There is an interesting hour long video of a debate organised by The Brisbane Institute here

The debate was on climate change, and took the form of a debate between Christopher Monckton and Ian Plimer on the sceptic side, vs Prof Barry Brooke and Graham Redfearn on the AGW side.

The main speakers (Monckton and Brooke) were both given 10 minute slots, and then there were some responses from the other two speakers and questions from the floor.

I thought this was a very interesting discussion. For my money, Monckton and Brooke carried the day for each side. Ian Plimer tended to drift off topic (for example, the argument that CO2 is plant food and not poison, whilst a valid one, was irrelevant to the discussion). Graham Redfearn seemed way out of his depth and used a lot of ad hominem  arguments which I am glad to see were quickly dispatched by the moderator. Redfearn's body language at the end of the debate was painful to watch, as was his lack of audience support.

Prof Brooke, was a very measured and reasonable speaker, as was Lord Monckton.

The issues raised by Monckton on climate sensitivity, and the cost/benefits of cap and trade / ETS schemes, are very important, in my opinion, and these issues need to be discussed in the open. This is especially true for New Zealand, which is currently still planning to implement the ETS as envisioned in Copenhagen.

I am very glad to see discussions like this opening up, and at least for some of the panel, open and intelligent arguments being presented to the public.