"Now NSTA is arguing that distributing An Inconvenient Truth to teachers would violate their 2001 policy against endorsements. But that policy didn't stop them from
shipping out 20,000 copies of a whopping 10-part video funded by ConocoPhillips in 2003."
http://www.nsta.org/pressroom&news_story_ID=48208"Wheeler says this is OK because NSTA had editorial control of the project. If that's true, then maybe he can explain why the only scientist cited in the largely dismissive global warming section appearing in chapters six, nine and ten of the teaching guides is Dr. Robert Balling -
a well known global warming skeptic who has acknowledged taking more than $400,000 from the fossil fuel industry (others say the figure is higher)."
http://udoj.blogspot.com/2006/12/nsta-is-feeding-us-line.htmlWhat's more, the NSTA is covering their tracks -- pro-oil industry NSTA webpages have mysteriously disappeared over the last two weeks:
http://www2.nsta.org/Energy/find/running/And in this email, NSTA's Ken French reveals the real reason for shunning
An Inconvenient Truth:
"David,
Howard, Larry, and I met this morning to discuss this opportunity and no longer need the Friday 3:00PM meeting. There is strong consensus that we should pass of this opportunity for a variety of reasons:
* There is little if any, benefit to NSTA or its membership
* There is risk of a possible implicit endorsement of NSTA
* They could buy our mailing list, or buy a more complete list of science teachers from QED, which leads us to believe there may be an unstated interest in ?endorsement by association?
* It may be perceived as a political endorsement by our membership
* It places unnecessary risk upon the capital campaign, especially certain targeted supportersTargeted supporters like NSTA donors Exxon. ExxonMobil, Shell Oil, and ConocoPhillips perhaps?
:grr: