I haven't tried A-PAC

http://www.a-pac.tv/

but it was mentioned on Lambert's thread.

As far as Lord Monckton is concerned, I like him very much. I feel what he has to say is ethical and scientifically correct. I think right now is the AGW believers are in a quandary.

But without Lord Monckton, I knew years ago from my respective 'scientifically' based studies the Al Gores etc., were right off the mark. I have suggested you U Tube "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

And also the political manipulation of those who might have trillions
of dollars invested in Carbon Credits Trading, and without any ETS
legislations being implemented, they are done - lost out financially.

Again, I advise to get on to www.cecaust.com.au and search "Goldman
Sachs' Turnbull dances to British carbon trading tune.

He was with the present government, the principal driver of the belief in AGW. Financial CCT investments now face a plunge possibly complete loss in investments.

Forget the science right now for a moment, and research what will happen if ETS legislations globally are not implemented? Lots will
lose their money, that shouldn't happen just after this other global
financial downfall in stocks and investments.

Blame Al Gore! Blame the UN IPCC and others who contributed to their
reports. You and I are now under the axe if any ETS legislation should be implemented that will push up costs of living, for no reason but to satisfy investors in CCT investment shares that look like plummeting right now. Have plummeted! Sorry... but that's how I feel. I am disgusted Australian politicians are not saying this, other than Senator Barnaby Joyce. The coalition led now by Tony Abbott are sitting on the fence, they know that the climate change
scam will affect people in Australia if they have invested in CCT
and Turnbull is a disgrace as a politician in my opinion.

Bush Bunny;
I don't think Monkton has completely demonstrated that
significant effects on temperature are not happening.
He has raised very important points and as he said, the rise that has
occurred is less than the computer models project.

I tried to see the formulas that were on screen from both sides but
the definition on screen was not good enough and not there long
enough, but I could not see any logarithmic functions.
It may have been implied or shown in a way I could not recognise as
I am no maths expert.
The argument was about the sensitivity and how a change in CO2 will
effect temperature, so surely there has to be an input showing the
log effect.

On whether it is worthwhile worrying about it all anyway, is it
correct that the exporting country carries the CO2 count for coal ?
If this is correct it does not matter a damn what we do about CO2
we will never reduce the export CO2 in coal.
The ETS will be pointless.

I agree with you Bushbunny but I think the eventual bill will not be picked up by Al Gore or Malcolm Turnbull. I bet they will find a way to foist all this "bad debt" onto us i.e. our super. Just as they did with all the dodgy loans in the GFC.
Another thing, Victoria went through the same "Crisis" thanks to the Caine Labour government in the 1980's. The same sad story, money lent to dodgy people for overvalued assets. We copped that too!

The debate is there on a-pac. Thanks for that qanda. I've now watched a fair bit of the debate between the Lord and the IT guy. I haven't managed to watch all of it, so haven't seen the Pinker bit, but I've seen a fair bit. I'm not a big fan of Monckton's but I was surprised by his performance. He's not bad on his feet, and I didn't see him make any serious errors in the time I was watching.

In fact he was pretty measured, even volunteering that 9 years of cooling was not long enough to establish a trend. Not what I expected.

He is wrong on Pinker to some extent, but that obscures his general point, which is still good, that the recent warming is partly due to increasing amounts of radiation reaching the earth's surface. Where he is wrong is his calculation as to what this means for climate sensitivity.

You wonder why I am down on Lambert. He gave good justification in this debate. He tried to explain away the recent huge falls of snow in the northern hemisphere on the basis that it only snows when it is warm. Apparently, based on his observations when he was doing his PhD in computer programming in Manitoba it never snowed there when it was really cold.

If his observation is correct there are a few hypotheses that I can come up with to explain them, but none of them involves the bizarre theory that you don't get precipitation when it is cold. And without precipitation you don't get snow.

Explains why it's snowing in Brisbane at the moment I suppose! 32 degree heat and global warming will do it to you.

Graham Y: Snowing in Brisbane? They have lots of rain right now as have the rest of Australia. This we welcome of course in Oz. During the last ice age Australasia, well the mainland,Tasmania,New Guinea were joined by the hip due to low sea levels but had reduced rain forests but more deciduous forests? Precipitation levels were increased in some areas and not in others. The Australian Aborigines adjusted, but the population of human beings was globally greatly reduced, until the agriculture was established globally. And fishing,
remember that, land masses were in some instances miles away from the deeper oceans.

Seems according to 'Ice not fire' website, Mongolia has experienced
very low temps and snow, risking the deaths of up to 20 million stock
animals they depend on. And even in Florida, some sea mammals are dieing too because of lower sea temps and lack of food?

We are in a catch 22 mode. As I have surmised before, the Northern
Hemisphere will be hardest hit with a new ice age. Particularly with the increase of population in those areas most effected by an ice age. To me this global warming AGW concept, and the legislation of
ETS could be covering both bases. Those that have invested in CCT
investments will lose out ultimately, however, if ETS is legislated
then all the main industrial pollution producers, like coal fired
electricity plants, will benefit by CCTs that will compensate them.

However, it won't change the planet's climate. I remember Al Gores
original In Convenient Truth - he mentioned that CO2 emissions human
activated would warm the planet that would result in a new ice age.
Now why would he say that eh?