Last week, I announced this:
And as you can see, there’s a $15.00 per person ticket charge…not unreasonable.
At first we noted that there would be no live webcast, we were told that it wouldn’t be allowed. Then our guest author Eric Worrall reached out to the venue, with my blessings, offering to do a webcast, at no charge. A week went by, and we heard nothing, then we heard back, and the organizers said they have a live webcast setup and provided a link for registration
That was great news…until, I found out it’s a pay-per-view deal.
Suddenly, my interest level waned. It’s not a lot of money, but the thought of spending money for watching this event just doesn’t sit well with me, especially since Mann is always denigrating everyone who doesn’t agree with him as being “on the take” from dirty oil and coal moneyed interests.
Yet here is a university, which gets millions in grants, nickel and diming this event. It just seems odd. Maybe they were counting on the old maxim of “I went to see a fight and a hockey game broke out” to lure viewers like WWF does. Maybe they’re expecting Mann to throw some chairs and bodyslam his opponents outside the ring.
The whole event just feels cheap to me now.
I’m sure a few will sign up. Word has it that some WUWT readers will be attending the live event in the audience, and will gives some reports afterwards.
We’ll see how it goes.
UPDATE: In comments below, “Canman” Notes this:
Judith Curry had this comment:
Unfortunately there will be no official recording. Apparently prohibited by Mann’s contract with the event. Maybe there will be unofficial recordings
https://judithcurry.com/2018/05/28/the-debate/#comment-872872
So it makes one wonder, if Mann was prohibiting the recording/webcast, did he change his tune when all of the sudden when money became involved?
I would be shocked if Mann would do an event like this without complete control over the data, if any, that is shown. The only way this would be worth watching is if we knew each person had complete freedom to make their case by showing data of their choosing to back up their statements, with each of the others being able to provide a rebuttal about what the data means.
And there HAS to be data shown, or it is a useless conversation. I saw a short conversation on TV between Bill Nye and a climate skeptic. Bill Nye said the alarming thing about sea level is the rate of change of the increase in sea level. The skeptic said there has been no change in the rate of change of sea level. And Bill Nye said “We just don’t agree on the data at all”…. ? WTF, let the viewers SEE the data so they can decide on who they agree with. What a waste of time it was watching when there is no data, just people giving there own verbal version of what the data says.
Hi I’m your next door guest post neighbor. I just wanted to pop my head in and suggest you read my post about the unhinged CMIP models that all of the debate teams on your post topic appear to continue to believe in. They also don’t have a will to say anything about the missing ocean pH data and it’s a concern to me that they disrespect the SHE. Then you can return to the fun here. Maybe over time it will come to bother you that so much data is getting blasted away by partisans on both sides.