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."

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:

[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 matc

Re:

[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

Re:

[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 t

Re:

[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 "

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

[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

[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:

[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, t

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 [uni-mannheim.de] or here [wwu.edu] (annotated)

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:

[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

Re:

[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 poi

Re:

[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

Re:

[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 unkno

Re:

[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 b

Re:

[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

Re:

[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:

[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 t

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:

[Ingolfke]

Of course... I think that to not put Al Gore's name on the film probably would have meant it was pretty much ignored.

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?

I am not a poliSci major, but....

[zappepcs]

It seems to me that all big business is incapable of being apolitical. It is politicians that make the laws that help or hinder the processes of big business, so therefore, big business necessarily must be political.

While it is offensive that big oil is trying to shape the minds and hearts of children in school, it is hardly surprising. Did everyone miss the evil masterminds in the James Bond films? Its not like big business is terribly different. Okay, not as destructive, but they are still trying to make

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.

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.

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 [unep.org]

Can't Be Cool Without Fuel: what about Canada?

[fantomas]

"You Can't Be Cool Without Fuel"? Seems like it gets pretty bloody chilly in places like Canada and Finland in the winter and you get mighty cool if not plain freezing if you don't have any fuel. Damn those oil guys don't know much, do they?

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.

why be cooperative

[grapeape]

The MPAA and RIAA continue to fund "copyright" education programs for schools and have been attempting to stronghold "entertainment" taxes to universities across the country. Propaganda is Propaganda, and whether you agree with the message or not, An Inconvenient Truth fits that mold. You cant strongarm and threaten with one hand and expect people to want to shake the other.

Like it or not you do have to have fuel of some sort to be cool. Exxon and other companies have been funding science programs for de

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 [commercialalert.org]
* Book It (Pizza Hut) [bookitprogram.com]
* A growing trend of commercialization of sporting events and buildings [asu.edu]
* 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 [toledoblade.com].

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?

Unless they have different ideas than you do...

[benhocking]

Can you guess where the maximized profits are going [treehugger.com]?

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 perha

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?

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 OBVI

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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:

[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 wi

Re:

[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 ethic

Re:

[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 ag

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!

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.

Your definition of "propaganda" is wrong.

[Samrobb]

Asking Google to define:propaganda [google.com] 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

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.

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...

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 [sefora.org] SEA: Scientists and Engineers for America [sefora.org], 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?

science / politics

[Russ Nelson]

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

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.

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....

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.

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.

New title for the movie:

[SonicSpike]

"An Inconsistent Truth"

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 [blogspot.com] 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:

[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. :(

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:

[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?

Re:

[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?

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:

[ArcherB]

And what scientific field is Al Gore in again?

Re:

[Ironsides]

And what scientific field is Al Gore in again?

That's easy. Political Science.

Re:

[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

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 [wikipedia.org] 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 [wikipedia.org]. 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.

Re:

[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:

[div_2n]

whats the difference?

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

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[YrWrstNtmr]

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

Genetics.

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:

[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

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 " [accuweather.com] 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

[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:

[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 a

Re:

[bluekanoodle]

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

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:

[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.

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 [motherjones.com] on behalf of said industry. (There's an analogue for creationism [antievolution.org] 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 [timlambert.org] tired crap [talkorigins.org] is thrown out time and again, designed not to advance anyone's understanding of anything, but to sow public confusion and doubt.

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.

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.

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 a

Utter bullshit

[snowwrestler]

I've pointed this out before [slashdot.org], 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 i

Re:

[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.

It's not the editors.

[Grendel Drago]

That's not from the edit summary, that's from Frogbeater [slashdot.org]'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.

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 [wikipedia.org]:

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

[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.

Re:

[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:

[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 pow

Re:

[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

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.

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 [thinkprogress.org]? 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? ;)

Dependency is cool?

[benhocking]

And calling that dependency "cool" is any less stupid?

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 [wikipedia.org]

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

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.

Re:

[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..."