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.
I sympathise totally with you Anthony; I’m deaf in one ear and much inhibited in the other. People that can hear well simply don’t understand our problems. Even round the familly dining table debating is nearly impossible. One misses the subtlety of what’s being discuss and can’t reply and the right moment or in a way that demonstrates understanding.
As a councillor here I find I have to listen intently at all the meetings because we have no aids what so ever.
quote:”Do you want to crawl out and play? Or is it too scary in public?”
Seriously, who trains the warmists..they fudge the science…and talk like 14 year olds..
Very sad state of affairs..
Anthony
As a fellow sufferer with a very similar hearing loss to yours, I just want to say that I know just how difficult it is to take part in large group discussions. I only wish my brain could cope as well as yours!
Bets regards
Mark 2.18
Nice email. I don’t know the ins and outs but understand from your comment that this is intended to be a traditional style debate. Let’s leave aside the fact that not letting someone use ‘teaching’ aids who needs to use them could be considered discriminatory, I think the idea of a discourse in the way you describe is a good one.
However it seems to me that there is a need for people such as Anthony to properly counter the thrust of the previous debate which was held with full use of technology. So someone, somewhere, needs to organise a rebuttal in which Mr Watts could properly take full part.
tonyb
When all is said and done, they invited someone with an 85 per cent loss of hearing to participate in the debate, and said ‘No’ when the invitee asked to use his aids, to compensate for the hearing loss and present his case. How unreasonable can you be?
I can see both sides of this argument but there’s an element that hasn’t been touched upon. When those students sit down to watch the debate many will already have the alarmist visuals in their minds. Since Al Gore’s movie is almost compulsory in many schools, few people won’t have seen those very emotive images and graphs that he used to illustrate how the planet is in peril and man is responsible. To deny Anthony the chance to put those graphics into perspective using the same medium is to pretend that the debate is truly balanced, regardles of any additional disadvantage or advantage.
California State University (CSU)
http://www.calstate.edu/AcadAff/CodedMemos/AA-2006-41.pdf
Access to Electronic and Information Technology for Persons with Disabilities
The California State University (CSU) has an ongoing commitment to provide access to information resources and technologies to individuals with disabilities. This commitment is articulated in the January 2005 Executive Order 926, the CSU Board of Trustees Policy on Disability Support and Accommodations
http://www.calstate.edu/EO/EO-926.html.
“It is the policy of the CSU to make information technology resources and services accessible to all CSU students, faculty, staff and the ‘general public’ regardless of disability.”
Chico State University are breaching their own policy on access to technology for people with known disabilities.
I think the discussion has made the point that the underlying purpose of the debate is to expose the kids to forensic rhetorical skills. A worthy goal, surely. Afraid I don’t know much about forensics, but somewhere I picked up the idea that in these formal competitions, both teams would argue both sides of the resolution, switching at midpoint in the event.
Perhaps if this tradition were implemented in Chico, some of the present confusion about the purpose of the event would dissipate. And it could make for some amusing argument…. : > )
jon shively:
AB 32 is a proposed law
Would that it were so! AB32 was enacted into law some time ago. Which is why Prop 23 is so important–if nothing is done, the consequences, good or bad, will soon be evident to all. This issue is more important than academic debating demonstrations, fun as they are.
Anthony
I think I have finally understood the format of this ‘debate’ and it looks like the old english university debate. This is a game, nothing to do with reality, that pits two debating teams against each other. It’s about debating skills not knowledge. I was a member of such a debate on several occasions during my education. They were great fun because the subject of the debates was always ridiculous and funny and the debates followed that theme. This debate was never for you Anthony and as you have said had you known the format at the outset you would have know that immediately.
Lets be clear what Chico State University are stating. Participating in The Great Debate is only open to the able-bodied. That is fundamentally a breach of university policy.
Anthony,
From the beginning of the article and invitation, I saw it as an invitation to an acedemic debate, rather than one of substance. I saw it in terms of oraority exercise. 1.e., old style debate. The format is that of a stand up and think on one’s feet, presenting ones point while engaging the others weaknesses.
I can understand how your hearing loss would put you at a severe disadvantage in that format, and that merely shuffling the order of presentations would not mitigate that disadvantage.
I can also see that by being televised and webcast one week before the elections it belies the acedemic nature of the debate. That is where the bias creeps in. Yes, it is important to debate current issues, but a debate that extends beyond an acedemic exercise, does not seem to be a proper form of political discourse in this day and age.
All that being said, they can set the format and rules, whether it being a modern debate meant to educate the audience with the help of visuals, or an old time bare-knuckle type of verbal sparring of the traditional form.
As knowlegable and prepared as you are, you were the wrong person to invite, not because of your views, but because your style, method of communication, does not fit the format.
As for who debate team members should be, honestly, I’m not sure news anchors would be good debaters (in the traditional sense) without their earpiece. And, not to put you in the same class, but to demonstrate that some very intellegent people are not prime debate team members, I offer as evidence Admiral Stockton during the vice-presidential debates however long ago that was.
Chico State University events, including events that are open to the public, are subject to the university’s policy of equal access and participation for students, staff and the general public irrespective of a person’ abilities or disabilities.
You cannot bar a disable person’s participation on the basis that a particular event is only for the able bodied. That is discrimatory and a breach of university policy.
Although I love this blog, and normally agree with everything you post, I’ve got to say I think you threw your toys out of the pram a bit with this one.
You were invited to a debate, not a presentation, and it seems the invitation was issued in good faith without prior knowledge of your hearing condition. It is a shame that your condition prohibits you taking part in such debates, since you could offer a lot of valuable factual information, but you don’t really have a right to send impolite emails when they say they cannot change the format of the event to accommodate you.
Anthony,
a woman in our office has dyslexic problems, she has an exceptionally high IQ but when she reads or writes all the letters to her do not make sense. She has a voice software with a a spell check that takes care of her problem as such that I worked with her several months before I knew that the slight stutter had a deeper companion, I do not know if this would help you, or if it exists, you have tried it and it don’t fly, but would not the system above working in reverse solve your problem, if more than one person is talking at once voice recognition software might help sort it out. Anybody out there know what I am talking about ?
Well, antique debates exhaust an awful lot of carbon dioxide, which of course is a poisonous gas so you are better of not going there.
Nice try, thought criminal!
It is a shame that this video that Anthony posted has recieved no discussion while we beat a dead horse to death.
The Great Debate is all about civic engagement. Chico describe it as an event to restore civility, reason and rhetorical argument into public forums. Importantly helping students to learn about the values that underly democracy, interrelations between communities, fostering ideas of morality and social justice, and the active participation of citizens in society ………………………………….. but only if you are able-bodied.
People not familiar with Chico might not understand how the local university and green movement drive our politics. But you can guarantee that a debate on Prop 23 prior to an election would not be a simple “educational” affair (regardless of the organizer’s intent). Anthony would likely face a hostile crowd in a politicized environment.
In our town Anthony has been called a weapon of mass destruction, a screaming mercury monkey, and one letter writer to the local paper suggested he kill himself. The crowd he would debate in front of, as a majority, would hold those viewpoints.
While the email exchange above should have had a softer tone, Anthony has earned the priviledge to seek adjustment to the debate format. Regardless of hearing loss, he’s the big fish in the little pond when it comes to the topic of climate. I think that bothers local people who disagree with him. They want to diminish him, cut him down to size, and force him away from this blog where he guides the content. When people provoke you by suggesting you “crawl out to play”, they aren’t doing so because they’ve arranged an environment hostile to themselves. The implicit message is that he’s hiding behind this blog. When they don’t accomodate his desire for slides, it’s in part because they don’t believe he’s worthy of special treatment. They don’t see his success with this blog as valid.
Here’s my suggestion to some of our local folks.
Anthony should probably send a note to Ms. Wolf along the lines of “I took an overly harsh tone with you in our email exchange, good luck with your event.” And then he should ignore requests for local debates and continue to produce this informative and effective blog.
Mark, who’s already acknowledged this, should know better than to goad people into these venues. That’s like me suggesting that he crawl out from under the safety of the university and publish a blog on sustainability to challenge Watts Up With That. Why not do it? Are you scared? Of course not. You should continue to teach your students what you believe, and maybe pass on some lessons in diplomacy, which I know is a strong point of yours.
Lon
As the father of an asthmatic child who long ago grew to healthy manhood, I was once persuaded to chair a local Asthma Association. I backed away and limited my own efforts to providing healthy opportunities for my son to take part in vigorous physical sport and training when I discovered many asthmatics who attended the local meetings were keen to play the role of health victim rather than do something positive for themselves, such as undertake a sensible exercise and diet regimen.
I am angered that the American Lung Association doesn’t know the difference between the plant food known as CO2 and the particulates that may trigger Asthma. This type of political and totally dishonest advocacy is a disgusting example of jumping on a bandwagon without knowing who is driving the horses.
Lon Glazner
I thought Chico was in the business of turning undergraduates into model citizens.
So it would appear that The Great Debate is not about civility, reason and rhetorical argument, but simply indoctrination.
Very revealing!
So The Great Debate hides The Great Lie – there is no debate, except for sermonising to undergraduates. Very little educational value in that process for first year students.
Late to this party, but Anthony is right that the initial invitation should have specified what the ground rules of the debate were. That would have stopped it right there.
Anthony, not to pry, but would you be a candidate for a cochlear implant? My IT guy struggled for years with hearing aids and TTY phone calls, but now does much better with an implant. And of course Rush Limbaugh has one, too. He does say, though, that crowds in large rooms overwhelm it.
/Mr Lynn
Gee maybe a second, like dueling, you could have Willis or someone stand in for you. They probably would have frowned on that too.
You’re right about the Lincoln-Douglass debate. That’s what they are looking for. I’m a veteran of a number of these and by “civil” discourse they mean that no one participant should have any extra advantage to making their points. Visuals, especially professionally produced ones, might give the presenter an advantage in the eyes of those judging the debate. They believe it wouldn’t be “fair”. There would probably be other stipulations, as well, such as directly referring to your opponents in the debate in any way.
I’m not saying this debate style is right or wrong, but it is traditional, and yes, possibly archaic.