Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

2 x SPPI?

Now we have something strange here. Dr. George Carlo apparently founded a Science and Public Policy Institute in 1994, along with its Safe Wireless Initiative. Carlo sent a letter to Ben Goldacre dated June 2, 2007, still listing himself as being associated with the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) with the address given as 1101, Pennsylvania Ave. NW — 7th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20004.

One month later, Mr. Robert "Bob" Ferguson, one time Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy, a project of "Frontiers of Freedom", chaired by aristocratic (his bro-in-law Lord Carnarvon is best friends with the Queen) former Republican senator Malcolm Wallop started using the exact same name, the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) on a new website where he is also listed as Executive Director with exactly the same advisers that he had for the Center for Science and Public Policy, and at the same street address, 209 Pennsylvania Ave. So did Mr. Carlo sell the name to Mr. Ferguson, or is it normal for two unrelated yet identically named organizations to exist on the same street in Washington? Einztein 15:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"Expert" testimony

On the basis of expert testimony, the judge also pointed to nine statements...

Which expert testimony is this statement referring to? The case indicates only Bob Carter (a skeptic) had input resulting in the "nine statements" judgement. This sentence should be clarified. Unless otherwise indicated, I'd like to rephrase this as "On the basis of testimony from Dr. Bob Carter, the judge...". See case: [[1]] Gmb92 04:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of singling out ExxonMobil in the NSTA section.

The NSTA section is currently calling out ExxonMobil as a contributor with the implication that showing the film might cause ExxonMobil to modify their funding level to NSTA. The source provided amounts to nothing more than conjecture on the part of the article's author and provides no substantiation to back up that claim.

The current reference is misleading in that it suggests that ExxonMobil (1) is a majority contributor (at least a highly significant contributor) to the NSTA, and (2) that they are using their funding of NSTA as a means of influencing the NSTA's decisions. The latter point has yet to be substantiated.

In the interest of brevity within the article I will be removing this reference. If the community feels that it is critical to call out the supporters of NSTA who might take the showing of this film into their funding decisions I would argue that we would need to provide a comprehensive list of those supporters rather than cherry picking ExxonMobil. A more comprehensive list would be: Albertson’s Inc., Alcoa Inc., American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Association of Physics Teachers, American Chemical Society, American Chemistry Council, American Electric Power, American Geophysical Union, American Petroleum Institute, American Plastics Council, Apple Computer Inc., Association of Science-Technology Centers, Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc., Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Biotechnology Institute, California Science Teachers Association (CSTA), Carolina Biological Supply Co., Center of Science and Industry (COSI), Chevron/Davis Foundation, The Children’s Book Council Inc., Ciba Specialty Chemicals Education Foundation, Clark Foundation, Colorado State University, The Cooper Foundation, Cornell University, Delta Education, Dow Chemical Company, Dragonfly TV—Twin Cities Public Television, Drug Chemical & Allied Trades Association, DuPont Co., Eisenhower National Clearinghouse, Ernst & Young LLP, Estes Industries, ExxonMobil Foundation, GEICO, Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, Great Source Education Group Inc., Harcourt School Publishers, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Horizon Research Inc., IBM Corporation, Intel, JASON Academy for Science Teaching and Learning, Joullian Foundation, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Learning Network Inc., LEGOLAND, Lockheed Martin, Lysol® Brand, Macmillan/McGraw-Hill School Division, Maryland Science Center, MBNA, MeasureNet, Medtronic Foundation, Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA), Memphis Urban Systemic Program, Merck Institute for Science Education, Micron Technology Inc., Montana State University National Teachers, Enhancement Network, Moran Oil, NASCO, National Academy of Science/National Research Council, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Alliance of State Science and Math Coalitions, National Association of Biology Teachers, National Council for the Accreditation of Teachers of Education, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Institutes of Health, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, National Science Resources Center, Nokia, NPS Pharmaceuticals, Ohaus Corporation, Oklahoma Energy Resources Board, Partners in Public Education (PIPE), Paul F-Brandwein Institute, Pearson Learning, Phillips Petroleum Co., The Planetary Society, Prentice Hall, RAM Energy, The Research University Foundation of SUNY, Reuben R. Fleet Science Center and IMAX Theater, San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego Museum of Natural History, San Diego Science Educators Association (SDSEA), San Diego Wild Animal Park, San Diego Zoo, Science Education Council of Ohio (SECO), Science Screen Report Inc., The Scope Shoppe, Scott Foresman, Sears Craftsman®, Shell Oil Company, SeaWorld San Diego, Smithsonian Institution, Southwest Airlines, Space Foundation, The Spencer Foundation, Starr Commonwealth, State Farm Insurance, T & S Educational Inc., Tennessee Book Company, Tennessee Science Teachers Association (TSTA), Texas Instruments, Tommy Hilfiger Corporate Foundation, Toshiba America Foundation, Toshiba America Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc., TryScience (NY Hall of Science), U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, University of Maryland College of Life Sciences, Utah Science Teachers Association (USTA), Vernier Software & Technology, WGBH, The Wireless Foundation --GoRight 19:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, if we add the ExxonMobil reference back in I would seek to highlight the following statement direct from NSTA:

In the op-ed Ms. David goes on to characterize NSTA as a willing corporate America partner that eagerly pushes corporate messages about the environment.

This is not true.

The perception created by the op-ed that NSTA has a conflict of interest in dealing with corporate America is misleading. This is a very serious issue to NSTA and science education. Like many organizations, NSTA does receive support from corporate America and other organizations (in FY06 total corporate support received by NSTA was 16.4% and total support from energy companies was 3.77%). Before we accept any funds from outside groups (corporate or otherwise), and as a condition of any support, we make it clear that NSTA is solely responsible for developing, directing, and implementing the programs we offer to teachers.

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.

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 their 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.

The partnership with API, which ended 5 years ago, led to the creation of a simulation, done entirely by NSTA, on energy usage. The video in question, "You Can't Be Cool Without Fuel" was not on our website.

--GoRight 19:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to present NSTA's view, but the Washington Post source is a valid contribution to this article. Exxon's goals in these types of partnerships is clear (see memo below) and they do have at least some degree of influence over the organization. Many heavy CO2 emitters are in this list, so perhaps the quote should be rephrased rather than singling out Exxon. The Post source uses other examples of NSTA corporate donors in the American Petroleum Institute and Shell Oil.

And it has been doing so for longer than you may think. NSTA says it has received $6 million from the company since 1996, mostly for the association's "Building a Presence for Science" program, an electronic networking initiative intended to "bring standards-based teaching and learning" into schools, according to the NSTA Web site. Exxon Mobil has a representative on the group's corporate advisory board. And in 2003, NSTA gave the company an award for its commitment to science education.

So much for special interests and implicit endorsements.

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.

And Exxon Mobil isn't the only one getting in on the action. Through textbooks, classroom posters and teacher seminars, the oil industry, the coal industry and other corporate interests are exploiting shortfalls in education funding by using a small slice of their record profits to buy themselves a classroom soapbox.

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.

The education organization also hosts an annual convention -- which is described on Exxon Mobil's Web site as featuring "more than 450 companies and organizations displaying the most current textbooks, lab equipment, computer hardware and software, and teaching enhancements." The company "regularly displays" its "many . . . education materials" at the exhibition. John Borowski, a science teacher at North Salem High School in Salem, Ore., was dismayed by NSTA's partnerships with industrial polluters when he attended the association's annual convention this year and witnessed hundreds of teachers and school administrators walk away with armloads of free corporate lesson plans.

Along with propaganda challenging global warming from Exxon Mobil, the curricular offerings included lessons on forestry provided by Weyerhaeuser and International Paper, Borowski says, and the benefits of genetic engineering courtesy of biotech giant Monsanto.

"The materials from the American Petroleum Institute and the other corporate interests are the worst form of a lie: omission," Borowski says. "The oil and coal guys won't address global warming, and the timber industry papers over clear-cuts."

An API memo leaked to the media as long ago as 1998 succinctly explains why the association is angling to infiltrate the classroom: "Informing teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science will begin to erect barriers against further efforts to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future."

[[2]]

To add to this, here's a view from a blog run by highly-credentialed climate scientists: [[3]] Gmb92 05:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not object to a reference and relevant quotes being made from the Washington Post piece. In fact the article is still prominently referenced where it was at the start. What I do object to is presenting the information in a biased and misleading way. From the quote above it is clear that the total funding support for NSTA which comes from energy companies is only 3.77% of their FY06 budget, and ExxonMobil would only represent a portion of that. I don't believe that it is fair to claim that one company making donations totaling less that 3.77% of the NSTA budget is somehow running roughshod over the organization or that the organization is bending over backwards to protect that minuscule amount of funding. What is also clear from the NSTA response is that ExxonMobil has been a no strings attached contributor for many years since the NSTA makes it quite clear that ExxonMobil has NOT in fact tried to influence NSTA members via the parent organization in a manner similar to what the AIT producers HAVE done.

What is obvious from ExxonMobil's website is that in addition to the science related donations that you HAVE mentioned, there are numerous worthy environmental causes which they regularly support to a far greater extent that you HAVE NOT mentioned. Ergo, your selectivity provides a misleading representation of ExxonMobil's contributions to the environment. I simply object to trying to paint the picture that a corporation which contributes to many worthwhile environmental causes is being nefarious and inherently anti-environment out of self-interest. If we want to paint the ExxonMobil picture that is fine, I only want to make sure that it is an accurate and balanced picture.

With regard to the RealClimate position on this issue, and giving all due respect to the climate scientists running that site and I believe some of whom contribute here, they are hardly an unbiased reference. As climate scientists their personal livelihoods are to some extent dependent upon and to a larger extent enhanced by their promoting a pro-AGW message. A pro-AGW perspective generates increased levels of climate related funding which, in turn, facilitates and enhances their livelihoods. You are asking me to believe that NSTA has been influenced because less that 3.77% of their funds come from Exxon Mobil yet you want me to ignore that fact that a far larger percentage of these people's entire livelihoods are dependent upon AGW related grants. This does not seem reasonable to me. I have no axe to grind with the scientists who run RealClimate, nor am I suggesting that they are anything other than honest and forthright individuals, but if we are going to consider the potential influences of funding streams on the results being reported I have to legitimately question their objectivity.

--GoRight 04:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What you're claiming in this last paragraph is something amounting to a conspiracy on a massive scale that could be arbitrarily applied to nearly any branch of science with not a shred of evidence supporting it. The conspiracy theory doesn't make much logical sense. For instance, for the sake of argument, if somehow it was proven scientifically that GHGs don't warm the Earth (extremely unlikely at this point), there will be a need to continue to fund climate studies regardless of causation. We will still have a great need to know where the climate is headed and what influence, if any, human activities might have going forward. Contrast this to clear and demonstrable links between individual companies funding perspectives against the virtual scientific consensus and working to influence public policy. Like the Post article mentioned, a leaked memo from the American Petroleum Institute stated a goal was "Informing teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science will begin to erect barriers against further efforts to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future." If you study the issue closely, you'll notice that many of the handful of skeptics (Singer, Lindzen for example) have been paid not only to dispute climate change but also the scientific consensus on the health effects of tobacco. Coincidence? Like tobacco companies, energy companies also act in their self-interest. Tobacco companies have no interest in getting people off cigarrettes. Similarly, companies like Exxon have no interest in curbing emissions.

Regarding NSTA funding, most is fixed from the government. Private funding isn't. Exxon and Shell have no obligation to donate to them. They do so hoping to influence a small subset of scientific issues. They've effectively put one of their reps on NSTA's advisory board. Conceivably they could have had an effect on an issue of importance to them.

Ultimately, the view of the experts who study climate change in depth are very relevant to this topic, regardless of whether or not one thinks their scientific integrity has been compromised. We should work to incorporate their view, the Post piece and NSTA's into this section.Gmb92 07:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not claiming any type of conspiracy, massive or otherwise. I am merely claiming that the climate scientists act (individually) in their own interest just as you claim the corporations do. Personally, I prefer to evaluate the science based on its merits rather than on who its funding sources are. Are you of the opinion that just because ExxonMobil funded a research project that it could not have yielded any valid scientific results? If so this is clearly not an argument based on sound deductive logic. There is no direct cause and effect between a funding source and the scientific value of the results obtained. The scientific results can be independently assessed and confirmed or refuted regardless of who the original funders were. This is how the science should be evaluated, not by ad hominem attacks on the funders.

Do you have any actual evidence that Exxon has tried to influence NSTA in terms of things that they support or not? If not how is your charge anything more than the pure conjecture that you accuse me of with respect to climate scientists? It isn't.

You are correct that Exxon and Shell are under no obligation to fund NSTA which is correct, and yet they still do and on a regular basis. How much money have the AIT producers donated to independent organizations such as NSTA or any of the other environmental causes that Exxon donates to every year? I suspect that there is a significant disparity between the two. Exxon is not obligated to donate to the Tigers either yet they do. What is their self interest in this case?

As for your last paragraph, I am not seeking to restrict the ability of the climate scientists to state their positions in any way, although you seem to be seeking to restrict the ability of those scientists who happen to disagree with them to voice their views are you not? As I said before, I have no problem with presenting the views of all of the groups you mention into this article. If you actually read the article you will see that those views remain represented so I am not sure what you feel we need to work towards in that regard. My perspective is that we work towards a fair and objective discussion of all sides of the debate. I will continue to argue against introducing material that is misleading, whether intentional or not.

If you feel that something is missing in terms of representing the views of the groups you are discussing what would that be? Make a proposal or add it to the article. Just don't do so in a misleading or biased way and I won't complain. --GoRight 23:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Climate scientists have no reason to compromise their scientific integrity or their objectivity. Their research will be funded regardless of their conclusions on global warming causation. Thus, there's no logical or factual basis for your assertion. Philip Morris will only fund those who take a stand against the scientific consensus on the dangers of smoking. Exxon will only fund those who take a position against global warming mitigation. That is the self-interest of corporations. In contrast to your assertion, this is well-documented. You seem to assume corporations are more altruistic.

The Realclimate commentary makes an excellent point on NSTA. While they rejected the Gore documentary on dubious grounds, their website promotes a book by a skeptic. [[4]] Kenneth Green is a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank that seeks to avoid GW mitigation efforts. [[5]] So while NSTA rejected a documentary that largely follows the consensus view on global warming (see Justice Burton's ruling), they are openly promoting a contrarian. If the issue is only with Al Gore and politics, you'd think they would find an alternative mainstream view to promote. The view of climate scientists on this issue is worth a note in this section.Gmb92 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have already noted, if one looks at the issue of funding sources objectively climate scientists have more reason to be biased than does NSTA. The availability of funds for climate research will clearly be greater if there is a pending world-wide climate catastrophe just around the corner, than if there is not. This is just common sense. If the pool of AGW related funding shrinks some climate scientists will be looking for other jobs or taking pay cuts. Either way they have a significant reason to be biased towards a pro-AGW perspective for financial reasons.

Exxon Mobil is pledging $100 million to Stanford University for "research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming." Are we to now assume that any research in this area that comes out of Stanford University should be simply ignored? Are we to assume that the university has been somehow tainted in this entire area? I seriously doubt that Stanford will be branded a skeptic organization just because Exxon Mobil made a contribution. Nor would I consider Stanford to have already taken a position against global warming mitigation as you claim they would have above (to be eligible for funding from and Exxon Mobil perspective).

However, even if I accept your claim of a purely self-interest driven agenda on the part of Exxon Mobil the fact that they would be selective in the research that they choose to fund is neither surprising nor objectionable. If the goal of science is to find the truth we must investigate all sides of the issue and accept where the data takes us. This includes doing research which may run contrary to the prevailing consensus of the day, does it not? What does it matter if this contrarian portion of the entire climate research picture happens to be funded by Exxon Mobil or any other party with a vested interest? Their doing so does not reduce the funding of the other portions of the climate research which you find more palatable or you have your own vested interests in, correct? As I pointed out above, the fact that Exxon Mobil funded a researcher who discovered a scientific fact that happens to be in Exxon Mobil's favor does NOT alter the scientific validity of that scientific fact one bit. The science should either stand or fall based on its merits, not based on who funded it.

The RealClimate commentary, at least as you describe it, fails to recognize that NSTA has offered multiple options to the AIT producers to promote the movie to NSTA members which would not violate their long standing policy of not endorsing products. One of those options was to provide information about the availability of the free AIT DVDs on their website. If the skeptics take NSTA up on their offer to advertise their products on the NSTA website but the AIT producers obstinately refuse to whose fault is that? The simple fact is that IF the AIT producers wanted to have their offer advertised on the NSTA website they could. They are simply choosing not to. This places their true motives into question in my mind, and your characterization of these facts is misleading on these points.

--GoRight 22:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, NSTA made claims of alternative offers. We don't know the authenticity or the details of these claims as stated or if there were certain strings attached. In fact, the film's producer (Laurie David) said she had not received the claimed offer. [[6]]

Last Thursday, NSTA released a statement claiming it had offered us "many options" for "publicizing such programs" as An Inconvenient Truth to their members. In fact, Wheeler had promised by phone just the day before that he would meet with his board and come back with possible ways to get the disks into teacher's hands. Instead he went straight to the press, claiming I had turned down an offer I never received.

The wording of the section in this article should thus be changed from "highlighting" to "claimed" with the linked response by David. As noted by Post piece, NSTA let it slip that the film was rejected in part due to "It places unnecessary risk upon the capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters". [[7]]

You've still not presented a logical or factual case for your continued claim that the very strong majority of climate scientists compromise their scientific integrity to receive funding. If anything, the government, which funds much of these grants, would prefer an answer to the effect that we can't do anything about global warming - although not to the extent that polluters would. Regardless, the climate would always need continued study regardless of causation. Your charge is similar to saying that most of those who study heart disease are falsely claiming we can do something about it because if they say we can't, their funding would dry up. It's like saying all doctors who advocate treatment and continued office visits for a disease do so because they'd get less customers if they "admitted" there was no need for the treatment. It follows that the medical journals, researchers and schools from which these professionals base their opionions have similarly compromised their scientific integrity. Certainly, you can always single out a few who cross the line. Your charge amounts to nothing more than a vast conspiracy.

Your link to the Exxon/Stanford donation also notes the PR benefit of what is, in relative terms, a small donation for Exxon. Exxon also spends money on this sort of advertising. It represents 1/10th of a percent of what they pledge for oil and gas exploration. Improved public image keeps them politically relevant. Similarly, Philip Morris in recent years have spent large sums of money to improve their battered image through donations and advertising.

"If the goal of science is to find the truth we must investigate all sides of the issue and accept where the data takes us." Yes, as opposed funding or propping up only a fringe minority that tells certain industries what they want to hear. An entity interested in objectivity would not seek only scientists (or journalists in many cases) who support only their views against mitigation, such as the American Petroleum Institutes memo stating "Informing teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science will begin to erect barriers against further efforts to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future."Gmb92 02:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a reference to an AAAS article on this controversy to provide a less biased assessment of the situation from a respected scientific publication. I also expanded your Huffington Post reference to include some important information from that reference that you (conveniently?) left out.

"Yes, as opposed funding or propping up only a fringe minority that tells certain industries what they want to hear." So you believe that Stanford University is a fringe minority organization that is being propped up by Exxon Mobil and will only tell them what they want to hear?

"An entity interested in objectivity would not seek only scientists (or journalists in many cases) who support only their views against mitigation, ..." I completely agree. As we have seen above Exxon Mobil has been demonstrated as supporting organizations across the entire spectrum of this debate (e.g. skeptics, Stanford, other environmentally aligned organizations). I am curious, do you know how much money the AIT producers have donated to the AGW skeptic organizations? I suspect that this amount would be quite low.

--GoRight 19:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"We don't know the authenticity or the details of these claims as stated or if there were certain strings attached." Likewise we don't know the authenticity or the details of David's denial, but there are multiple sources available which contradict her claim including the ScienceNOW article that I included as well as her own commentary within the article that you, yourself, provide. Your claim that she never received such an offer (at all) is rather selective on your part given that she herself then goes on to list several options which had been presented to her and openly complains about them. What is blatantly obvious from the most recent references is that (1) David wanted NSTA to issue a cover letter (thus providing an implicit product endorsement, especially in the face of their long standing policy against providing such endorsements in the form of cover letters and unrequested solicitations), and (2) she wanted to have the DVDs distributed at the expense of NSTA (since she complained about mailing costs) which, again, would undeniably constitute a finanical endorsement of the film if nothing else.

"You've still not presented a logical or factual case for your continued claim ..." I have presented the completely logical assertion that "promoting AGW catastrophe = more climate funding" coupled with the equally logical assertion "less climate funding = fewer climate scientists or reduced climate scientist salaries". You seem to be confusing the notion of "less funding" with "no funding", and the notion of "fewer climate scientists" with "no climate scientists". These terms are not equivalent, nor should these dots be that difficult to connect.

"If anything, the government, which funds much of these grants, would prefer an answer to the effect that we can't do anything about global warming - although not to the extent that polluters would." This perspective sort of depends on the government in question. Those governments who stand to gain economically under Kyoto (i.e. almost every one other than the United States) have a strong incentive to promote AGW catastrophe fears since the mitigation strategies will inevitably improve their ability to compete with the larger and better established economies in the world. This is one of the primary incentives any government has to sign onto Kyoto since, as you yourself point out, their natural incentive would be to ignore AGW altogether.

"Your charge is similar to saying that most of those who study heart disease are falsely claiming we can do something about it because if they say we can't, their funding would dry up." This attempt at an analogy is seriously flawed. In the case of medical science, treatments typically undergo double blind studies to establish not only their safety but their efficacy. Thus we are assured that these treatments do, in fact, address the maladies for which they are prescribed. Unlike heart disease which clearly exists and is not at all controversial, climate change has neither (1) been proven undeniably to be caused predominantly by man made sources, (2) been proven to be catastrophic even if it does occur, nor (3) had the proposed mitigation strategies validated in a double blind study (which doesn't even make sense). To compare these two is clearly fallacious.

"Your charge amounts to nothing more than a vast conspiracy." You repeat yourself. Please review the discussion above. As I clearly stated my observation does NOT rely in any way on collusion or conspiracy amongst the climate scientists, only a common sense notion of self-interest on their parts.

--GoRight 22:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Likewise we don't know the authenticity or the details of David's denial, but there are multiple sources available which contradict her claim including the ScienceNOW article that I included as well as her own commentary within the article that you, yourself, provide. Your claim that she never received such an offer (at all) is rather selective on your part given that she herself then goes on to list several options which had been presented to her and openly complains about them. What is blatantly obvious from the most recent references is that (1) David wanted NSTA to issue a cover letter (thus providing an implicit product endorsement, especially in the face of their long standing policy against providing such endorsements in the form of cover letters and unrequested solicitations), and (2) she wanted to have the DVDs distributed at the expense of NSTA (since she complained about mailing costs) which, again, would undeniably constitute a finanical endorsement of the film if nothing else. "

So the NSTA only endorses and distribute material from those who give them the most money, as opposed to those who present an accurate view? That's one of arguments presented by David and climate scientists.

Not at all. Conjectures made by David and/or RealClimate do NOT constitute a reliable source under the rules of WP:RS. NSTA only endorses material that they themselves produce. AIT is not an NSTA production so why should they endorse it? As for having advertisements on their website these are available to everyone. Presumably Kenneth Green paid for his, something that AIT seems unwilling to do. Neither you nor David have produced any evidence that NSTA provided that advertisement free of charge (i.e. at NSTA's expense). Please provide a valid reference to substantiate that claim or drop it as it is unsourced at this point. As for the series produced by Wheeler the distribution costs were (presumably) covered as part of the funding provided by ConocoPhillips. Neither you nor David has produced any evidence that NSTA as an organization provided that distribution free of charge (i.e. at their expense). Please provide a valid reference to substantiate that claim or drop it as it is unsourced at this point. NSTA, a highly respected scientific organization which is frequently referenced as a respected authority in various science related articles, has made it clear that they are offering the AIT producers the exact same terms as they do for everyone else. If you or David can provide a valid reference to substantiate your claim that NSTA is giving preferential treatment to some organizations, please do so or drop the point. --GoRight 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"This perspective sort of depends on the government in question. Those governments who stand to gain economically under Kyoto (i.e. almost every one other than the United States) have a strong incentive to promote AGW catastrophe fears since the mitigation strategies will inevitably improve their ability to compete with the larger and better established economies in the world. This is one of the primary incentives any government has to sign onto Kyoto since, as you yourself point out, their natural incentive would be to ignore AGW altogether. "

No major government stands to gain from mitigation (unless the economic studies showing a net economic gain from mitigation materialize). Some countries will simply incur more costs than others. The scientific organizations in every major country, including the U.S., have reached similar conclusions on the issues. If the U.S. government wanted most to avoid mitigation, by your conspiracy logic, funding in the U.S. would only be provided to those who claim there's no problem. Thus, scientists on a massive scale would be compromising their scientific integrity by claiming there's no problem we can solve. Although there have been attempts by national leaders to influence organizations like the EPA, I don't think federal funding has been conditional. Both conspiracy theories rely on the assumption that government funding is conditional on conclusions and that on a massive scale, scientists and their many peers involved in the review process compromise their integrity to achieve more funding.

"Some countries will simply incur more costs than others." Which is precisely the mechanism by which some countries will gain and others will lose, relatively speaking. In other words, this is precisely the point. I also object to your mischaracterization of my position as being a "conspiracy theory". It is not, as I have pointed out numerous times. Either provide some rational argument as to how the effects I discuss require collaboration between the actors involved or retract your assertion as it is unfounded. --GoRight 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

" This attempt at an analogy is seriously flawed. In the case of medical science, treatments typically undergo double blind studies to establish not only their safety but their efficacy. Thus we are assured that these treatments do, in fact, address the maladies for which they are prescribed. Unlike heart disease which clearly exists and is not at all controversial, climate change has neither (1) been proven undeniably to be caused predominantly by man made sources, (2) been proven to be catastrophic even if it does occur, nor (3) had the proposed mitigation strategies validated in a double blind study (which doesn't even make sense). To compare these two is clearly fallacious."

You seem to be mistaking mathematics from science. Scientists don't claim absolute proof or knowledge. They form theories and objectively make observations, gaining evidence to support them. Anthropogenic causation is one such theory with very strong evidence to support it. Numerous studies have passed rigorous peer review processes. This has gradually lead to a virtual consensus among climate scientists. Regarding mitigation, absolute proof shouldn't be the level required before action is taken.

You seem to be the one that is confused about mathematics vs. science. Please explain the rationale by which you came to the conclusion that conducting double blind studies to assess the safety and efficacy of medical treatments constitutes "mathematics" as opposed to "science". You do understand what a double blind study is, do you not? It is a carefully constructed experiment designed to provide valid scientific evidence of a predicted result for a given treatment. Where are the climate scientist's equivalent of this time tested scientific methodology? It is true that climate science undergoes various peer review processes, I am not denying that. The point I made, however, is that those processes produce nothing even approaching the level of confidence provided by double blind studies in medical research which is why your analogy is flawed. They are not even close. --GoRight 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Going forward, I think we should limit this discussion to the topic at hand - that being the NSTA/An Inconvenient Truth issue specifically. There have been too many lengthy digressions.Gmb92 07:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Please provide valid references for your assertion that NSTA has acted in an unethical manner with respect to their position regarding the AIT producers. Conjectures made by David or RealClimate do not constitute evidence in this context. If you cannot provide such evidence please remove your claims in this respect from the article as they constitute a violation of WP:BLP which demands that they be purged not only from the article in question but these discussion pages as well. --GoRight 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)