I guess nobody wanted to “properly debate” skeptics. They couldn’t even get David Appell?
From Oregon Live: The Oregon Museum of Science and Industry has pulled the plug on a presentation from three scientists critical of the theory of man-made global warming, saying the panel wasn’t balanced.
Oregon’s chapter of the American Meteorological Society had scheduled the scientists to speak Tuesday at OMSI, which has long provided free space to the group for meetings.
But Mark Patel, OMSI’s vice president of marketing, said the museum told organizers in early November that they needed a balanced panel and offered to move the meeting to its “science pub” event at the Bagdad Theater, picking up half the cost of the move. With no progress made, the museum cancelled the event last week.
“By the very fact that we’re holding it here, people are going to assume it’s OMSI’s point of view,” Patel said. “Our intention is far from trying to shut anybody up. We’re trying to encourage proper debate, and not allow OMSI to be used as a mouthpiece for one group or another.”
Steve Pierce, president of the Oregon chapter, emailed a response late Monday:
“The Oregon Chapter of the American Meteorological Society is disappointed that the November 29th meeting on global warming will not continue as originally planned. While we understand that OMSI has reservations related to our meeting’s topic on global warming, our chapter has not taken a stance on this issue.”
Full story here at Oregon Live
============================================================
Hmmm. I wonder. Since OMSI has a major weapon of war exhibit, this submarine right next to their logo…
…why don’t hey have a collection of Doves, or perhaps maybe a peace symbol painted on the building to “balance” the presentation? Otherwise visitors might think OMSI has a “point of view” that endorses war. Gosh, that would be terrible.
Readers in Portland, feel free to carry on that thought in letters to the editor there.
h/t to reader Jerry Keeny
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If the event was publicized as a debate, then not having opposing views represented would be false advertising which would be a proper grounds for cancellation, but not hosting TALKS that don’t represent both sides? When they host an individual speaker, do they demand that he also speak for those who dispute him? If his opponents misrepresent him, should he be forced to misrepresent himself? They wouldn’t let Al Gore come and give a talk? The museum’s position is moronic, and we can be certain that it will not be applied consistently. It is an obvious rationalization for giving special treatment to the alarmist view.
Today I can report a balanced article from a major mainsrtream newspaper here in the land of Carbon Tax. The comments ran 18 to 1 in favour of the skeptical view.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/a-new-climate-of-fear-critics-slam-new-report-from-the-climate-commission/story-e6freuzi-1226209639097
A small start, I agree, but a start NTL. Oregon could be next.
Bet it wouldn’t have been cancelled if the three speakers were Mann, Trenberth, & Jones.
Let me get this straight, a university has cancelled a presentation on climate change because the pannel is not balanced and you are outraged about it, yes?
Isn’t this the same Oregon that canned their state climatologist because he refused to convert?
REPLY: Yep and he was one of the guys on the panel! – Anthony
Is that from the Department of Redundancy Department?
Yes, PeterT, because there has not been ONE SINGLE “balanced” discussion on the subject. They only want “balance” when there is a “heretic” involved. If everyone were presenting from the other side, “balance” would not be a question. It never is. But you do raise a point. I believe this sets precedence so that ALL discussions going forward must be “balanced” from now on.
Oregon comme la lune…
Wow! That Telegraph.au article was indeed well balanced. You could tell the reporter didn’t know much about the issue in general, but still she gave equal space to both sides, and gave the factual side the last word.
In the rare cases where media give the factual side even one sentence, it’s immediately “destroyed” by a scathing blast from the apocalyptic wackos, so the reader won’t be allowed to think about the truth.
I wonder how much those universities take in each year in moneys related to AGW and if maybe that could have some role in their position. They seem VERY touchy about the subject to the point of wanting to absolutely shut own any opposing point of view. They must believe that their position is very fragile and vulnerable.
“crosspatch says:
November 29, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Yes, PeterT, because there has not been ONE SINGLE “balanced” discussion on the subject. ”
Actually, I’m rather a fan of the IQ^2 debate on the subject featuring Richard Lindzen and Gavin Schmidt. 🙂
Of course, the skeptic side was the clear winner in their after-debate poll. That little exercise is why Realclimate doesn’t do debates anymore.
The Eco-loonie regime of California
drove Google to put its server farms in Oregon.
So if Oregon goes as bonkers as this tactic foretells,
it’s inevitable that they’ll turn on Google,
but equipment-technology turnover only takes so long,
and then Google’s gone to a business-friendly state.
More here
http://5440fight.com/2011/11/28/omsi-has-egg-on-its-face-excludes-peer-reviewed-science-from-climate-conference/
Dr Fulkes:
[ ” Apparently one of the excuses that OMSI gave to the AMS was that they did not approve of anything less than peer-reviewed science being presented at OMSI. That is especially ironic because they permitted the AMS Winter Weather Conference to go ahead which did not feature ANY peer-reviewed science. ” ]
[ “Dr. Fulkes also reveals the source of the reconsideration – a professor at Portland State who raised some sort of objection based on heresay and a failure by Dr. Fulkes to prostrate himself to the AGW cultists. ” ]
Anybody who believes anything is ever “balanced” or “fair” is an idiot. The universe simply doesn’t work like that. Everything is a mortal competition. Everything from galaxies to bacteria seeks an advantage to ensure it’s own supremacy and therefore survival, at the expense of something else. It’s why weeds crowd out tomatoes if left to their own devices, and why nations (and tribes) go to war. It’s no different with science or any other endeavor. Competition – in it’s most extreme form – is a requirement of evolution.
crosspatch says:
November 29, 2011 at 5:58 pm
I wonder how much those universities take in each year in moneys related to AGW and if maybe that could have some role in their position. They seem VERY touchy about the subject to the point of wanting to absolutely shut own any opposing point of view. They must believe that their position is very fragile and vulnerable. ” ]
http://www.naturalstep.org/en/usa/omsi-oregon-museum-science-and-industry-portland-oregon-usa-0
Here’s the utube for AMS at OMSI
I’m a weekend warrior who argues with what we call the warmagedonists on a blog. Some say since the release of the first e-mails all the data and programs from the hockey stick and cru hadcrut is available. Is that true
Given the ongoing revelations from the email files it appears the OMSI is making a bold declaration that whenever anyone appears on their premises to present the truth, they must be completely balanced by an equal number of liars.
Bill M,
Go to Climate Audit [right sidebar] and ask Steve McIntyre if he’s received all the data, code, methodologies and metadata he requested from MBH. If he says yes, I’ll accept that. But last I heard, the answer was no.
Where is this former free and proud nation heading?
Straight into censorship and worse. It’s a shame.
If you need help to deal with and have a life even under such conditions,
I can teach you how … grown up in Eastern Europe.
OMSI and it’s board have long been in the AGW camp so this is no surprise.
It is a WIN for rational people. The cowardice of the leftist freaks is noticed by everyone here in Oregon. Hah!
Seriously, just WHY would the CAGW zealots support a debate about “the science”? They have NOTHING to offer, and they now know it. They would certainly look stupid to a discerning audience. That’s why serious debates don’t and won’t occur anywhere in the world! Their game is dead, LOL.
The “multiple lines of evidence” meme cited by all the warmistas have never materialized and now that is very clear to all who look, due to the diligence of all the folks who are looking for the truth (i.e., all the nasty oil-funded skeptics). There is not even ONE “line of evidence, anymore.” No warming for more than 15 years, despite rising OCO levels. No sea level rise. No melting of glaciers worldwide. No warming of the tropical troposphere at 5 km as predicted so strongly by all the models. Nothing but hype. No wonder they are trying to kill honest debates!
Good article by Dr. Fred Singer in the American Thinker:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/durban_climate_conference_the_dream_fades.html