Science Teachers' Group Rejected "Truth", But Accepted Conoco-Phillips Video Series, Then Lied

[hatrack]

EDIT

The NSTA immediately denied David's charges of bowing to its Big Oil backers. But in a scathing HuffPo post yesterday, David writes: "New evidence flatly contradicts statements NSTA has made in defense of its suspect partnerships, and efforts appear to be underway to wipe out online evidence showing that what the oil industry got in exchange was the group's imprimatur on classroom videos, teaching guides, and other "educational" materials that play down threats like global warming and play up the glories of continued oil dependence."

EDIT

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

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

The fact that the NSTA feels it needs to rely upon Big Oil in order to support itself is pretty tragic in and of itself. But what's really tragic is the fact that Big Oil's reach is so expansive that it actually creeps into America's classrooms--working to prevent young people from learning about the enormous global problem that they are going to inherit. If anyone needs to see this film, it's young people, because they are going to be dealing with a world ravaged by climate change. As if this story isn't shocking--and sad--enough already, get this: Wheeler has admitted that he hasn't even seen An Inconvenient Truth.


EDIT/END

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=146896

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. I heard Wheeler on NPR

No, we do not accept other folks' reports.
Well, Conoco was different. We asked for it, and they paid for it.
And Exxon is different. They provide funding for important stuff.
And Conoco and Exxon are on our board of trustees, they offer experience and help us with organization.
But, no, they have no impact on science or our approach.

yeah. I wonder how closely your personal accounts would survive a close audit, Dr. WHeeler.

[Kolesar]

2. Laurie David kicks on Huff Po--See the "sanitized websites" !

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-david/crooked-curriculum-oil-c_b_35829.html

Disappearing documents:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-david/disappearing-documents_b_35877.html

[NNadir]

3. This is awful on so many levels.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. I have been blogging on the NSTA website

and am pleased to report that 99% of the teachers there are OUTRAGED over this. The only defenders are the "leaders" of NSTA. BTW, I canceled my membership. And since I was our district rep, no more NSTA crap will be going out to our teachers. LOL

Hey hatrack, we are collecting donations to buy copies of Inconvenient Truth for Science teachers in our area. PM me if you want details.

[DemBones DemBones]

18. Good for you! I remember NSTA conventions always had freebies

supporting industrial viewpoints. Teaching about environmental issues is as tricky as teaching about evolution; you're fighting against incorrect ideas ingrained by many sources.

[Higans]

25. What do you mean the world is round???

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. What I told NSTA:

I am outraged over this. As if we teachers didn't have enough bad publicity to deal with, now this story is posted all over the internet.

And no, the NSTA's version of events doesn't satisfy me. The official statement (which reads like it was written by an oil company exec) does not respond to the claim Laurie David made about corporate interests and their involvement in this organization. It also sounds like a typical "she's lying!" response we get from 1st graders. Well I don't accept that from 7 year olds and I won't accept it from a professional assn either.

Answer the questions!! Why is NSTA promoting API's agenda? Why do oil companies have such control over OUR organization? NSTA's primary goal should be APPROPRIATE science education for our kids and global warming is a very appropriate topic in our Science classrooms. The only place global warming is NOT accepted is in the boardroom of ExxonMobil and other big oil corporations promoting the excessive use of fossil fuels.

Last spring, children's author Patricia Polacco took on SRA McGraw Hill and was fired as keynote speaker at the international IRA conference.
http://libraryjuicepress.com/blog/?p=64

Thank goodness we still have heroes like Patricia Polacco! It is time for all of us who care about kids and their future to stand up to corporations with agendas that harm our kids and their education. We must remember the bottom line for educators is what is BEST for kids. This does not fit into corporate America's agenda, where the bottom line is PROFIT.

I am a 30 year veteran teacher and I have sadly watched our industry being invaded by the likes of ExxonMobil, API and SRA McGraw Hill. I can remember going to IRA and NSTA and NCTM conferences before the business world crept in. I can remember when national conferences were not held in fancy hotels and convention centers. I now see corporate America's involvement so damaging that I will not accept freebies from these corporations. I will NOT allow them to profit off of MY kids. Take a stand, teachers! Put your kids first always.

It is also very apparent that NSTA does not need my dues money to survive. I will not be renewing my membership unless this organization refuses to allow itself to be bought by environmentally unfriendly oil companies.

[rolfboy]

6. Hey Hatrack!

What's the origin of your username?
Are you Alvin Maker or Little Peggy?
Just askin' with curiosity.

[hatrack]

10. It's from H. L. Mencken back in the 1920s

He published a story in the American Mercury called "Hatrack" about a very skinny small-town prostitute. A group of Boston bluenoses took up the cudgels and the case ended up in a federal court as a test of the Comstock Law, which banned using the USPS to mail obscene material.

A three-judge federal panel found that the case was invalid on technical grounds - and interestingly, the one judge who ruled against Mencken and the Mercury was later found guilty of bribery.

[NNadir]

20. That is a very literate way to choose a name.

Given what you write and what you do, it is unsurprising that it is so literate.

You always inform, even when choosing a name.

[nam78_two]

11. K&R.nt

[Roland99]

7. Wonder if I could get my daughter to take in our copy of the DVD

:evilgrin:

[DemBones DemBones]

19. Call her science teacher and offer to let her borrow it.

She may say no, but she may be delighted at the offer. It's worth a shot.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. He's right.

I found a curious article in my son's old high school paper pile. It was an article that was pro-Monsanto genetic manipulation of crops. What was curious is that he had two copies of the article, as if someone had passed it out twice. I also thought it was weird because he never took a course in the twelfth grade that would have justified that kind of article.

[Buzz Clik]

9. This is a hideous mess, but a word of caution:

This comment is a real problem:

The scientist is Dr. Robert Balling, "a well known global warming skeptic" who has acknowledged taking at least $400,000 from the fossil fuel industry.

Accepting funding from any group is not the same as selling out. Period. If you are insistent that such a connection exists, then we must immediately discount everything ever said by James Hansen, one of the most important advocates in the global warming arena. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz foundation for his work.

Until and unless you have indisputable proof that a scientist has compromised his objectivity because of funding from a given source, drop it or be willing to sacrifice most of our critical thinkers.

[JohnWxy]

12. "Accepting funding from any group is not the same as selling out."?

"Accepting funding from any group is not the same as selling out"?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_C._Balling

"Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC."

ExxonMobil, British Coal Corporation and Cyprus Minerals are organizations whose sole responsibility is to deliver increased wealth to their shareholders. There is nothing in there charters that justifies funding basic research not connected in some way to developing future products or growing future profits. These corporations do not fund basic research, they fund product development and research into how to produce more of their product at lower costs. They also buy advertising and Republican politicians (lobbying initiative). The funding of Balling falls under the category of advertising, which includes promulgating disinformation. Balling's statements about Global warming are in contradiction to the conclusions of an overwhelming number of climate researchers. Balling has a Ph.D in .... Geography.

James Hansen was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of Dr. James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated to the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto<4> and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo<5>.

Dr. Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1995 and he received the prestigious Heinz Environment Award for his research on global warming in 2001 along with many others.


Field of research and interests

As a college student in the University of Iowa, Hansen was attracted to science and research by James Van Allen's space science program in the physics and astronomy department. A decade later, he started focusing on planetary research that involved trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

One of Hansen’s research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Such data, appropriately analyzed, may provide one of the most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth.

Dr. Hansen is also interested in the development and application of global numerical models for the purpose of understanding current climate trends and projecting humans' potential impacts on climate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

[Buzz Clik]

14. Hmmm... so, research funding is bad if you deem it so. Hansen's: good. Balling's: bad.

Feel free to dismantle Balling's scientific publications and conclusions, but trying to smear him simply because he's received industrial support is ridiculous.

And, please, enough with the "bottom line" argument about BP, Exxon, etc. They have significant philanthropy programs.

[Dead_Parrot]

15. Hansen's Heinz money...

...is a prize - awarded after the work has been done - for individuals who... have confronted environmental concerns with a spirit of innovation and who demonstrate the same blend of action and creativity in approaching the protection of our environment. link

Exxon, on the other hand, ... is committed to being the world's premier petroleum and petrochemical company.... We are committed to enhancing the long-term value of the investment dollars entrusted to us by our shareholders. By running the business profitably and responsibly we expect our shareholders to be rewarded with superior returns. This commitment drives the management of our company.link: They have been funding Balling http://www.mtn.org/~newscncl/complaints/hearings/det_118.html">since the late 80's.

I hope you see a really, really big difference there.

[Buzz Clik]

28. It's not a matter of seeing the difference.

Declaring someone as being "bought" or discrediting someone's work simply because you don't like the source of the money is simple minded. It does not work.

If Balling has done poor work, let's focus on that. If he has no background to venture opinions, focus on that.

One cannot shrug off a body or work or a even a single phrase simply because you don't approve of where this person gets his or her funding.

[JohnWxy]

30. What "body of work" has he produced on climotology?

Exxon Mobil and the other oil companies have a responsibility to their stockholders to spend their money in a way that delivers increaed profits. when they spend money they expect to get something of value (in terms of increased profits) for it, either in terms of materials, or services such as advertising and disinformation.

What research has he done on climatology? What university has supported this research?

The overwhelming consensus among scientists qualified to speak on the subject of Global Warming is that it's getting warmer and it's caused by human activity. the warming is correlated with the increased CO2 emmissions. The increased emmissions of CO@ is from man's activities.

[Buzz Clik]

31. Whoa. Wait a minute. You mean you don't know Balling's work?

All of this was shot off in a vacuum?

For your information, my friend, Balling, since receiving his PhD in 1979, has over 120 scientific publications and has published in the best journals. That's one helluva record. I have some other news for you: there's no way that 120 publications involving research of this kind could EVER be supported on $500K. NOT EVER.

So, you want to continue this line? Go for it. Bring up one of his publications and show me a) that it's bad science, b) that it was funded exclusively by "big oil" or some other corporate entity, AND c) that the funding influenced his work.

Good luck.

[JohnWxy]

45. why can't you provide me some links, if you are so well informed on this guy.

I still wonder why he is at odds with almost the entire climatological research community re Global Warming. How did all those researchers get it wrong and he (a geologist) got it right?

I think you should be able to provide some links.

Until you can convince me I remain an unbeliever (in the singular brilliance of mssr Balling.

[Buzz Clik]

47. LOL! Okay, I have links, but you need to revisit this discussion.

I never claimed to know Balling or anything about him. This pissing match started because I simply issued a word of caution about judging scientists simply because of the source of their funding.

I never said Balling was brilliant.
I never said Balling was correct in his opinions.
I never even indicated I that agree with his opinions.

I am, however, really annoyed by those who insist on dragging this guy through broken glass when they know absolutely nothing about his science.

But you wanted links. Look at post #46

[blm]

16. Heinz Foundation PRIZE was for HIS work. Corporations PAY for THEIR work.

How you can equate the two is pure spin in itself.

[Buzz Clik]

17. Tell that to the knuckledraggers after you tell them Balling is dirty.

It used to be that places like Bell Labs were at the cutting edge of all research -- not unlike NSF today. But now you've decided accepting corporate money makes a scientist suspect. To focus on the source of the money is pure folly. Judge the work. Nothing else makes sense.

[blm]

21. You left out the part that THEIR work is used to COVER ASS for corporations and

not motivated by progressive research.

And your equating the two payouts is STILL pure spin.

[Buzz Clik]

29. You have no way of knowing that, and you cannot project this onto Balling.

This makes no sense.

If Balling has said things that are simply not true, blast him for that. If he has published shoddy research, nail him to the wall.

However, criticism based solely on the source of his funding is totally empty.

[ProudDad]

23. Balling is dirty (deluded)

that's WHY he gets so much money from the oil industrial complex.

It's the same reason most repukes and like-minded Dem's get oil money. They're already biased toward oil profits ubber alles and so are mightily supported by the oil industry. It's fallacious to think that big business money buys a change of mind, they find it much more efficient to support the brainwashed than to try to finance the brainwashing...

Also, as was well said before, you CAN'T equate a prize for outstanding work already done with Balling's (and very few others') ongoing payments from the oil business (with the "unspoken, gentleman's agreement of like mindedness") that Balling's "work" represents.

That's the subtle difference some folks here are trying to point out to you...

By the by, equating Bell Labs, who were part of the old-fashioned dynamic of pure research for pure research's sake with the understanding that some results will make enough money for Ma Bell to pay for PURE RESEARCH, vs. todays paradigm of buying results from those researchers who appear predisposed to present the results big business wants to see is a demonstration of shallow thinking.


"The case of Dr. Robert Balling is equally intriguing. A geographer by training, much of Balling's research focused on hydrology, precipitation, water runoff and other Southwestern water and soil-related issues until he was solicited by Western Fuels. Balling has since emerged as one of the most visible and prolific of the climate-change skeptics.

Since 1991, Balling has received, either alone or with colleagues, nearly $300,000 from coal and oil interests in research funding, which he also disclosed for the first time at the Minnesota hearing. In his collaborations with Sherwood Idso, Balling has received about $50,000 from Cyprus, $80,000 from German Coal and $75,000 from British Coal Corp. Two Kuwaiti government foundations have given him a $48,000 grant and unspecified consulting fees and have published his 1992 book, "The Heated Debate," in Arabic. The book was originally published by a conservative think tank, the Pacific Research Institute, one of whose goals is the repeal of environmental regulations."

Gee, NO agenda there, eh?

http://www.organizenow.net/cco/right/globalwarm.html

[JohnWxy]

13. This deserves attention of MSM, but it won't happen - too much advertizing $'s at risk.

[blm]

22. No kidding - - imagine the spin from the MSM, anyway.

It would sound like the posts above equating corporate coverup efforts with REAL progressive scientists.

[ncteechur]

24. Congratulations to Dr. Wheeler of NSTA!

It seems he has positioned himself to be named to a high post within the Bush Administration. He will no doubt join the ranks of Michael Chertoff and Michael Brown as complete nincompoops in high positions. As a former science teacher and now a director of science education, I am utterly ashamed at NSTA and their bullshit concession in an effort to vindicate their dispicable act.

[blm]

27. Heckuva job, redux.

.

[Klimmer]

26. I'm a HS Physics and Earth Science teacher in San Diego . . .

Unified School District. I teach science not politics. I went and saw "An Inconvenient Truth" at the theater when it opened with another colleague, and purchased my own copy as soon as it became available on DVD. All of my students will see the movie at some point this school year.

Real science following the scientific method is undebatable. We have the evidence and validation of the hypothesis, and all the overwhelming support for the theory of Global Warming built up over many years of international study on our side. In the "true" ethical, verifiable scientific arena there is no debate --- global warming is happening and quicker than we imagined.

Screw NSTA. I will attend their annual national conferences when they are in my neck of the woods, because it is an incredible show and learning experience for science educators, but I don't let them dictate what I teach or don't teach in the classroom. I only purchase a membership when I need to go to the big conference.

There are "quasi" scientists and scientific organizations that are unethical, fraudulent and they will be found out. That is the beauty of real science. It is self-correcting. The national leaders of NSTA need to pull their heads out of their --- you know what.

[Buzz Clik]

32. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! ANYONE HERE WANT TO CHALLENGE BALLING'S RECORD?

I'm throwing down the gauntlet. Until ten minutes ago, I had no idea who the hell Robert Balling was. I was assuming that he was some corporate-paid scientific fraud -- because that was what was being said here. It pissed me off that no one even once offered any proof other than his funding sources.

So I looked up his record. Have you? Do you have any clue who he is? Where he works? What he does? How many publications he has? Where they are published? Of course not.

So, here the challenge for your spewers of hot air: quit spouting bullshit, and let's see some substance. Prove that Balling is a fraud. Bring up some of his publications and demonstrate that they meet the criteria that you claim: a) they were funded exclusively by corporate interests; b) the publications are bad science; c) the science in the publication was influenced by the funding.

LET'S HAVE IT, KIDS! PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

(P.S. Don't make the fatal assumption that I agree with Balling's assessment about global warming. I simply find the smear tactics used against him on this thread to be beneath contempt -- but I hold them in contempt anyway.)

[Dead_Parrot]

33. So, you were defending him before you knew who he was?

That's brave. He seems to be missing from Science and Nature, apart from from incidental articles on how particulates affect rainfall and the moon affects temperature, but there's some recent drivel in TCS that you might find 'informative'.

[blm]

34. Thanks - - I was just about to post it.

Or are we not supposed to judge his writings, either? ;)

[Dead_Parrot]

35. Maybe we should be judging his hair.

It's very nice....

[Buzz Clik]

39. Don't stop there -- he has hideous taste in shirts:

... but neither his hair nor his shirts nor his funding agencies have any relevance to the quality of his science.

[Buzz Clik]

37. Jesu Cristo! Are you doing this on purpose?

I just invited you to bring up and attack any scientific writing of his that you possibly can. Hells bells, you can even bring up the text of some oral opinion he delivered -- I really don't care.

My point has been 100% consistent: questioning his science is fair game but only in the context of the science alone. To question his credibility simply because of research funding he received is baseless.

[blm]

38. His writings show extreme RW, laissez faire economic philosophy.

And thus his natural bias against legitimate global climate scientists and environmentally concerned lawmakers.

[Buzz Clik]

40. Really? Be specific.

If you cannot provide any links, I can provide a dozen pdf files of his work in the open literature from the past few years. Would you care to judge those?

[Dead_Parrot]

41. Please do so. nt

[Buzz Clik]

44. I'll upload some files this evening.

I'm at my daughter's gymnastics center, and their upload speeds are snailish.

[Buzz Clik]

48. See post 46

[Buzz Clik]

36. You must have forgotten to read the thread... I never defended him

Rather, I attacked the ridiculous notion that the fact that he received funding for corporations makes his scientific opinion worthless. I stand by the argument, regardless of how this turns out.

Judge the science only. Period.

[Dead_Parrot]

42. Fair enough

An over reaction my my part. Have you read the TCS stuff yet?

[Buzz Clik]

43. Not yet, tho' I glanced through the titles.

I have a nasty feeling I won't be liking what I read.

On the one hand, it's a bit extreme to judge that drivel too harshly considering the context. On the other hand, if he wrote it, he owns it. And, very much to your credit, this is EXACTLY the kind of exercise in which we should be engaged.

I'll read a few of those TCS articles this evening and get back to you. Apparently, he also writes for CATO. That should be nauseating as well, but on a higher intellectual scale.

[Buzz Clik]

49. Okay, I read the first two. That was enough.

"Give a Hoot, Don't (Call It) 'Pollute'"
Trite. Written at a 4th grade level.


"Inconvenient Truths Indeed".
Alrighty. In writing this article, Balling clearly traded in his objective scientist hat for the full-time skeptic.

[Buzz Clik]

46. Here we go, kiddies. Let's inject some substance into this discussion:

Balling has published dozens of research articles that are highly relevant to the notion of global warming.

I captured the pdf files of two, and they are located here:
http://www.savefile.com/projects/1055841

I'd suggest starting with some research related to the possibility of a heat island over Phoenix. Follow the link, then click on DOWNLOAD in the "Balling Phoenix Heat Islands" box. Click download again. The download may be blocked if you have a popup blocker. My Google toolbar gave me the option of allowing the download.

You'll note at the end of the pdf file that this study was funded by NSF. First, that gets away from the notion that Balling was funded exclusively by corporations. Secondly, it throws sand in the smear machine because NSF does not fund incompetent scientists.

Now, let's see if we can talk about this paper in reasonable terms...

[proud2BlibKansan]

50. What does any of this have to do with NSTA

refusing to distribute this movie? Sorry but you lost me several posts ago.

[Buzz Clik]

51. see subthread beginning in post 9

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. I saw that

I can read. You seem to be way off topic. I thought this was about NSTA and their corruption by big oil. Now you are off on a tangent arguing about a scientist?

[Buzz Clik]

53. I did not introduce the subject of Balling -- the OP did.

The discussion that has followed is a logical result and still relevant to the topic at hand. No one is forcing you to participate in the discussion about Balling, and you certainly can continue to discuss your experiences with NSTA.

[Dead_Parrot]

54. If there's relevance there, I'm missing it.

Perhaps some papers on the subject on global climate change or anthropological GHG emissions would help.

Incidentally, I don't think anyone said that that he was entirely funded by fossil fuel co's and and was completely full of shit: Just that they happen to pay him lots of money, and he does speak shit on CO₂ and climate change.

:)

[Buzz Clik]

55. There's relevance. You missed it.

Seriously -- you don't see the relevance of heat islands to global warming? I can't help you there.

The bottom line remains the same -- smearing Balling for accepting corporate funding is foolish. Focus on the science or let it go.