Readers may recall yesterday when I wrote about the event sponsored by Chico State University that I was “disinvited” from because I was not allowed to use visuals that I wanted to explain the science.
Well, good news, even though I won’t be allowed to speak there, the world gets to watch it live via webcast.
At left is a snapshot from the student debate in progress now, but the Main Event that I was supposed to speak at comes later, at 6:30PM Pacific Time. I encourage WUWT readers to watch.
If nothing else, WUWT readers can demonstrate their collective global impact on the number of viewers of this event. Given that the city council streaming video webserver generally handles just a few dozen to a few hundred viewers, depending on the topic, we have a very good chance of setting an all time viewership record.
Here’s the details on the agenda and the link to live video.
Chico Municipal Center, Council Chamber, 421 Main Street
|
1.
|
THE CHICO GREAT DEBATE – OCTOBER 28, 2010 The Great Debate is a cooperative project between the City of Chico and California State University, Chico, to create a public space for civil discourse. This semester’s topic is: “AB 32: To Suspend or Not to Suspend” – The Global Warming Solutions Act
|
|
2.
|
Listing of the proposed events: You can also view these sessions on Cable Channel 11.
|
|
3.
|
ADJOURNMENT
|
To watch it live click this link:
http://chico-ca.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2
…and then click on “view event” right at the top.
UPDATE: Some people are concerned that WUWT viewers may crash the server, and I’ll get blamed. I don’ t think it is likely to happen. The company that runs the server for them handles much much larger cities and towns also, and they host it. So I think they can handle thousands of simultaneous connections. I actually put in the first streaming server for the city council chambers, and they replaced mine (donated) with this, and it is pretty well done.
If I thought there was any chance of crashing that streaming server I would not bother to suggest it. We may however set a viewer record for them. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It would actually be pretty amusing for someone to attempt to get me fired. I wouldn’t give out a home address, a telephone number, etc. I doubt if I’d give the name of my firm, but I’d certainly describe the nature of its business. I have no opinions behind which I’m not willing to stand but I’m not willing to subject others to the line of fire.
Rob Ryan
“Well, good news, even though I won’t be allowed to speak there….”
Give it up, Anthony.
My hero is really beginning to disappoint me now and I’m beginning to question his ability to dispassionately analyze a set of facts. The fact is that you were invited to speak, but without the invitation having spelling out the stipulated conditions to which all participants would be expected to adhere. The fact is that you attempted to set your own conditions. The fact is that the host refused some of those conditions. The fact is that you then declined the invitation. Twist and turn it as you may, those are the facts.
Don’t let the “Chico factor” drive you off into an emotional swamp. Your important work requires a clear head.
REPLY: I appreciate how you might see it that way but no that’s not all the facts, if somebody invites me with no preconditions, to a place setup for multimedia, I don’t expect them to exclude it after the invitation. They added a rule post facto, only after I asked about it. As seen live, they ran multimedia today in the very same room, for the student debate, clearly it wasn’t a problem. The idea that one debating group gets to use multimedia and another group doesn’t while debating the same topic in the same room on the same day is arbitrary and capricious. They could have simply said yes and had a win-win but instead decided to impose new rules they hadn’t considered or published before I asked. If the situation were reversed, those very same people would have a veritable cow.
On the plus side, the whole debate was much ado about nothing, poorly orchestrated, poorly attended, so it was actually a kindness that I didn’t get to attend. – Anthony
Rob Ryan
By PA32R on October 28, 2010 at 9:58 pm
——-
Rob Ryan,
Glad to meet you.
John
Ummm
Over here in UK, we reserve the term ‘City’ for somewhere of at least regional significance. It used to be that it also had to have a Cathedral, not just a big Parish Church. And most of then have 200K+ inhabitants.
But I was once in Johnson City Tx, expecting somewhere of similar import, and spent a dull afternoon watching the single traffic light change 🙁
For calibration, how big is the City of Chico? How many inhabitants?
Gotta’ give you guys high marks for not censoring critical comments like the ones I’ve recently made. I know of no other site that so religiously adheres to a policy of open exchange of opinions and theories. Thank you and keep up the good work!
CH
[REPLY – We strive to allow whatever comments we can. We do have to put a foot down occasionally, but we try to keep it to a minimum. Such is the character of our host. ~ Evan]
@ur momisugly Latimer Alder
Chico has 88,000 people in the City limits, 100,000 or so if you also count the nearby unincorporated areas.
It looks as though they have removed the video from the site???
I wish global warming was true in sydney it is bloody cold
As I recall, in another thread, somebody challenged Anthony to a debate in Chico, or upbraided him for not being at one, a professor I think, and as Anthony then pointed out, he was at a particular disadvantage because of his hearing, so regular readers here would already know that this was an issue. It has also come up at odd times in other threads.
Strawman. At no point ever, did Anthony say or “imply” that.
This is a public debate with potentially serious consequences, not some university challenge where theatrics and emotive arguments are the order of the day. It should be about the science.
To that end, if they were genuinely interested in informing people, they wouldn’t be tying peoples’ hands behind their backs. Including those on the other side. There’s been far too much heat and not enough light in this whole debate already.
Paul Hanlon
Ric Werme says:
October 28, 2010 at 9:37 pm
PA32R says:
October 28, 2010 at 8:39 pm
“[…]
There are a few people with legitimate reasons to hide their identities, but for the most part if you believe in what you’re writing, why hide behind an anonymous smoke screen?”
Why? Personal experience with nutjobs as a longtime poster on another topic with quasi-religious acolytes.
I mentioned in comments a couple of years ago (before Anthony had volunteer mods) my willingness to accept the fact that I’d be a second-class poster here, as well as my appreciation that still, Anthony allows and welcomes all comments, anonymous or not, so long as they follow policy.
I don’t recall having ever posted a personal attack on another poster from my position of anonymity. That would NOT be cricket. (Making fun of Al Gore is OK, though.)
I’m not so sure that the tradition of using pseudonyms in comments on weblogs is necessarily sinister or trying to hide something. I think it’s more likely modesty. If I were a scientist or someone of some note it would be appropriate to back up my pronouncements with a full name, but, since I’m not, I have no authority to lend to my words and they must stand on their own.
In my own case, my first name is Dave, my surname begins with F and if Mr Watts or the moderators look at my email address they will see not only my surname but also the area of my gainful employment. Not really hiding, but not shouting either. Best wishes, Dave.
Well. Having slept on it I still recall the same debate.
Just a bunch of true believers debating not if AB32 was right, but whether it is right now!
As for whether Anthony was disinvited, no he wasn’t but he was certainly not welcome in presenting a truly sceptical viewpoint.
DaveE.
H.R. says:
October 29, 2010 at 2:33 am
Not only protection from nutjobs. My employer reads this blog. All he has to is line up my name with the timestamp. Busted… 🙂
A poster’s comments should stand on it’s own merits, pseudonym or not.
God bless Anthony Watts. He alone is helping the IQ mean in Chico from falling into the negative territory.
I listened to several presenters. The Mayor or former mayor creates an intelligence negative anomaly. The students are not thinking clearly as are the people experienced in Commerce. Go figure.
A little paranoia to the contrary notwithstanding.
sarcasm on/
What do anonymous commenters and the following have in common?
Pick any or all of the following answers:
a) oh, nothing**
b) probably nothing**
c) absolutely nothing**
d) NOTHING-NOTHING-NOTHING**
** If you do not accept any of these answers then give us your real name, date of birth, identification number, email address, home address, telephone numbers and the same data for your wife and children. Do you have loved pets? Don’t be alarmed with the black helicopters show up.
No pressure. : )
sarcasm off/
John
@ur momisugly Paulhan:
Really? Then what was the point? The claim is that Watts was “disinvited,” meaning that he was invited and then the invitation was retracted. I disagree that that’s even what happened. But if, for argument’s sake, I assume that it did, the question is then why was it retracted? It obviously wasn’t for the reason of technical inability to utilize a projector and computer.
With respect to Watts: the title of his post is: “The season of disinvitation continues: Chico State University can’t handle a slideshow.” This “disinvitation” meme is clearly and explicitly implying that the other side is afraid of a debate. Here it is that they are afraid of a debate with Watts plus slides. While Watts did not, in this post, say “they disinvited me because, with my slides they were afraid I’d be too powerful,” if you are contending that that is not the implication of the post title and the article, you have your head in the sand.
As to the comments:
<blockquotegrayman says:
October 27, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Anthony they only want vioces heard nothing visual as it might actually start to change a few minds. Sad really some ther might actually learn about real science!
<blockquotetarpon says:
October 27, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Sounds like they don’t want any facts to intrude on their seance.
etc.
Rob Ryan
Sorry for the “blockquote fails” above.
Rob Ryan
So who won this “debate”?
Yes, PA32R, it’s a strawman. You’re putting words in Anthony’s mouth. He didn’t say those things anywhere, either explicitly or implicitly. CSU had a perfect opportunity to inform people and they blew it with their silly games. And by all accounts, it turned out to be a farce. So a double waste of time.
As for what the other commenters wrote, they’re right, but those are their own words. If you want to read it as Anthony figuring he would devastate them with his presentation, well, that says more about you than him.
Anthony; tried watching but when my head hit the keyboard I gave up and went on to other things. Must be too used to Canadian political debates where prepared script, brass knuckles, hand guns and long knives are frowned upon.
“PJP says: Anthony, . . . As I read it they disinvited you based on an unwillingness to cater to a disability.
As I understand the law, this is almost certainly a serious criminal offense.”
Oh, how I wish you were right. Respectfully you are not. 30 years ago I was hired by a multinational firm. I worked in an office but basically I was a line worker. I answered to a superviser who answered to a manager who answered to a director, well you get the point
As companies are wont to do the layers of middle management got peeled off to where I answered to a director who answered to the VP. My title had not changed.
In March 2007 I sent an e-mail to the VP of HR, describing conduct in relation to my coworker and director. They both knew I had a progressive lung desease that would qualify me for a transplant. As was explained to me later, the letter implied a request for accomodations under the ADA.
This e-maii almost certainly got to legal which means the VP of North American Operations got it. There were no lay-offs at the time but my job was eliminated less than 1 & 1/2 months later at the insistence of the VP of NA, against the arguments of both my director and the VP of HR.
I immediately applied for SS disability & then went to 2 law firms: one which specialized in employment law. The employment lawyer told me that since I had applied for disability that if I got it the co. would only owe me back the 6 mos. till it kicked in & I had severance that breached that. She didn’t advise against pursuing it but said she would not. I went to the second firm and was told basically the same thing.
So no, unwillingness to accomodate someone in the most important area of all, employment, is not a serious offense. But I’ll bet refusal to accomodate green initiatives will be. With a resperatory illness I cherish my air cond. And the greens will wanna take it away to save people from AGW? I also pay a heavy elec. bill due to an O2 concentrator & a pump to fill O2 tanks with it. And Obama wants our elec. to ‘skyrocket’.
I’m gonna guess PA32R that you leave skimpy tips when you go out to eat.
So answer the question: what is the point of the headline “The season of disinvitation continues: Chico State University can’t handle a slideshow”?
If it’s not “they’re afraid to debate us fairly” then what is it?
Rob Ryan
I’m sorry for your illness and the consequent circumstances Judd, but there’s absolutely no connection between the personal situation you described and my comments on this post. And even if there were, what in the world does that have to do with my tipping behavior? Seriously, try to follow along.
Rob Ryan
PA32R says: October 29, 2010 at 9:00 am
So answer the question: what is the point of the headline “The season of disinvitation continues: Chico State University can’t handle a slideshow”?
If it’s not “they’re afraid to debate us fairly” then what is it?
“It” is actual data.
@ur momisugly Tim Clark:
So if I understand, your claim is that the point of Watts’ headline and article is that CSUC would not let him present “actual data?” Or that I’d paraphrase the alleged contention as “CSUC disinvited Watts because he wanted to present actual data?”
Sorry, no sale.
Rob Ryan