I wrote back on September 28th about how Dr. Roger Pielke Senior and Dr. Bob Carter had been invited to present their views on climate science, then after the organizers found out what might be discussed, redacted the invitations to these scientists.
We also recently saw another example of how a “great debate” on climate had been staged by a Hollywood heavyweight, director James Cameron, who backed out of a debate with Climate Depot’s Marc Morano at the last minute, after Morano was already in the air and en-route to the debate. He’s now been dubbed “Titanic chicken of the sea” for saying things like James Cameron boldly slammed global warming skeptics as “swine” on the day he was supposed to be debating them. “I think they’re swine” Also see: Director James Cameron Unleashed: Calls for gun fight with global warming skeptics: ‘I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads’ then not having the guts to actually follow through with a debate that he set up in the first place. All bark, no bite.
After all that…. guess what?
I was invited by Chico State University to the Great Debate Oct 28th in the City council Chambers on the topic of the Proposition 23, delay of California Prop32, the “global warming law”. I accepted with a caveat, but due to that caveat I’ve now joined the club of the “disinvited”. My crime? Wanting to show some slides to go along with my oral presentation.
I figured this would be OK because when the city sustainability committee presented their “Climate Action Plan” they got to use their own slide show, but silly me, apparently science slide shows are only for those who believe, not those who want to challenge the belief.
This started way back when I was critical of our local city council and the city sustainability committee’s Climate Action Plan which is heavily opinionated by people from the sustainability cabal of our local university. I was criticized for my stance by sustainability guru Dr. Mark Stemen who said I was ducking debate:
“There are a series of debates scheduled on AB 32/ Prop 23. Do you want to crawl out and play? Or is it too scary in public?”
As I explained to Professor Stemen then, one of the reasons I don’t do a lot of public debate is that I have an 85% hearing loss, and it makes following a live interchange difficult, sometimes impossible. When I was on the local school board, having public meetings in the very same council chambers, the only way I could follow dialog was with a hearing assistance device. It was difficult, and sometimes embarrassing, but I did my public duty the best I could.
I do better when I give a presentation, interaction where I have to hear others and respond on the fly is tough. Most people don’t understand that a hearing loss requires using a lot of brainpower to pull meaning from context when you can’t hear well. This means forming a rebuttal can be tough when you have to think on the fly.
So when this invitation showed up in my inbox…
Name: Thia Wolf
Email: cwolf@xxxxxx
Website: http://www.csuchico.edu/fye/greatdebate
Dear Mr. Watts:
I am writing to ask if you would be interested in participating as a debate team member in the “Main Event” community debate in City Council Chambers on October 28. The debate subject is “AB 32: To Suspend or Not to Suspend?” We are working to put together three-person teams on each side. Teams will meet with the CSU, Chico debate team for tips on debate strategies. This meeting can be virtual. At present, Larry Wahl has confirmed he will be on the team. We are hoping you will be the second member and a business person concerned about AB 32 will be third.
Please let me know if this is of interest to you. The debate is webcast live and may also be televised. We emphasize civil discourse. I would like to send you the general invitation and more information if you are interested. Many thanks for considering this.
thia wolf
cwolf@xxxxxx
Director, First-Year Experience Program
Time: Friday October 1, 2010 at 9:38 am
IP Address: 132.241.36.200
….I had to give it some serious thought. I read the letter carefully, and looked over the website link she gave. I asked initially if she’d be able to control the venue, since the last time I spoke at the podium in the city council chambers on an environmental issue, I was heckled, called names, and shouted at. The venue can be ugly. She said she could help control the debate, and I responded to her assurances with:
On 10/5/10 1:17 PM, “Anthony Watts” wrote:
Dear Ms. Wolf,
Thank you. I’ve looked at the materials provided, and unfortunately I cannot determine:
1. Where the event you are inviting me to would be held (in Council main chamber or in a side room)
2. What time it would be held and the duration.
3. The actual format, length of presentations, etc.
Given my hearing disability, the only possible venue for me is the main chamber. There is a hearing assistance system there, and I can bring my best headphones to plug into the receivers used.
Also, given that disability, I likely won’t be able to pick up well on others presentations and make rebuttals, the only circumstances that I would consider participating would be to be able to provide a slide show while I speak. This would allow me to make a strong factually based presentation without relying on hearing skills to rebut others.
This can easily be accomplished by connecting my laptop to the VGA port on the left side desk. I did this when I was on the school board, and the scan converter made it also transmit to the cable TV channel.
To be fair, others should be able to present a short slide show if they wish. I certainly encourage it, and it would keep the debate factually grounded. I’ll make my laptop available to anyone who wishes to put a PowerPoint presentation on it and help them test it beforehand. Thank you for your consideration.
Best Regards, Anthony Watts
She responded with:
From: “Wolf, Thia”
Date: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 1:26 PM
To: “Anthony Watts”
Cc: “Peterson, Sue”; “Justus, Zachary”
Subject: Re: Invitation to the Great Debate
Dear Mr. Watts:
Thank you for getting back to me! I am forwarding this information to the Communication Studies faculty who organize the evening event. I feel they are best positioned to decide if they can incorporate this technology into the evening debate.
The event is in the main Council Chambers. The format has been developed by the debate experts in Communication, so they can go over this with you. The Main Event starts at 6:30. Again, the faculty should be able to give you a good estimate of how long the student debate will take, prior to the community member debate.
I have copied the two lead faculty members for this project on this email. I am sure they will confer before getting back to you, so please give them a day to do so.
I appreciate your willingness to consider participating.
Thank you,
thia
I thought the response was rather odd, because virtually every city council meeting has a slide show, and there’s a system in place to make it happen and broadcast the slide show live to the town for anyone who wants to use it. There’s really no “technology to incorporate”. Besides, neither the Great Debate Invitation sent to me, the letter Great Debate Letter AB 32 nor the web site had any caveats against using a slide show.
This is the response I got back:
From: “Wolf, Thia”
Date: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 10:43 AM
To: “Anthony Watts”
Cc: “Peterson, Sue” ; “John Rucker”; “Justus, Zachary”
Subject: Re: Invitation to the Great Debate
Dear Mr. Watts:
There is agreement that we are happy to make sure the the hearing assistance system is working well in Chambers before the debate so that you will have the benefit of its use. The debate does not, however, include visuals.
That would require a different format from the one we use. It is possible to place you in the debate team line-up so that rebuttal is NOT your responsibility–for instance, you could open the debate for your team.
Please let us know if you feel you can participate under these conditions.
Best,
thia
I was puzzled. Why could we not use visuals? This made no sense, especially since the room is set up for it, and the Climate Action Plan people made a slideshow when they pitched it to the city council and the public. So why can’t I? I sent this reply:
From: “Anthony Watts”
Date: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 11:13 AM
To: “Wolf, Thia”
Cc: “Peterson, Sue” ; “John Rucker” ; “Justus, Zachary”
Subject: Re: Invitation to the Great Debate
Hello Ms. Wolf,
Thank you for your reply.
I spent my whole adult life making and presenting visuals to help people understand scientific points on television, and now via blogging and scientific literature. You are inviting me to participate because of who I am and what I do. To deny me the ability to practice my craft, combined with my hearing disability, puts me at an extreme disadvantage compared to others there. I don’t work from a script, I don’t use a teleprompter, and I never have. I wouldn’t write a script or statement for this either. The visuals are my guide for the oration. I gave hour long talks in Australia this past June all over the continent and never once gave a prepared statement.
This is a technical argument that I would be making about climate and CO2, which is the root of the issue for Prop 23 and the GHG law. It is impossible to convey it without some visuals. People can’t see science in their heads.
Without visuals, my presence is pointless. In this day and age of visuals, especially when there is easy and ready presentation access at the city council chambers, I find your argument against using them weak and quite frankly, a cop out, especially when the same opportunity can easily be shared by others. This is sad, and out of touch with today’s reality, because the Prop 23 battle is being fought on television with visuals and
innuendo, I would think you’d welcome factual debate with visuals, unless of course the point of this debate is not about facts, but about feelings.
To deny visuals in a public debate is in my opinion, a sad commentary on CSUC’s program. Even in a court of law the prosecution and the defense are allowed visuals. How else would they explain forensic science to a jury? Get with the times!
Given the disadvantages I will face, and unless there is some sort of accommodation for me to present at least some visuals, I see no other option but to decline your invitation.
I await your reconsideration.
Best Regards, Anthony Watts
The reply I got back was pretty curt:
From: Wolf, Thia
Date: Thursday, October 07, 2010 8:50 AM
To: Anthony Watts
Cc: Peterson, Sue ; Justus, Zachary ; John Rucker
Subject: Great Debate
Dear Mr. Watts:
The Great Debate is meant to provide space for citizens to practice an older discourse form. There are various kinds of presentations during the day, some of them technologized, but we are invoking a traditional style of civil exchange in the evening. We do thank you for considering our invitation, and we regret that the format is not to your liking. We are committed, however, to a traditional debate format for the “main event” debates.
Best,
thia
thia wolf
First-Year Experience Program, director
California State University, Chico
“Let your voice be heard.”
(530) 898-xxxx
Wow, some debates get “technologized” but mine can’t be?
I sent this in reply:
From: Anthony Watts
Date: Thursday, October 07, 2010 1:07 PM
To: Wolf, Thia
Cc: Peterson, Sue ; Justus, Zachary ; John Rucker
Subject: Re: Great Debate
Dear Ms. Wolf,
Thank you for your cordial reply. I’m sorry to say this, but I’m going to respectfully call BS on your position.
In your invitation to me,
Name: Thia Wolf
Email: cwolf@xxxxxx
Website: http://www.csuchico.edu/fye/greatdebate
Dear Mr. Watts:
I am writing to ask if you would be interested in participating as a debate team member in the “Main Event” community debate in City Council Chambers on October 28. The debate subject is “AB 32: To Suspend or Not to Suspend?” We are working to put together three-person teams on each side. Teams will meet with the CSU, Chico debate team for tips on debate strategies. This meeting can be virtual. At present, Larry Wahl has confirmed he will be on the team. We are hoping you will be the second member and a business person concerned about AB 32 will be third.
Please let me know if this is of interest to you. The debate is webcast live and may also be televised. We emphasize civil discourse. I would like to send you the general invitation and more information if you are interested. Many thanks for considering this.
thia wolf
cwolf@xxxxx
Director, First-Year Experience Program
You make no caveats on presentation style of any kind. You also highlight the webcast nature of it and the televised nature of it.
Let’s recap: You invite a television person, me, and then deny him his normal tools while at the same time promoting the television and webcast nature of the entire event.
My work has been television for years, and now on the web. I operate the most visited climate science blog on the planet, now with 57 million visits. So yes, I’m fluent with both TV and web presentation. In fact I built, designed, and donated the first live webcast system for the city council chambers in 2005.
So to deny me the tools of that venue that I am fluent in using, while promoting the venue using the same tools you deny me, is a paradox. Do you see how incongruent your position is? I think you’d lose that debate.
I’m going into what I see as a hostile environment, at a disadvantage due to my hearing disability, only asking to present some slides as is normal for my work on television and web, and yet your tagline proudly says:
“Let your voice be heard.”
Well I’m sure trying, but they won’t let me use TV tools on a public TV program. As they say in the news business: “That won’t play well in Peoria”. I urge you one last time to reconsider.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best Regards, Anthony Watts
Yes my response was a little strong, but really, how can a couple of slides cause any trouble? Especially when other portions of the day long venue get to use slide shows? I asked them to reconsider in my last sentence, surely, they’d come to their senses? But days passed, nothing. So I sent this:
From: Anthony Watts
Date: Monday, October 11, 2010 11:01 AM
To: Wolf, Thia
Subject: Re: Great Debate
Hello Ms. Wolf,
It has been four days since I sent my last message and I have received no reply from you. So that I’m not bothering you anymore please clarify. My presentation is not welcome and there will be no further response.
Is that correct? Thank you for your consideration.
Best Regards, Anthony Watts
And this is the response I got back:
From: Wolf, Thia
Date: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 7:02 AM
To: Anthony Watts
Cc: Justus, Zachary ; Peterson, Sue ; John Rucker
Subject: Re: Great Debate
Dear Mr. Watts,
I am sorry for the delay in my response. We do not want visuals during the debate, but we thank you for your input.
thia
So I’m thinking to myself, “I’ll give it some time. Maybe they’ll reconsider.”.
But here it is, the day before the “Great Debate” and I’m still waiting. [Update: I checked the program just after writing this to see that I’m truly disinvited, see graphic below -Anthony]
Given that today’s debates are fought visually in electronic media, it would have been an opportunity for CSUC students to practice debate as it is done in the real world today, rather than the debate structure of times gone by, such as the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debate of 1858.
I suppose if you want to debate in the style of that period using only words to describe technological and science issues, more power to you, but really, this is the 21st century.
Here’s an example of how the Prop 23 debate is being waged in California on television:
The kid with the inhaler is a nice touch, don’t you think? No science here, AB32 it’s about limiting CO2, not particulates! And I used to think the Lung Association was a straight shooter.
They are off my list of charities now.
u won’t be invited on aljazeera either, anthony:
unfortunately, there appears to be no link available to this unbelievabe (believable?) half-hour of propaganda against Prop 23 which is showing on Aljazeera English multiple times this week .
it associates any funding for Prop23 with evil, but google/silicon valley’s massive funding against Prop23 (how many trillion were lost in the dotcom bubble, guys?) is just fine. footage of young people protesting against Prop23 to save the world and Dan Logue portrayed as some old guy owned by the oil companies in texas.
i actually enjoy some in-depth progs on aljazeera, but this was so one-sided, my jaw dropped.
depending what comes up at this link, u may have to click on a country to get the schedule to appear with the following summary. i clicked on Australia, but the program seems to have been broadcast in a number of countries:
Aljazeera English Schedule: People and Power People & Power exposes the connections between Proposition 23, the emboldened Tea Party movement in the US and two secretive billionaires who are backing both.
http://english.aljazeera.net/Services/Schedule/ProgramSchedule.aspx
@Mark et al:
Do you not see the irony? Does it not seem to you that a debate sans visuals on a topic as scientifically important as climate change, basically called the Great Climate Change Debate, is an oxymoron?
It’s a bit like Stevem Jobs launching Apple’s next product with a speech without visuals, isn’t it?
Hard to take such an event seriously. To me, the event, and the sponsors, have no credibility given the complete disconnect between the topic and the format.
Robin Kool says:
October 27, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Our Junior high school Debate Team (circa 1960’s)-
We used 3×5 index cards for outlining the topic. No other aids were allowed. Rebuttals were spontaneous and on the fly. This is traditional debate, IMO.
All in all, an invitation was extended to Anthony, there was a format conflict due to his special requirements, the sponsors did not want to alter that established format, so the invitation was retracted. and, it is likely that Dr. wolf was not aware of his hearing loss. Much ado about nothing.
chico in the news….and in the money!
27 Oct: MSNBC: Jennifer Alsever: Innovations to boost airborne energy have wind at their back
Scientists explore benefits of harnessing wind energy by using tethered devices
Kites and blimps may be the next big thing in wind energy and may even power your home one day – and we’re not talking decades from now. Think years….
“The jet streams are like a river of free, clean, and concentrated energy flowing above us, waiting to be tapped into,” says Cristina Archer, a California State University, Chico, assistant professor of environmental sciences who has written research papers on the topic…
The darling of this nascent airborne wind industry is Makani Power, which landed a $20 million investment from Google and a $3 million grant from the Department of Energy…
Google has invested more than $85 million in renewable energy projects and companies, including an investment earlier this month into a 350-mile offshore wind project. “We’re always looking for compelling ideas that make economic sense and will help create a clean energy future,” says Google spokesman Parag Chokshi. …
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39851579/ns/business-going_green/
Add my name to the list of readers with a serious hearing impairment – mine is comparable to yours (in my case Meniere’s Disease) and if nothing else is accomplished by your frustrating experience with the Chico powers that be, you have stirred me to have less fear of exposing my impairment to others. I salute you for finding the courage to participate in a public debate. I had to give up my academic career (no regrets there) and, like other eloquent commenters, I go to great lengths to avoid conversations involving more than 2 or 3 people – I can’t imagine getting up in front of a room full of possibly hostile antagonists. My deepest respect and admiration to you.
Mark says:
October 27, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Sorry Mark, I’m with Anthony on this one. Anthony has mentioned his hearing problems on several occasions on this blog. Liberals are so committed to supporting anyone with disabilities except of course when they are intelligent and disagree with you.
Reminds me of the not the nine o’clock news sketch where some well meaning lefty invents a big flashing light phone for deaf people so that they know that there is a call coming in and can pick up the phone … Ring, Ring, Flash, Flash ……… Hello, Hello, Hello, Hello, Hello …… etc.
You have an audience of 1000 times the town hall Anthony, post the presentation you were going to give here and I will allow you to use your own graphs on your own site, I promise.
Phil
Unfortunately, according to an LA Times poll (Oct 25, 2010), Prop 23 appears to be headed for a defeat by a ratio just shy of five to three. The paper seems to be characterizing it as the ‘Big Oil’ proposition.
“The Great Debate is meant to provide space for citizens to practice an older discourse form.”
Ah I see…Ave! Te moritu salute!
Pathetic, but in some ways a compliment…if they weren’t afraid of you they wouldn’t have disinvited you. If you were some bumbling buffoon who didn’t have a clue what he was talking about you’d have been in, but a competent expert, no way!
BTW, I both sympathize and empathize completely with your hearing issues. About 10 years ago I lost complete hearing in one ear. The other one’s still fine thankfully, but losing one ear costs you more than half your hearing ability. The brain takes both ears to do complex filtering on sounds, one thing I noticed that in addition to what I expected, that is loss of directionality cues, I could hardly make out speech in noisy environments at all, even in not so noisy environments it’s an issue. From the sounds of it (no pun intended) your ears are a lot worse, sadly.
Anthony,
There seems to have been some misunderstanding from the start of the email exchange. It sounds like this was a educational experience and you’re a well known skeptic for the slated debate. I can’t speak for Wolf, but I can bet she had no idea of your hearing disablity when she first sent the email. She was probably given your name by students or while asking around about knowledgable people for the debate.
Clearly the debate format was set. Whether you think it dated or a poor platform for a scientific debate really doesn’t matter. The debate might have been more focused on public policy and less on science. In the exchange once you stated you wouldn’t be able to attend without the format being changed, then you declined at that point. Your tone with Thia Wolf seemed somewhat negative. Her ability to change the format of the debate is questionable. But as the purpose of the debate was educational for the students, I don’t see why they would.
I am a AGW skeptic. But I think you’re being a bit unfair on this issue. It is unfortunate that your disability does not allow you to enter into this type of debate. I doubt the format was specifically tailored to put your at a disadvantage. Clearly the debate organizers didn’t pick their topic well for this event. But I guess they wanted something contraversial that is on the ballot.
REPLY: And my point is that they made no indication of format, and made no caveats in the invitation of any kind. If they wanted to be fair, owing up to the mistake of not specifying format with the invitation, they could have simply allowed visuals for everyone. I even offered to make that happen. It would have been a win-win situation – Anthony
You don,t need these people anyway, its more like they need you…. the AGW dogma is going.. and it (debate) will be pointless in a year or two. LOL
Concerning prop 23 itself, there is a strong environmentalist argument in its favor that is not being heard: currently, huge solar thermal arrays are being planned and approved in fine areas of the Mojave Desert. They will ruin much native habitat and fragment the finest desert ecosystem in the world. The approvals are being RUSHED through reveiw, by passing some of the normal requirements, because of the need to meet the requirements of AB32 by 2020. I am not against solar power per se, but these are the WRONG kinds of Solar power (solar thermal, not solar voltaic) and are sited where they are because it is quicker to permit them in BLM lands etc. and speed is seen to be of the essence. I made this argument myself in a KQED Quest Blog article by Jen Skene (see Green Power, Pristine Deserts) that was unfortunately otherwise anti-prop 23 – I myself am in favor of suspending AB32 for several reasons, butI am trying to get across to conservationists that AB32 is hurting rather than helping our cause. If Prop. 32 is suspended, the hugely damaging desert solar arrays in many cases will not be approved.
Please WUWT, do what you can to support Prop 23!
John Game.
OT but maybe relevant to topic. AMSU 600 mb now at average 0.0C. must be one of the most pronounced declines in global temps for a long time? (since August?)
They are running scared. How about running off a few hundred dvd’s with your presentation on Anthony? I’m sure you have some local volunteers willing to hand them round at the debate.
I’m first amused that anyone, even a formal debate society, believes that something as complex as climate science can be articulated one way or the other with words alone. One winds up with nothing but two teams citing strings of references that back their position and they become meaningless. Can you imagine explaining the simplist of physics to students with no whiteboard? Heck, I challenge you to explain the “bar and rail” problem with just words, and that’s only 3 lines and an imaginary magnetic field yet tales a whole semester to work through. 3 lines!
As for the invitation to present a week later, I’m curious as to why they would think you would even consider it. You run the most widely read climate science blog on the planet, they should have been over joyed that you would accept under ANY circumstances, and if you’re not insulted by the offer of a consolation prize side show, then I shall endeavour to be insulted on your behalf.
I note with amusement however, that you have a powerful alternative to their consolation prize offer. Since the debate is supposedly to be telecast, I assume that a transcript will be available. I suggest you post it along with the graphics you had intended to present with perhaps one or two bullet points for each slide, and invite ALL the participants to do the same. No words, just graphics with one or two bullet points each. Your venue, your debate, your rules.
Puts them in a tough spot. If they decline, they look like fools and cowards. If they accept… Well let’s just say in this forum, make a mistake in regard to the science, and you get your ego handed to you sliced and diced in short order. Might be a lesson or two for the debate society in how to properly debate science, and they might just learn a little science too.
You can’t blame them for wanting to draw an enormous crowd though. 🙂
Sounds like they don’t want any facts to intrude on their seance.
Anthony,
You make statements that are not true. What would you call them?
Your statement: I’ve now joined the club of the “disinvited”
Your actual quote to Thia: “unless there is some sort of accommodation for me to present at least some visuals, I see no other option but to decline your invitation.”
You declined in writing, but are now telling everyone that Thia “disinvited” you.
That does not seem to be honest to me.
REPLY: They made an open invitation to me with no restrictions of any kind. At that point you cite it, the issue of hearing assistance had been resolved, and the new restriction on visuals they added post facto was still up in the air, note my later correspondence. What does not seem honest to me is that you make an invitation to somebody with no presentation format restrictions of any sorts in the invitation or supporting documents, then afterwards make it clear that there ARE restrictions. The honest thing to do would be to admit the mistake and accommodate your invited guests.
And this is all because they don’t want some slides? All because they want to practice an outdated format but didn’t make that clear up front. The whole thing is silly. They could have had a win-win on their hands here, but they fumbled the ball.
You whole issue seems to be that you don’t want this embarrassing episode aired publicly, but as you pointed it people will wonder why I wasn’t there, and like you, people will say I “ducked” the debate. For me it is a damned if I do and damned if I don’t situation. The best I can do is get my side of the story out first.
Maybe they’ll learn something from this and next year make the invitation clear, and maybe, just maybe, bring the debate into the 21st century. The kids in this class aren’t going to be prepared for the real world today if they don’t know how to run an effective visual as well as oral presentation. To limit them to an outdated methodology is silly. – Anthony
Well in reading all the chit chat about who was expecting what; I can sort of understand what the Chico State people had in mind.
When I was in University (College was high school); we also had a “Debating Club” (to which I did not belong); which called itself; “The Society for Independent Intellectuals.”
They certainly were an eclectic bunch of folks and folkesses; and as near as anyone outside could discern; they spent all their time debating; what the purpose of the club should be; a subject which never led to a definitive conclusion; but certainly guaranteed my non membership.
So this does not look like the proper forum for you to participate Anthony. Debating clubs are about winning debates; as in scoring points according to the Marquis of Queensberry rules; well the debating equivalent thereof.
Scientists don’t traditionally get up and debate the information they have prepared for peer review. They make a presentation to inform an appropriate audience of the nature of their research or study; and the results they have obtained; and their conclusions about what THEY think it all means.
It is not like they are trying to edit on the fly; with somebody at the end deciding what to print.
It would seem to me that if the school is interested in your work and your results; and believes their students could benefit from being exposed to it; then they should simply invite you to present a seminar to that effect.
Isn’t that about what you did over there on the crusty side of the pizza; and I didn’t read that a bunch of irate Aussies ran you out of town. I’m sure they had some comment and criticisms (hey Aussies will comment about anything) ?
That seems like a better format Anthony. Debates seem too clinical to me Anthony; like law trials; you can win the debate and lose the case; or obfuscate the issues in the cae of a scientific report.
If Mark has so much pull in that location; perhaps he can get you an invite to present a seminar along the lines of your down-under tour lectures.
Works for me !
1, “Climate Depot’s Marc Morano ” was invited to a debate, and then disinvited when he was already in the air.
2. That means he spent money on an airline ticket.
3. For nothing.
4. Therefore, he has grounds for a lawsuit, haveing suffered clear financial harm.
5. And he should do so, because otherwise, these disinvatations will continue, and others with suffer harm.
6. And he should sue him for all hes got and then some, do to him what he and his crowd due to others, when envornonmentalist groups sue people with the intent to put them out of business permanently. After asll, HE is the one calling for shooting them (“incitement to riot”?), he is the one being ruthless, show him what ruthless means. Do to him, financially, what he wants to do to you.
7. And then make sure the trial gets plently of publicity, so that he is destroyed not only financially, but made a laughing stock.
Criminals should be punsihed.
To help people not from Chico:
Last year the topic was medical marijuana. This year it is Prop 23./AB 32. They chose controversial topics to model civil discourse, not to settle the issues.
While I understand why everyone on this blog wants to see the science debated, that is not the purpose of this event. Student debates will be going on all day long in the auditorium as teams of students from freshmen communication classes square-off. Later, the event moves downtown for a series of higher profile debates between advanced students, culminating in the community debate. All speakers are locals. No outside experts. The team was excited they had an “expert” in town in the person of Anthony, but in this class-based event, format is paramount.
I hope Anthony takes the offer to speak at the This Way to Sustainability Conference Nov 4-6th.
She didn’t come back with “no visuals” until her 2nd response email. Looks like she didn’t know the format either.
They have every right to control the format, but I don’t think prohibiting visuals is an improvement. They could have kept the old-school part of the debate and added a visual component.
That being said, to debate this topic without the visuals might indicate that there agenda isn’t science, but emotion.
I’m saddened to see my undergraduate alma mater behaving so badly in this matter. My BA in Biological Sciences from Chico State prepared me well for graduate school and my career as a professor. But I’ll mention this incident in my next reply to a Chico State fund raising request – it might have an impact on my future donations to the school.
How many of these damned media luvvies poking their noses into everything that might give them a fast buck and (unwarranted) media exposure are really needed in the world?
This is really bad.
Why wouldn’t one make every allowance for the one of the most well-known “objective” people on climate science in the world – especially when he lives right in your town.
And we don’t live in 1790 anymore. Oral debates are a “fossil”.
Everything is now multi-media and electronic. Even paper is quickly becoming a thing of the past. And I have always believed that one cannot get their head around the climate without graphics and visuals. It only adds 100% to anyone’s understanding of the issues.
“CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the world will heat up by several degrees and this will have dangerous results”. “No, it won’t” – what kind of a debate is that – how can anyone be more informed when they have to just pick sides with no understanding.
For what it’s worth, I will be presenting on the same topic in Benicia, CA on the 28th. Location will be 1175 Church Street (across from the high school). I go on around 7:00 and will have visuals. It will be a concise “Science, History, and Politics of Climate Change” presentation noting that the premise of AB32 is deeply flawed and Yes on 23 is more than reasonable.
[Can you present, or release, your notes and graphics for discussion afterwords? Robt]