op-ed: ExxonMobil has been a long-time sponsor of the national network we call Building a Presence for Science. In this project we have identified a “point of contact” for science in over 40,000 school buildings. Originally conceived to provide a copy of the National Science Education Standards to each school, NSTA now regularly sends these points of contact useful information on science education that they share with teachers in their buildings. Not once has ExxonMobil asked to use this network for their own purposes. [emphasis mine]
It does sound like they have policy in place to avoid being influenced. That last sentence is kind of funny, in that it’s not the same as saying the information is not influenced ExxonMobil. However, that strikes me as syntactic pedantry on my part. 
The Shell Oil Company funds national research science experts to present at our national conference, where they speak directly to science teachers about their field of research. NSTA chooses the scientists, invites the scientists, and hosts the scientists at these conferences. In addition, the Shell Oil Company sponsors the Shell Science Teaching award for K-12 science teachers who have had a positive impact on his or her students, school, and community through exemplary classroom teaching. This award program is administered by NSTA and the recipients are chosen by science teachers selected by NSTA.
Again, a stronger wording would have helped here, but also again it sounds like they are doing what they can to avoid being influenced.
Wheeler goes on:
Global warming is a very important science/societal issue. NSTA has always supported sound environmental science education.
Yikes! Better wording would have been preferred here! "Sound science" is a neocon buzzword for "science we approve of". Coincidence, I imagine.
However, I am still very concerned about the email the NSTA originally sent to Ms. David. She quotes the NSTA as saying:
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.
It’s hard to see that this as taken out of context, and it really does sound like the NSTA was trying to protect its sponsors.
This is clearly a controversy that is not going to die down right away. But I still have some lingering questions:
- Was Ms. David informed about the NSTA policy of not supporting outside organizations?
- Was Ms. David informed that the NSTA would help her advertise the DVDs to their members?
- If the NSTA is not influenced by sponsors, then why did they make the statement about "unnecessary risk" to their support?
I still won’t come out and accuse the NSTA of being swayed by sponsors, nor will I accuse Ms. David of being duplicitous, as the evidence supports neither conclusion. I still want to hear more, and, clearly, there is more going on here than was revealed in the Washington Post editorial. I don’t think this issue has been put to rest.
I have to add that in February 2006 Gerry Wheeler was on a panel with me at the American Association for the Advancement of Science . His passion for science and science education are not questioned in my mind. He clearly wants to do what is best for both.
I plan to continue to monitor this, and also the opinions posted on the NSTA discussion board.
Don’t curb your enthusiasm yet. I’m sure we haven’t heard the whole story.
What about the propaganda film she talks about called “You Can’t Be Cool Without Fuel.”
You can read some more about API, the film, and the NSTA here:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0707-21.htm
It’s obvious that Laurie David was trying to maximize the effect of her article but I don’t think she was jumping to a false conclusion.
Have any thermodynamic modellers determined the increase in power and frequency that anthropogenic global warming will have on teapot tempests? I might have to look into this phenomenon.
For what it’s worth (maybe not much) NSTA and Childrens Book Council just included my book on global and Arctic warming, The North Pole Was Here, on their list of Oustanding Science Books K-12 for 2006. And it’s the same book that Senator Inhofe criticized on the Senate floor earlier this fall as containing elements of alarmism (unjustificably, to my mind, of course). No sign of Exxon spin there at least.
Also, I tink it’s important to note that what gets missed when issues like this are portrayed as Gore versus Exxon is the big fat middle on human-driven climate — where there is almost no disagreement at all.
There is a very simple formula: more co2 = warmer world = less ice = higher seas & climate shifts
My first question about the supposed endorsement ban then is what about all their endorsements of various teaching materials, books, and Internet sites?
Is she claiming they don’t endorse or that they don’t distribute materials?
Something’s fishy with the explanation.
Hey, it ate my post!!!!
So wait, is Al Gore an organization now?
On the NSTA website they endorse another video (dvd actually) called “Search for Solutions†produced by ConocoPhillips a petroleum company.
This article says 20,000 were given away for free. It doesn’t say who distributed them though.
http://www.nsta.org/pressroom&news_story_ID=48208
Here‘s a teaching guide for the dvd:
http://www.teachingtools.com/solutions/Episode10climate.htm
The point of contrarian propaganda is to create the illusion that there is no scientific consensus so I find this dvd suspicious. I’ve never heard of any “climate cycle believer†climatologists or peer reviewed reports. Their sources don’t include anything on it either (though some links are dead; this page is from ‘03-‘04).
It’s slightly ironic that I’m procrastinating on my thermodynamics homework due tomorrow in order to post this stuff…
I’m just not impressed by a claimed “consensus”. If I do even a little research, I find there is no real consensus on the warming being anthropomorphic. There’s also been “scientific consensus” on many things in the past that have turned out to be rubbish. My current vote is still for the Sun.
I’m also tired of “If you don’t agree with us, you are ignorant and stooooopid!” Sorry, but I’m a s*k*e*p*t*i*c, remember? And I’m skeptical about your pet issue, Mr or Ms Climate Activist, so deal with it, and convince me otherwise. This is supposed to be SCIENCE, remember? Cries of “Oh noes! We is all gonna dies!” isn’t evidence of anything.
The whole thing is just too politicized, and I actually don’t trust EITHER side, so the heck with it.
I gonna go find me a Wii.
“I find there is no real consensus on the warming being anthropomorphic”
Au contraire: I seriously doubt that youve found many climate scientists appealing to Thor….
“…no real consensus on the warming being anthropomorphic…”
hee hee.
heh.
Quiet Desperation:
Am I to take that to mean that you think the observed warming is due to solar forcings? Do you have any evidence for that position, bearing in mind that solar forcings are fairly well understood and show no trend which could account for the observed warming? Or does your skepticism only cut one way?
So, Phil, seen the movie yet?
When you do, you’ll see that all these controversies are small and petty. We have bigger problems to deal with than wether a journalist exagerated the statements in a small article published in a small newspaper in a small town on a tiny planet. Which is all we have to sustain our small and insignificant lives. We must not forget that.
I expect oil companies will have SOME disagreement with the interpretaion of data, as regards global warming. That does not mean they are adverse to such research. As has been pointed out in some other comments, a single volcano going off releases tons more SO2, CO2, etc, in one day than all our industries in,,,some time, I forget the ratios involved. Still, it does come down to the interpretion of responsibility. Are the oil companies responsable for social use/abuse of their products? Therein lies the principal disagreement. Oil companies are supposed to make a profit for their investors. They do that by producing oil in a cost effective fashion. They must try to do that in as environmentally sound a fashion as they can, consistant with making a profit. If only one company had to take such responsibility, they’d go broke. Only when laws are passed that require everyone to share the undertaking, can the playing field be level.
IF the NSTA is to continue provding sound science education, they must have sponsers. That Shell, Mobil, etc provide such sponsorship, despite the possibility that someone so educated may disagree with them on their level of culpability, says a great deal for the management of those companies. Obviously, we are all in this together. The children of Shell executives breath the same air as the rest of us and if the planet experiences severe turmoil due to environmental change brought on by the burning of oil, no one will escape unscathed.
That said, we must still argue with all participants and try to come to some agreement.
GAry 7
Phil, for some reason when I follow the link to the statement from the NSTA, the first paragraph you quote doesn’t appear on their webpage press release.
I also find that to be disengenous, when they distribute other materials, such as the “Search for Solutions” video series produced by ConocoPhillips.
However, if NSTA did offer to share the mailing lists or in other ways facilitate the distribution of the CD’s, then it seems odd that Laurie David did not mention that or explain why that wasn’t sufficient.
I also wonder about the relative appropriateness of sharing the list vs. distributing directly. I’m not sure I’d want a group I voluntarily am a member of handing out my information. I’d prefer they either send me the stuff themselves or info on how to contact the distributor and let me decide what to do. I find the offer of sharing the membership list more intrusive. But then I hate junk mail - the spam of the physical world.
I followed the link from the response on “environmental policy education”.
http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=9
Interesting statements:
I find nothing in this policy to be concerned over, and much to applaud. If they are complying with this policy, then good for them.
I’m a little more skeptical of the “Search for Solutions” material. They make some odd statements in defending the “Climate Cycles” proponents, particularly this one.
The formation of the Earth? I don’t think humans were particularly worried about what to breath at the formation of the Earth, much less the mean surface temperature or climatic conditions. Yeah, conditions were different then, the Earth was also molten at one time. Let’s compare to something that is a bit more meaningful with regards to living conditions.
I also note this citation for the program:
I also agree that the use of the phrase “sound science” was a regrettable case of the buzzword that sounds benign being used without understanding the background on that buzzword.
I don’t know. On the one hand, I see some errors or unbacked allegations. For example, in the link above from “Che” the author states that NTSA lists API as a partner in their latest annual report. I looked, they don’t. NTSA also claims that they did not distribute that cute propaganda piece about “cool fuel.” Can anyone prove they did?
I too am bothered by the phrase about “certain targeted supporters.” But to me it could be a ham-fisted way of saying they don’t want to distribute something by Al Gore for fear of looking like they are supporting a political party. Al Gore is something of a name in the Democratic party, you may recall. It could be construed that this is Democratic propaganda because of that, exclusive of the science content, right or wrong.
And yes, they could have used a better phrase than “sound science” perhaps. But it must be admitted that there is wacko science on both sides of the issue.
There is wacko science a lot of places. In fact, that’s the main reason for Phil’s website! I think all they were trying to say then was that they were excluding people who write that UFOs are causing global warming, or Planet X is, or like that. Unfortunately, it can and is taken for censorship and selectivity. Sigh.
What’s going on? Irishman, you’re right. I cut and pasted that first quote, and now it’s gone.
Why would that paragraph disappear? In my mind, it’s the most important part of the statement. And if they do distribute materials from supporters, well, that looks pretty bad. I’ll look into this further.
“NSTA policy states that the association cannot endorse any outside organization’s products and/or messages to its members. Therefore, we do not send any such products and/or messages directly to our members, regardless of the source.”
This isn’t in the press release any longer… where did it go?
I stuck this on the BAUT forum yesterday when I couldn’t post it here (404 error). If you are reading it, it worked today.
[half the post deleted to bypass 404 error]
Those corporate executives don’t have to be like the Ken Lays, Jeff Skillings, and Dennis Kozlowskis (Enron and Tyco). They could just as easily be like the Ben Cohens and Jerry Greenfields (Ben and Jerrys). The NSTA should be a partner, but they could be one with influence, rather than one which cow tows to some grant money or service award.
[url]http://www.lickglobalwarming.org/[/url]
Do check out the link. Very interesting considering I found it by coincidence looking for the last names of the execs.
[first half of above post minus second sentence]
I think it’s a good thing that corporate America would be partnering with schools. And as I said before, the NSTA leaders seemed for all intents to be just dedicated science teachers.
I hear often that we can’t expect corporations to be concerned with anything except the bottom line and the stockholder’s earnings. But I don’t agree. Corporations are made up of human beings.
[For whatever reason half of the following sentence creates a 404 error]
We’d all be better served if the NSTA worked to influence corporate America rather than the other way around.
[I’ve narrowed it down to half of this half]
So maybe we can remind them that instead
of worrying about some grant money
from an oil company.
Sorry. If you can’t figure my post out you can look on the BAUT:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=49954
I kept getting the 404 error msg and narrowed it down to the 1/2 sentence in the last two posts.
Yet the post went through when I split it in half.
And, yes, I tried retyping it and reloading the page. I think this is the third time for this blog entry oddity. But, hey, there wasn’t that whole page of errors you had to go back and refresh to get past.
http://www2.nsta.org/recommends/allproducts.asp
One can present material for review and if positive it will be listed here. Someone needs to present Gore’s DVD for review.
Dunc “Or does your skepticism only cut one way?”
Nah, I tossed that out just to see if anyone nibbled. How’s that hook feel?
And my skepticism cuts three ways: long, deep and frequently.
dre said: “hee hee. heh.”
Very cogent. I stand defeated in the blaze of your intellectual arguments.
gengar Says: “Au contraire: I seriously doubt that youve found many climate scientists appealing to Thor….”
Silly rabbit! Thor is a thunder god! Appealing to him would be dumb!
How about Amaterasu? I think she’s a sun goddess if I can trust my Japanese mythology taught to me by video games.
Besides, all this political hand wringing is pointless. Global warming is caused by nuclear lava trolls deep in the Earth’s crust. Crude oil is their sweat, and their minions, the Evil Oil Companies [tm] pump it and refine it into global warming juice (AKA gasoline).
I noticed that NSTA published the letter that they sent to Laurie David on their website. In the letter, NSTA provides several suggestions for distributing the DVD without breaking their policy, including putting a link on their website where any science teacher can request a free copy. It would seem that the ball is now in Laurie David\’s court.
http://www.nsta.org/pressroom&news_story_ID=52977
Gary: As has been pointed out in some other comments, a single volcano going off releases tons more SO2, CO2, etc, in one day than all our industries in,,,some time, I forget the ratios involved.
Carbon cycle people volcanoes release on average (taking volcanic sporadicity into account) about 150 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere a year. Humans emit (through direct emission and suppression of sequestering) a net of seven billion tons of carbon per year. That is over an order of magnitude difference between the sources.
And if you don’t believe the researchers, just pick up a chart of the CO2 record over the past half century. If volcanoes were the primary atmospheric carbon source, you would see spikes in the carbon record every year a major eruption fired. 1991, for Pinatubo. 1982, for El Chichon. No such spikes exist. The volcanic contribution to the carbon concentration increase are almost negligibly small.
You are right about sulfur, though. One good volcanic shot can overwhelm the carbon signal for a couple of years. However, aerosols only hang around for a couple of years, so continuous aerosol emissions (like from factories) are not completely irrelevant, either - see global dimming.
I think Laurie David didn’t mention that the NSTA normally doesn’t recommend any outside organizations resources, products, etc, because she was trying to create a big stir.
She’s heavily involved in raising awareness of global warming as an important environmental issue, and her strategy worked. Her omission of information resulted in a huge buzz being created around the issue, which provided even more exposure for Al Gore’s movie.
As a marketer myself, I’m impressed, though I don’t appreciate the deception. Honesty is very important to me, and I strive to be honest in all my efforts to raise awareness around important environmental topics. However, I’m still impressed the David’s strategy worked so well!
Nathan
[…] Tip: Bad Astronomer Note: His excellent follow-up post  is a MUST […]