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

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

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

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

 ::::::