Bazz

And if the temperatures continue to trend up?
Of course, you are right - a global problem requires a global response.
And yep, a farce.

_____

Horus

The kerfuffle is about what to do, how, when and by whom - not why.
And yes, I am a sceptic (in the scientific sense). I would classify the majority of so called 'sceptics' ... cynics.

_____

Graham

The models today are much better than the models of yesterday. We have much better temporal and spatial resolution. This will aid everyone from governments to farmers and all those in between, particularly at a regional level.

Yes, I pop in to Lucia's blog now and then, even Tamino's "Open Mind".
However, I mostly go to places like this:

http://pcmdi-cmip.llnl.gov/cmip5/index.html

http://www.ecmwf.int/research/

You should check out the anual reports.

Re: Plimer - his lectures.

No, I am not saying "mankind couldn't have lived in those higher CO2 days" - I am saying we are conducting an experiment that we have not done before ... and we have no other test tube to use as a control.

Yes, we are heading for another ice age, 100% absolutely. Check the time line for Milankovitch cycles - I'd say in about 30,000 years, +/- a bit.
What am I going to do about it? Nothing, I can't control the tilt or orbit of the planet.

What I have control in is living in a more sustainable way, hopefully others would do the same - but I have my doubts.

Btw, I think Solomon et al is accounting for the stasis pretty well Graham ... stratospheric cooling and you guessed it, that damn water vapour again :(

My last post appears to have stifled discussion so let's get this thing back on topic:

<< The big lie peddled by the UN is the notion that a doubling of CO2 concentration will cause as much as 2-4.5C of 'global warming'. >>

Did anyone watch the debate between the Lord and the Doctor at the Sydney Hilton today?

I think the doctor nailed the Lord on the science, particularly about climate sensitivity. In a nut-shell, the Lord is wrong.

However, the Lord Chris jiggled his followers when talking about politics and economics - that's what the 'debate' is about in the public's mind - not the science.

qanda: "Did anyone watch the debate between the Lord and the Doctor at the Sydney Hilton today?"

Is it online somewhere?

Not sure - I watched the live stream from SMH online.

Here is one appraisal

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/02/12/i-went-to-a-circus-and-a-science-debate-broke-out/

Graham's best friend-not, Dr Tim Lambert, was debating the science of climate sensitivity (the subject the Lord's choosing).

In my opinion, while Monckton tried valiantly to claim credence for his brand of science, Lambert nailed the Lord when he produced an audio clip from Professor Rachel Pinker who categorically refuted Monckton's assertions (Monckton was relying on a paper she wrote to argue his 'case' for low levels of sensitivity to CO2 forcing).

Monckton either doesn't understand the science, or he deliberately misrepresents and distorts what the scientists are saying for his own (or someone/group higher) agenda - despicable imo.

Tim Lambert will be putting Pinker's paper on his website for all to see where, how and why the Lord has got it so wrong.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/

Oh, I thought the funniest bit was that Monckton really thought Rachel Pinker was a bloke - he relied on her paper so much that he didn't even get her gender right!

The other thing that grabbed my attention was that the Lord seemed to rely on Plimer's geologic pre-history of 750 million years ago just too much - rather than concentrating on what was actually happening in real time - like in the recent 200 years. Yep, Plimer has been in Monckton's ear a lot lately - and Plimer still refuses to correct the scientific errors in his Heaven and Earth, simply amazing.

You gotta give it to Monckton though, he really knows how to play to the fears of his followers - rightfully worried about how we are to tackle climate change - ETS, tax, whatever. But the science? They don't have a clue and they dribble at the Lord's every utterance - a shame, really.

Monckton has been accused of a quite a few discreditable things.

However, regarding the Climate Change scam, and it is a scam. Mr
Turnbull spat out the dummy in parliament, and I would advise posters
on this blog to get on to www.cecaust.com.au "Goldman Sachs' Turnbull
dances to British carbon trading tune' - Now why would AGW's say we
who do not agree are in the pay of the big oil companies? After all
they if an Carbon Trading Schemes were introduced, all those who have
invested millions in any Carbon Credit Trading Scheme, could sell them
theirs to compensate. No ETS scheme, devaluation of their shares.
And people like us who have put in solar panels with the hope of
benefiting financially will lose our money invested.

Read the article, very interesting, dated 28th October 2009 before
the Copenhagen comedy hours.

Point 2: Lord M also mentioned that Dr Patchauri and Sir John Houghton as Trustees of TERI Europe, were in trouble and could face
criminal charges (not declaring proper income) The ABC quote Sir John
Houghton as saying "I have never been a Trustee of TERI Europe" Well
Sir John he is obviously a technophobe - Google TERI Europe and their
index and look at Trustees and Sir John is right at the top. I don't
think Lord Monckton is stupid enough to make allegations like this, with out checking out his facts first.

Bazz: In the last 300 years global temps have risen, but we were coming out of a mini ice age and the causation factor was not AGW.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas but a small percentage of it over-all.
CO2 irrespective of it's total content of Greenhouse gases, water vapor e.g.clouds, are responsible for keeping the planet sometimes
warmer (that's why frost doesn't form if their is cloud cover at night) and cooler by day. That's why deserts are boiling hot during
the day and freezing cold at night. Humidity levels add to make it
feel hotter but basically temps are not, other than seasonal variations.

qanda,

I went and looked for a video of the stoush. If it is out there somewhere it is well hidden. Next time you watch something like this do the world a favour and record it. It isn't difficult.

After reading this article from Monckton I decided the guy was likely just a blow hard. That was sharply corrected when I heard him perform on the ABC RN morning show. Having seen Fran Kelly take on Prime Minsters, Professors, Archbishops with ease to hear her torn apart by Monckton was a shock. It was as though the English bulldog had her cowering in the corner. During the moment it was a thoroughly convincing performance, but once his voice ebbed from the airwaves the holes in what he said bubbled up and seemed annoyingly obvious. The next time I heard him on the radio it was different yet again. None of the hysterical claims from this article, no silencing the opposition by the bully, just reasoned argument. The man evidently has a chameleon like ability to tailor debating style to the situation. He is very impressive, and I can see why Plimer wanted him over here.

It would have been nice to have seen him up against Lambert, even if it was just to see an outstanding performer like Monckton weave his magic. If Lambert wasn't 100% up on his topic he would have been torn apart. Evidently he isn't on the economic side. But it sounds that he, at the very least, held his own on the science. In my book just holding your own against Monckton is a resounding win.

I have to say it was disappointing to read larvatusprodeo's summary of the questions asked.