an even more inconvenient truth??

[svandamme]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400789_pf.html

Science a la Joe Camel

By Laurie David
Sunday, November 26, 2006; B01



At hundreds of screenings this year of "An Inconvenient Truth," the first thing many viewers said after the lights came up was that every student in every school in the United States needed to see this movie.

The producers of former vice president Al Gore's film about global warming, myself included, certainly agreed. So the company that made the documentary decided to offer 50,000 free DVDs to the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) for educators to use in their classrooms. It seemed like a no-brainer.

The teachers had a different idea: Thanks but no thanks, they said.

In their e-mail rejection, they expressed concern that other "special interests" might ask to distribute materials, too; they said they didn't want to offer "political" endorsement of the film; and they saw "little, if any, benefit to NSTA or its members" in accepting the free DVDs.

Gore, however, is not running for office, and the film's theatrical run is long since over. As for classroom benefits, the movie has been enthusiastically endorsed by leading climate scientists worldwide, and is required viewing for all students in Norway and Sweden.

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.

That's the same Exxon Mobil that for more than a decade has done everything possible to muddle public understanding of global warming and stifle any serious effort to solve it. It has run ads in leading newspapers (including this one) questioning the role of manmade emissions in global warming, and financed the work of a small band of scientific skeptics who have tried to challenge the consensus that heat-trapping pollution is drastically altering our atmosphere. The company spends millions to support groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute that aggressively pressure lawmakers to oppose emission limits.

It's bad enough when a company tries to sell junk science to a bunch of grown-ups. But, like a tobacco company using cartoons to peddle cigarettes, Exxon Mobil is going after our kids, too.

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."

So, how is any of this different from showing Gore's movie in the classroom? The answer is that neither Gore nor Participant Productions, which made the movie, stands to profit a nickel from giving away DVDs, and we aren't facing millions of dollars in lost business from limits on global-warming pollution and a shift to cleaner, renewable energy.

It's hard to say whether NSTA is a bad guy here or just a sorry victim of tight education budgets. And we don't pretend that a two-hour movie is a substitute for a rigorous science curriculum. Students should expect, and parents should demand, that educators present an honest and unbiased look at the true state of knowledge about the challenges of the day.

As for Exxon Mobil -- which just began a fuzzy advertising campaign that trumpets clean energy and low emissions -- this story shows that slapping green stripes on a corporate tiger doesn't change the beast within. The company is still playing the same cynical game it has for years.

While NSTA and Exxon Mobil ponder the moral lesson they're teaching with all this, there are 50,000 DVDs sitting in a Los Angeles warehouse, waiting to be distributed. In the meantime, Mom and Dad may want to keep a sharp eye on their kids' science homework.

not accepting a free , non political educational DVD for what reason? if this is really true, then it's quite sad ...

[jluetjen]

Non-political???

It was made by a politician. It hardly constitutes a scientifically prepared study of the subject, and randomly mixes facts with conjecture against a visual backdrop of stock images that are not in fact directly linked with the subject in order to elicit an emotional response from the viewer. A couple of alternative observations which are just as valid:

1)

the first thing many viewers said after the lights came up was that every student in every school in the United States needed to see this movie.

Given that somewhat more skeptical audiances such as myself did not bother to contribute our money to the cause by buying tickets, it's not surprising that the majority (note that this was not a scientific poll but just the opinion on the part of the movie's producer who wrote the piece) of the viewer endorsed it. It's known as "preaching to the choir". Those who don't buy the premise of the film "self selected" themselves out of the audiences that were raving about the movie!

2)

As for classroom benefits, the movie has been enthusiastically endorsed by leading climate scientists worldwide,

Not that I've seen. Parts of the movie are accurate, parts just hogwash. But since you quoted an editorial, I can safely say that the Wall Street Journal has published conflicting editorials, quoting scientist who have pointed out some of the gapping holes in the science of Gore's movie. Both are opinion pieces and need to be read with a critical eye. Some of the contrary observations:

(1) Near the beginning of the film, Gore pays respects to his Harvard mentor and inspiration, Dr. Roger Revelle. Gore praises Revelle for his discovery that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising and could potentially contribute to higher temperatures at a global scale. There is no mention, however, of Revelle's article published in the early 1990s concluding that the science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action." (S.F. Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, "What to do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap. Cosmos 1 (1993) 28-33.)

(2) Gore discusses glacial and snowpack retreats atop Kenya's Mt. Kilimanjaro, implying that human induced global warming is to blame. But Gore fails to mention that the snows of Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to declining atmospheric moisture, not global warming. Gore does not acknowledge the two major articles on the subject published in 2004 in the International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical Research showing that modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro was initiated by a reduction in precipitation at the end of the nineteenth century and not by local or global warming.

(3) Many of Gore's conclusions are based on the "Hockey Stick" that shows near constant global temperatures for 1,000 years with a sharp increase in temperature from 1900 onward. The record Gore chooses in the film completely wipes out the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago and Little Ice Age that started 500 years ago and ended just over 100 years ago. There is evidence from throughout the world that these climate episodes existed, but on Gore's Hockey Stick, they become nothing more than insignificant fluctuations (Gore even jokes at one point about the Medieval Warm period).

(4) You will certainly not be surprised to see Katrina, other hurricanes, tornadoes, flash floods, and many types of severe weather events linked by Gore to global warming. However, if one took the time to read the downloadable "Summary for Policymakers" in the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one would learn that "No systematic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail events are evident in the limited areas analysed" and that "Changes globally in tropical and extra-tropical storm intensity and frequency are dominated by inter-decadal and multi-decadal variations, with no significant trends evident over the 20th century."

(5) Gore claims that sea-level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. No mention is made of the fact that sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years; the IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected."

(6) Near the end of the film, we learn of ways the United States could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases back to the levels of 1970. OK. Assume the United States accomplishes this lofty goal, would we see any impact on climate? The well-known answer is NO. China, India and many other countries are significantly increasing their emission levels, and global concentrations of CO2 may double this century no matter what we decide to do in the United States. Even if the Kyoto Protocol could be fully implemented to honor the opening of this movie, the globe would be spared no more than a few hundredths of a degree of warming.

7) Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years"; Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

8) Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier" says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

9) Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect" Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

[jluetjen]

10) Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

11) Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junkscience."

Should you believe the folks I dug up in a 2 minute internet search versus Gore's supporters? No more then you should take Gore's supporters at Gospel truth. Both should be read with a critical eye. But the fact that in 2 minutes I could turn up some very rational arguments against Gore's point of view pretty clearly refutes Laurie David statement "the movie has been enthusiastically endorsed by leading climate scientists worldwide".

3)

Gore, however, is not running for office, and the film's theatrical run is long since over.

So the company that made the documentary decided to offer 50,000 free DVDs to the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) for educators to use in their classrooms.

My goodness, non-political organization(s) have suddenly chosen to freely give $100K's worth of science DVD's to the schools with no strings attached. Does the phrase "they couldn't give it away" sound familiar? How about the movie bombed? The movie played in public theaters to a luke -warm response as far as sales go, being out sold by "Click", "Cars", "Nacho Libre", "Waist Deep", and "Wordplay" -- not to mention "March of the Penguins" which I would consider to be a far more scientific movie. Now it is being given away by National Geographic and other organizations to new members, relegating it to the same status as tote bags, umbrellas and toasters. I found this somewhat ironic since even National Geographic had previously published "Earth's climate is changing, but just how it's happening, and our own role in the process, is less certain." -- a far more balanced conclusion given the facts.

BTW - Given the drastic warming, what happened to the predicited increase in "Killer" Hurricanes this past season -- one of the warmest on record???

[Jeff Higgins]

Fantastic answer John. All but the "true believers" saw Gore's film for what it was. Not surprising in the least that one of the film's producers would snivel about the NSTA's very wise decision not to wade into this muck.

[Nathans_Dad]

Gore's film was widely considered to be more fiction than fact by most of the scientists in the field.

You might as well make all the schools watch "The Day After Tomorrow"...

[legion]

Even if it is fabricated, we all know it is still true.

[svandamme]

but how come that Big companies are able to finance the schooling system to the point that it affects their ability to accept DVD's??

i'm not even discussing the content of the DVD, Gore is not running for any office, so he's not an active politician, he's more a lobbyist handing out things for free...if it is rubbish, then fine , reject it on that basis, not on the basis of big companies financing you , that , i would call corruption...

[Porsche-O-Phile]

But if Dubya were to release a film tomorrow explaining how the Lord Jesus Christ came to him in a vision and told him that the world and all its resources were a divine gift from God to be used by mankind as they please without implication, ramification or consequence, you guys would lap it up like sows at a trough, wouldn't you?

[widebody911]

Job #1 for industry is the protection and maximization of profit, irrespective of the environment. Period. These are the same guys who had to be forced to stop dumping toxic waste in our rivers and lakes, and who move their operations to 3rd world countries who won't tell them "no." They fought environmental regulations saying that there was no harm in their dumping practices.

Sound familiar?

The oil industry will make billions maintaining the status quo. What does the 'wacko tree hugger' global warming have to gain?

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by svandamme
but how come that Big companies are able to finance the schooling system to the point that it affects their ability to accept DVD's??

i'm not even discussing the content of the DVD, Gore is not running for any office, so he's not an active politician, he's more a lobbyist handing out things for free...if it is rubbish, then fine , reject it on that basis, not on the basis of big companies financing you , that , i would call corruption...

Svandamme; since your location is listed as Rotterdam -- have you ever spent any time in US schools?

Having two kids in public schools here in the very "Blue" state of Massachusetts, I can tell you that teachers just don't have time for stuff like this film. Now as the result of state and national education standards being set for each grade's performance, and quantitative testing to these standards (MCAS in the case of Massachusetts), teachers have a pretty laser sharp focus on what they need to teach their kids get them to pass the tests. It's pretty fundimental stuff like Math, hard-core science, literacy, critical thought, scientific analysis and stuff like that. To be honest, Gore's movie falls short on a number of those points. So even if they agree with the environmental sentiment of the film, they just don't have the time available after the basics.

As far as big companies funding the schools -- that's flat out inaccurate. It's my taxes (and the taxes of the other residents of my town, and to a lesser degree state) that fund the school. I know that for a fact, and I'm reminded of that fact quarterly. Any contributions from big companies tends to be "in-kind" contributions which are used in support of the standards supporting curriculum. If it doesn't line up with the curriculum, chances are you won't find it in the class room.

BTW - as a parent, I like the improvement that I've seen in the US education system since the implimentation of standards and standards testing. Each year each town's test results are published, and I can tell you that those school systems were progress is not being made to the standards generally feel considerable pressure and scrutiny from the parents and residents to get with the program.

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
But if Dubya were to release a film tomorrow explaining how the Lord Jesus Christ came to him in a vision and told him that the world and all its resources were a divine gift from God to be used by mankind as they please without implication, ramification or consequence, you guys would lap it up like sows at a trough, wouldn't you?

Uh.... No!!!!

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
But if Dubya were to release a film tomorrow explaining how the Lord Jesus Christ came to him in a vision and told him that the world and all its resources were a divine gift from God to be used by mankind as they please without implication, ramification or consequence, you guys would lap it up like sows at a trough, wouldn't you?

No. But you sure would like to think so, wouldn't you?

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
But if Dubya were to release a film tomorrow explaining how the Lord Jesus Christ came to him in a vision and told him that the world and all its resources were a divine gift from God to be used by mankind as they please without implication, ramification or consequence, you guys would lap it up like sows at a trough, wouldn't you?

Passion of the Chimp is set to open in select theaters 4/1/07

[svandamme]

Originally posted by jluetjen
Svandamme; since your location is listed as Rotterdam -- have you ever spent any time in US schools?

Having two kids in public schools here in the very "Blue" state of Massachusetts, I can tell you that teachers just don't have time for stuff like this film. Now as the result of state and national education standards being set for each grade's performance, and quantitative testing to these standards (MCAS in the case of Massachusetts), teachers have a pretty laser sharp focus on what they need to teach their kids get them to pass the tests. It's pretty fundimental stuff like Math, hard-core science, literacy, critical thought, scientific analysis and stuff like that. To be honest, Gore's movie falls short on a number of those points. So even if they agree with the environmental sentiment of the film, they just don't have the time available after the basics.

As far as big companies funding the schools -- that's flat out inaccurate. It's my taxes (and the taxes of the other residents of my town, and to a lesser degree state) that fund the school. I know that for a fact, and I'm reminded of that fact quarterly. Any contributions from big companies tends to be "in-kind" contributions which are used in support of the standards supporting curriculum. If it doesn't line up with the curriculum, chances are you won't find it in the class room.

BTW - as a parent, I like the improvement that I've seen in the US education system since the implimentation of standards and standards testing. Each year each town's test results are published, and I can tell you that those school systems were progress is not being made to the standards generally feel considerable pressure and scrutiny from the parents and residents to get with the program.

haven't been to any schools, i never claimed i believe the article, just posted it to discuss and hear opinions about it.... i'm not taking any sides here, just trying to find out because some of the things strike me as very odd

[Dottore]

Originally posted by jluetjen
, I can tell you that teachers just don't have time for stuff like this film. Now as the result of state and national education standards being set for each grade's performance, and quantitative testing to these standards (MCAS in the case of Massachusetts), teachers have a pretty laser sharp focus on what they need to teach their kids get them to pass the tests. It's pretty fundimental stuff like Math, hard-core science, literacy, critical thought, scientific analysis and stuff like that. To be honest, Gore's movie falls short on a number of those points. So even if they agree with the environmental sentiment of the film, they just don't have the time available after the basics.

This is really weak.

To suggest that the average US school curriculum is so full of substantive core teaching that 90 minutes cannot be made available for a film that will teach kids to be a bit more environmentally aware - beggars belief. There are differing views about how sound the science behind a couple of aspects of the film actually is. But surely you cannot argue with the core message of the film. And surely you can find 90 minutes somewhere in the school year for this!

[legion]

The core message of the film is being disputed.

I'm sure you would feel differently about taking 90 minutes out of the school day to have the kids watch "The Passion of the Christ".

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by widebody911
Job #1 for industry is the protection and maximization of profit, irrespective of the environment. Period. These are the same guys who had to be forced to stop dumping toxic waste in our rivers and lakes, and who move their operations to 3rd world countries who won't tell them "no." They fought environmental regulations saying that there was no harm in their dumping practices.

Sound familiar?

The oil industry will make billions maintaining the status quo. What does the 'wacko tree hugger' global warming have to gain?

So Thom, it sounds like you paint the odd car or two every now and then. Here in Washington, the law mandates the use of a state approved environmental booth to do that. Yeah, lots of hobbyists shirk that requirement and just do it in their garage, knowing enforcement is almost non-existant. The photos or your Ghia (which looks fantastic, by the way) show you painting in your garage. Lots of evaporative emissions escaping into the environment there, probably in violation of California's clean air act.

I don't know; maybe they allow a certain number of cars to be painted without environmental controls if you are not a production shop, feeling it's not that big of an impact. Kind of doubt it, though, since they are stooping to regulating things like lawnmower/weedeater emissions. Anyway, be it legal or not, I would think anyone truly concerned about the environment and global warming would take all necessary precautions regardless. Lead the way; set an example. Unless, of course, that is simply too expensive or inconvenient.

[jluetjen]

By the way, to really confuse some on this BBS --

I actually believe that controlling greenhouse gasses is a good thing that should be done. I like the idea of a cap with market trading of the gasses creation rights.

But I don't think that it's a good thing to lie, and preach bogus science as a means to this end. The end does not justify the means. I think that the Dem's would do themselves a great service by stepping back from constant demagoguary on this and other subjects. When you turn subjects like this into a dogma, they essentially turn their back on the prospect of negotiating a useful compromise.

This is the big risk to the new Democratic Congress in the US. The Republicans tend to be practical about their lawmaking and cut deals with disparate groups to build concensus and to make progress on issues. The Dem's tend to adopt issues as dogmatic truths which results in an all-or-nothing negotiation attitude. The result if they continue will be a wasted 2 years congressionally.

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by legion
The core message of the film is being disputed.

I'm sure you would feel differently about taking 90 minutes out of the school day to have the kids watch "The Passion of the Christ".

No. I'm hot advacating the playing of "The Passion of the Christ" in schools either, at least not in the case of primary schools. I wouldn't see a problem with it as part of an elective course on religions or biblical history at a senior high-school level or in a state college.

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by Dottore
This is really weak.

To suggest that the average US school curriculum is so full of substantive core teaching that 90 minutes cannot be made available for a film that will teach kids to be a bit more environmentally aware - beggars belief. There are differing views about how sound the science behind a couple of aspects of the film actually is. But surely you cannot argue with the core message of the film. And surely you can find 90 minutes somewhere in the school year for this!

Once again, all that I can do is speak from my experience as a parent of two school aged kids right now, with a sister who is a public school teacher. My observation may not be true in other states or towns, but in the case of my town and my sister's town (both of which ranked above the state average in MCAS scores), you'd be hard pressed to find 90 minutes of free time for stuff like this.

Maybe your experience is different, in which case I'd appreciate hearing the specifics.