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?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Smells like they (the warmists) will just claim victory regardless, since few would pay $10 to watch a podcast. Those that are there who may witness Mann getting his hockey stick firmly inserted up his derriere will just be called “deniers” or “big oil shills” , flat-earthers etc to disguise Mann being full of s… and the spectacle of the hockey stick insertion where the sun don’t shine.
I am a member of Spilman Thomas and Battle, which is fronting all the costs, which are not insubstantial, with hall rental, appearance fees, salaries, travel and accommodations. We aren’t accepting other sponsors, so that we can avoid claims that the deck is stacked one way or the other. As a result, we are asking for a small contribution from those who attend in person and by webinar. The goal isn’t to make money; we fully expect to lose money on this venture. This is something that Spilman, and particularly several attorneys in the firm, have a great interest in, and we decided to put this together. We hope you’ll join us.
Meh…pay no attention to the haters… 🙂
A few bucks seems reasonable to me, especially considering that you’re fronting the costs personally. I’m looking forward to it, and registered to attend since it’s not too terribly far from where I live.
rip
Big mistake. If the cost is “not insubstantial” (requiring a fee to web watch) why not share what that cost is?
Contrary to the excuse that accepting sponsors would somehow taint the event you should open it up to any and all sponsors and forget the fee.
It is only stifling.
I have to assume you must be talking about any sponsors that would be maligned by the left as skeptical money? But that is an invalid excuse and the stifling is what the left prefers.
The only way for there to be a stacking of the deck would be with a bias moderator or questions.
But I don’t believe there is anything to indicate the panel need any kind of sponsor restriction coddling.
Grow up, open it up and broadcast it for any to see, for free.
I don’t often think of attorneys as people who have interest in climate science debates, much less losing money on hosting them just out of interest.
Mr. Yaussy,
Thanks for clarifying. I realize you probably won’t (or can’t) provide a schedule of appearance fees, but during the initial event coordination there must have been discussion of overall costs and a typical range of appearance fees; can you tell us what the typical range estimate was?
(And will your firm be in control of the thermostat in the auditoium :).
Thank you for organizing and sponsoring this presentation/debate.
It seems to me that many if not most visitors to this website would welcome debates and contrasting presentations between proponents of human-produced CO2 as the main climate “control knob” and those proposing natural variability as the main explanation for the estimated ~1C increase in average global temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age ending about 150 years ago.
Hopefully many of the visitors to this website and others will support your efforts by helping defray your firm’s expenses and thus encourage additional publicly accessible debates/contrasting presentations.
Climate ambulance chasers? Not really sure why Judith would want to be seen with any of these participating gentlemen (term used very loosely) let alone attorneys…..and I would like to request a copy of Mr. Mann’s “contract” to see what other surprises are in there.
I think Judith suffered some true ego death when she realized that global warming wasn’t assured.
So the Age of Enlightenment ends here, in America?
Dave, thanks for putting on the debate. Science is not done by debate so debate losers can be science winners. It is a valuable teaching moment. Your candidates are excellent except for Moore, who is neither academically nor experienced in the topic and field which is exacerbated by his career as a paid fossil shill and propagandist.
Dr. Patrick Moore is the best candidate for the “den1ers”, his background is better than Mann, as far as environmental credentials…much better…!!!
Paying to listen to Mann lie ( as he did at the last senate hearing , to note but one occurrence ) and slander everyone around who does not agree with him NO WAY. Sorry, that is just not going to wash.
Ok , charge a fee for those who wish see it in the flesh, maybe even those who wish to follow it live , but there should be a freely available, unedited copy available after the event.
This sort of discussion should be a matter of public record.
If they tossed Mann altogether the event might be worth paying for. But he devalues the whole exercise. Good luck with keeping that man under control.
@David Yaussy … thank you for your response and clarification. I am well aware of the costs and effort required to set up a live stream broadcast, especially with short notice, and have no problem with a small fee to watch the livestream of this high profile event.
I would note I’m unaware of anyone who has convinced Mann to openly engage in an event of this type, and appreciate the efforts necessary to make this happen.
While I understand you cannot disclose specific details … based on information from other participants, and past history, I suspect its highly likely the fee is a result of demands by a specific participant.
Again, thanks for your and your firms efforts.
“Mann getting his hockey stick firmly inserted up his derriere “. Boy that’s a revolting image. I might never touch another hockey stick.
I am English and time zone differences mean that I don’t want to watch live. Any chance of a recording becoming available?
DVR?
Since the announcement was made that there would be “no official recording” according to Dr Curry, I emailed the University of Charleston WV directly ( http://www.ucwv.edu/Contact-Us/ ) to point out the larger transparency problem this creates, and asked them if they would consider rescinding the ‘no recording’ requirement.
I urge as many others as possible to suggest the same, straight to UCWV.
I’m almost certain that it will wind up on YouTube afterwards (I would be amazed if it didn’t) and probably with hundreds of clones.
It wouldn’t surprise me either, lots of people out there with $10 in their pockets and an Elgato video capture card..
You don’t need a capture card.
In that case, bonus.. I figured the webcast would have some kind of DRM built in..
Nobody with credibility should appear in the same event as Mann. Michael Mann has no ethics or credibility.
Especially since Mann does not want his lunacy to be recorded.
Mr. Mann,
As your legal advisers, we feel that the only way that you can come out of this whole, is to continue to keep your name in the public eye. Your acceptance by the general public, and the quasi-scientific community, are central to having any type of a chance of not being screwed into paying all of the court costs (we all know you can’t win … so let’s not even talk about that).
As you know, no one in the scientific community that has any sense of ethical responsibility is standing behind or beside you now, so you have to keep it up with the public forums (the mob) and hope for the best. If nobody wants you at their public forums we will need to choreograph something every now and then. But this is definitely something you will have to learn to do.
Now, as everyone knows (and you should have accepted it by now), you are a fat bombastic conceded unlikable slob. These characteristics have helped you to get where you are today, and not for the lawsuit they could have continued to be considered as attributes in the academic community that is your home, but you will definitely need to tone it down it bit in the future public forums.
You do need to stand firmly by your AGW stance, but you cannot be as big of ass as you have been in the past. We can’t hold your hand (and you are not paying us enough to want be around you), so take this advice and think about it … hard.
We’ll drag the lawsuit out as long as we can, and you have to continue to interact with the real scientific community to try to hold onto your limited credibility. That way we can pretend that you do have a reputation that is worth protecting. And maybe we can earn you (us) a few dollars in the interim.
Brilliant!!
It may just be their way to control how many see it. Far fewer will pay $10 to view the discussion than if it were free. And afterwards, if it goes well for Mann’s side they can upload to YouTube so all can see how mighty and powerful is the alarmist argument. If it goes the other way they can not bother with an upload anywhere so no one can see how pathetic is the alarmist argument.
I suspect that is exactly their thinking. They get a lot more control of the resulting messages this way. It’s like all of AGW. Can’t have the people knowing too much, can they?
I knew a man a few decades ago that a magazine wanted to interview in his office. The magazine was hostile to his views.
He agreed.
When they should up, he had his own video camera set up.
They declined to do the interview.
(He’d have proof of what was said if he was misquoted or quoted out of context.)
Sounds like Mann wants to spin what was said anyway he wants without another “But it’s in your written testimony!” moment. 😎
Yes, I think you’ve nailed their strategy right there.
Maybe it’s their way to get around Mann’s contract, after all a live pay per view webcast is not technically a recording.
I think this forum should follow the lead of Best Schools and have only one skeptic; that way the side we know is right will be fairly represented.
Because the Best Schools wants a rational debate and that’s how they set it up, with two alarmists for every skeptic in “fairness” to something, although I’m not sure what.
Don132
Glad I’m not the only one that didn’t understand the 2:1 ratio.
probably to level out the IQ representation
“Curry’s ‘climate showdown of the decade’, turns into a pay-per-view event”
SO why do you think Curry is doing this? Sounds like she wants to control the message.
Why do assume that Curry is the one in charge here?
Oh sorry. Apparently Mann is in charge. Let’s assume that!
Mann’s ‘climate showdown of the decade’, turns into a pay-per-view event
That’s much better. Why not choose Titley or Moore? I guess this has to be Mann’s climate showdown because… we’re not sure why Watts thinks this is Mann’s event.
Well, the University of Virginia is Mann’s Alma Mater, and Mann is well known for self-promotion.
“Well, the University of Virginia is Mann’s Alma Mater”
What does UVA have to do with any of this? Does his previous position at an unaffiliated university mean this is his event? Besides, More and Curry are equally self-promoting.
Do you have any evidence to support your latest assertion?
Does UVa still have his emails he refuses to make public?
(They were subpoenaed, I as I recall, but he did his usual full-court-press to prevent it.)
Gish Gallop. This thread is about how Watts thought Virginia and West Virginia universities were the same thing.
Mann’s alma mater is Berkeley followed by graduate studies at Yale. As far as I know Mann has no association with University of Charleston where the event is being held, the hosts are a local law firm. West Virginia is of course ‘coal country’.
Until you have evidence, don’t assume anyone is in charge, other than the people who are putting on the event.
Agreed. Why Watts is billing this as Mann’s event is weird. This is not “Mann’s climate showdown of the decade.” and Mann has no affiliation with the university.
Alley,
You are being willfully obtuse as you full well know that Mann is by far the most prominent and controversial name among the four invitees.
Well,
Who got top billing?
Not alphabetical or Curry would be first
Not by years in the field or Moore would have been first
Nope. In all likelihood Mr. Ego needed to be first on the list or likely would not show up at all.
Odds are, If Christopher Monkton were invited, Dr. Mann would be a no show.
Right out of the penaly box minutes after the first fight…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgk4_Ja6gvk
Strange how the university wants to make money on “the Biggest Problem the humankind faces”. As too many people are skeptical and downplaying the seriousness of Climate Change, the university is risking the future of our children by restricting access!
It’s vital to the future of the entire human race that everybody gets to see and hear the great Michael Mann speak and tear down all the unintelligent opposition with his supreme knowledge.
Sorry, but watching Mann wallow in his self-importance is not worth $10, in my view.
It would make more sense to spend that on oranges, lemons, apples, grapes and strawberries. Anyone would at least benefit from such a purchase.
Shopped for fruit lately? You mean “or” not “and”.
Unless you are talking Rotten Fruit to throw at the Mann
Definitely “and”. Some people do not think of buying only one or some of the fruits. They prefer buying all.
Think the reasoning behind the pay per view is to prevent widespread viewing of any Michael Mann walkouts by claiming copyright. It’s like “Hide the tantrum”
Mann is going to be in a big hole when he loses Mark Steyn’s counter-suit. He’ll need all the $10 he can get.
Any idea as to what century that might happen?
I’ll go with the usual climate change prognoses, starting with “by the end of this year” and, if/when that fails, updating it to “by the end of this century”.
The Appeals Court signalled a contrary message to your prejudiced feelings and wishes!
Have they also signalled the verdict? Or are they just virtue signallers?
Mann v. CEI/NRO/etc DC District Court, Mann v. CEI/NRO DC Appeals Court.
“[The defendants’ statement that] Dr. Mann has engaged in misconduct has been so definitively discredited, a reasonable jury could, if it so chooses, doubt the veracity of appellants’ claimed honest belief in that very notion. A jury could find, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants “in fact entertained serious doubts” or had a “high degree of awareness” that the accusations that Dr. Mann engaged in scientific misconduct, fraud, and deception, were false, and, as a result, acted “with reckless disregard” for the statements’ truth when they were published.”
“Michael Mann’s lawsuit claims eight different investigations by legitimate bodies of authority found he had behaved properly. That claim, plus the idea his work is widely accepted and replicated, provides the foundation for his case.”
Well that’s not Steyn’s suit. Including Penn State as one of the “legitimate bodies of authority” makes the Sandusky analogy even more appropriate. And we all know that Mann has frequently lied and deceived thanks to climategate and other emails…not to mention that he’s a scumbag who has made reprehensible public remarks about people (including sexists ones about Curry) that end careers of others. Mikey’s fraudpants have turned brown with soiling.
I am afraid you are incorrect. That is indeed part of Mann v. CEI/NRO/etc DC District Court – Steyn is the etc. Steyn, chose not to partake in the Appeal to to DC Appeals Court. You seem to be well versed in libelous hearsay from the science-denier bubble or perhaps you are a climate fiction devotee?
I am afraid your Latin is faulty, to say the least.
If you mean to say “science rules”, with “rules” being a verb, then you have it all wrong.
If you mean, “the rules of science”, you also are incorrect.
Nope my HS Latin is not faulty. I achieved a pass in the mandatory subject to enter medical school many decades back. It is my choice that has exactly zero to do with you and your old lady quilting circle.
Not an old lady with a quilting circle, but your Latin is, sorry, I must say pathetically faulty.
As an historian of science, I had to pass not just Latin, but ancient Greek, French and German at Stanford and Oxford, plus Russian and Vietnamese for the US Army intelligence service.
Would you like me to correct your amateurish attempt for you?
Old man stick with your quilting circle!
Товарищ, я полностью доволен своей латынью. Мне все равно, какая помпезная задница, как вы думаете. Придерживайтесь своей историей, и я буду заниматься наукой о климате. Спасибо!
I can’t speak to the correctness of your Latin, but you obviously are sorely lacking in manners.
I am servile to no one! My manners are obviously superior to yours (and other know-it-all cretins on this thread) especially when you have the temerity to be impertinent!
“My manners are obviously superior to yours ”
well good on you for being able to brag about how your bad manners are above and beyond the bad manners of others, nice to see someone take pride in the things they excel at.
That guy is excellent – in bad manners.
Google Translate…
“I am afraid you are incorrect. That is indeed part of Mann v. CEI/NRO/etc DC District Court – Steyn is the etc”
That’s Mann’s suit against NRO & Steyn. Steyn has counter-sued which is what the poster you were replying to was referencing when he said “Mann is going to be in a big hole when he loses Mark Steyn’s counter-suit.” I know reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, so I’ve bolded the bit that should have clued you in to what they were talking about.
LOL _ Steyn is not going to prevail – so his counter-suit is moot!
So once again, the ability of the legal system to determine truth is unsurpassed.
You are really bad at this. It’s frightening what has happened to your mind from snorting too much BS.
Mr. Mann,
As your legal advisers, we feel that the only way that you can come out of this whole, is to continue to keep your name in the public eye. Your acceptance by the general public, and the quasi-scientific community, are central to having any type of a chance of not being screwed into paying all of the court costs (we all know you can’t win … so let’s not even talk about that).
As you know, no one in the scientific community that has any sense of ethical responsibility is standing behind or beside you now, so you have to keep it up with the public forums (the mob) and hope for the best. If nobody wants you at their public forums we will need to choreograph something every now and then. But this is definitely something you will have to learn to do.
Now, as everyone knows (and you should have accepted it by now), you are a fat bombastic conceded unlikable slob. These characteristics have helped you to get where you are today, and not for the lawsuit they could have continued to be considered as attributes in the academic community that is your home, but you will definitely need to tone it down it bit in the future public forums.
You do need to stand firmly by your AGW stance, but you cannot be as big of ass as you have been in the past. We can’t hold your hand (and you are not paying us enough to want be around you), so take this advice and think about it … hard.
We’ll drag the lawsuit out as long as we can, and you have to continue to interact with the real scientific community to try to hold onto your limited credibility. That way we can pretend that you do have a reputation that is worth protecting. And maybe we can earn you (us) a few dollars in the interim.
If ignorance is contagious, it’s high time to put you in quarantine.
Please, go back to Trollhavn. Hurry!
“Widely accepted” is just not good enough. The existence of God is widely accepted in the RC church, but where is the hard evidence?
Non, even sticking to the realm of science, at one time Geocentricism was “widely accepted” didn’t make it right. The history of science is the history of “widely accepted” things that later turned out to be wrong. Being “widely accepted” (just like the term “consensus”) does not make something right or wrong, it just means a large number of people believe it to be right regardless of whether it is or not.
“Mann v. CEI/NRO/etc DC District Court”…”that the accusations that Dr. Mann engaged in scientific misconduct, fraud, and deception, were false”
Um, isn’t that the same suit that Mann fraudulently claimed to be a Nobel prize recipient in one of his filings?
One problem though, the “idea” his work is widely replicated, falls flat in regards to the original hockey stick graph. His work has never been replicated, in fact the program was shown to always produce a hockey stick even when random data was entered. It only takes one example to prove fraud or misconduct. 10,000 examples of propriety to not negate one example of fraud or misconduct. The investigations never sought to replicate a single study.
If they’re charging in person admission, a pay-per-view charge is reasonably fair. The whole thing ought to be no charge, but maybe they are subsidizing the room prep, maintenance, and security charges. Grant funding covers different costs, even the overhead portion, and should not be fungible according to the government accounting rules unless a portion is specifically earmarked for public lectures/education.
We’ll see if they make a copy available afterwards … if so then you’re right … if not then they’re just protecting their right to control later usage …
The only thing that apparently needs ‘guarding’, is Mann’s fragile ego.
It’s more than reasonably fair to charge….Universities are businesses and leadership is financially oriented. Don’t assume conspiracy…It’s about the University pocketbook.
I’m surprised that they didn’t require a Non-Disclosure Agreement to be signed, and hold it under Chatham House rules.
Like the BBC, they have form in holding secret meetings, which they can later claim came to any convenient conclusion they require….
Charging people to listen to lies and propaganda? Is this on msnbc or cnn?
I doubt that Judith or Patrick will be significantly antagonistic towards Mann. That makes this a good opportunity to see if Mann will draw first blood just out of paranoia.
Yes, I watched Curry, et al during the Congressional testimony. She’s bright and non-Alarmist, but like too many skeptics she prefers to be too understated for my taste. What I’d like is a Mann – Monckton debate. I expect that His Lordship would not be afraid to go for the jugular.
Not only would “his Lordship not be afraid to go for the jugular” but he’d do it with style and panache!
“His Lordship” then has to be as quick as lightning, because Mann will be running like never before. To Mann “Lord Monckton” is a synonym to “Lord Harry”.
Judith Curry had this comment:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/05/28/the-debate/#comment-872872
Judy Curry was correct when she wrote that. We have since negotiated an alternative arrangement that allows webcasting.
I am wary of copyright infringement. On the other hand reporting on this debate is obviously in the public interest.
Because of the DMCA, I do not recommend circumventing anti-copying technology. On the other hand, there is nothing to keep someone from pointing their cell phone at the computer or taking notes shorthand or whatever. From that a transcript of some of the juicy bits could be compiled. News reporting is fair use.
Once you have transcribed what you need, and the story is posted, you should probably destroy any recording you have made. In the jurisdiction where I live, students are allowed to record a professor’s lectures for note taking purposes as long as they don’t post the recording and they destroy the recordings when they have transcribed their notes.
“…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.”
Left unmentioned is Mann’s percent of the gate – I don’t think he’s doing this gratis.
What is the difference between charging $15 (now $20) to attend the event and charging $10 to view it live from the comfort of your home or office? And on-line that $10 covers you and as many people as you can jam into your room.
Somebody neutral needs to pay to view it and then record it, so that when warmists post clips from it out of context we can prove that they did so.
They’ll pay me $10 to listen on podcast, but only $15 to attend in person?
Sorry, my time is worth more than that.
Story of my life. I try to feel free, and just end up feeling cheap.
If I may, a bit different take, 1) This is capitalism at work 2) There is at least at the surface an attempt at a free and open exchange of ideas. 3) Perhaps more like this, other matchups would spark interests ( sort of an intellectual MMA) 4) I am partial to this, not because I want to be in it, but because I have opined several times I would pay to watch something like this. The only downside is the likelihood of a lack of adult beverages being sold on site ( that would be a hoot) , but if I want a nice glass of wine while watching I can do so at home, I doubt my wife and daughter would watch, and Garrett would probably be golfing So As in any situation, 2 ways to look at it, And if it works, perhaps attitudes on redistribution of wealth and living off grants may change. Afterall if you can make money off something like this, perhaps instead of looking for the handout, some of these folks will realize the value of reaching up on their own. Peace out
Unless every misrepresentation or falsehood by Mann is strongly pointed out and rebutted, his comments will be portrayed as accurate. There is disagreement on the foundational aspects of man-caused climate change: how much we warmed since the end of the LIA, how much warming a doubling of atmospheric CO2 may have, and how much of the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 is directly related to human emissions. The most important thing to possibly come out of this discussion will be the admission by the panel that these foundational aspects are not fully known. This would essentially be a “win” for the skeptical, proper science position. I suspect reporting of the event will often include the phrase “settled science” when the truth is the science is quite unsettled.
Curry takes a dive in the fifth round
More like Mann takes a sidestep (dive) out the side door once the first question is asked.
Maddie bites off Mike’s ear in 1st round
Yes, this is a bummer.
I, for one, am not going to pay for it. I have my limits.
On a second thought, I might spend these 10$, but on a donation to WUWT…
BTW – how can one donate? the Tip Jar button is gone…
Not intending this to be directed at any specific individual on the discussion panel, but I have found that malformed individuals have significant psychological shortcomings as well. Short, fat and bald results in inferiority issues leading to over compensation regarding intellectual pursuits. Also, regarding persons who were educated in the 1980’s one needs to keep in mind that at that time, and now for that matter, means that anyone could obtain a degree in any subject area with little or no intelligence and rise to the level of “distinguished professor”. Just saying.
Are you discounting a PhD in Geophysical Sciences if it was obtained in the 80s? From a reputable university?
Yes. Actually, since even earlier than that, anyone can obtain a degree in any area of study, particularly a PHD, if they have the time and money. I have interviewed folks for positions that had advanced degrees of various types that proved this point.
So Curry, the one with a PhD in Geophysical Sciences in the 80s, had the time and money and needed little or no intelligence but still rose to the level of professor.
If you read what I wrote you will note that I did not point out any particular individual though I don’t think that she is fat and bald. So there is a clue in what I wrote as to whom you might look on the panel as to whom there might be reference.
Curry received her PhD in 1982, so she obviously completed the bulk of her course work well before that,
“Yes. Actually, since even earlier than that, anyone can obtain a degree in any area of study, particularly a PHD, if they have the time and money.”
The point is that everyone with a PhD that these “scientists” who follow Watts have wasted money. Jim has made it clear that Curry has a worthless degree.
Of course I’m kidding. You and Jim believe that select people who know too much about a topic should be subject to ridicule. Good thing Watts never got that degree.
No, but the mere fact that one has a phd does not mean one knows more than someone else about a subject or presents accurate analysis, particularly if one is actually caught lying and obfuscating the truth in their work.
A PhD does not mean someone knows “too much” about a subject, it just marks the fact that they spent a large amount of time in school presumably learning about a subject it doesn’t guarantee that they have the intelligence or ability to accurately or productively use what they supposedly learned. In my time, I’ve met some really, really stupid people with degrees and I’ve met some really brilliant people who never went beyond a High School diploma. That you hang on every word someone with a PhD might utter, is your hang up. The rest of prefer facts and evidence over pieces of paper.