This is just Evans previous article on OLO recycled. I suppose we should be glad that OLO is into recycling. Evans is just repeating his falsehoods about the AGW signature yet again. The hot spot is not the signature of greenhouse warming, since you get a hot spot, no matter what the cause. The signature is stratospheric cooling combined with tropospheric warming and that has been detected. Evans' first cite Chapter 9 of the IPCC report tells you this quite clearly, but Evans pretends that it says the opposite.

All this stuff has been gone over before, in detail, again and again. See:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/david_evans_doesnt_know_what_t.php

No prizes for guessing which judge picked this thing as one of the best blog posts of 2008.

I think Evans must present his missing hotspot theory to an audience of the scientifically trained and draw attention to their oversight. With luck he might get Colonel Pickering's response in My Fair Lady 'by jove I think he's got it'. Having demolished the case against .05% atmospheric CO2 perhaps he could then move on to why people with .05% blood alcohol should be encouraged to drive cars.

Here's a simple argument if we accept that CO2 increases solar heat retention. Australians on average cause around 30 tonnes of CO2 to be emitted into the air each year. The world has perhaps another two billion middle class like us. Most of that carbon was under the ground for millions of years. Greenhouses help tomatoes grow in the off-season by increasing solar retention. Therefore parts of the world must be undergoing an enhanced greenhouse effect. Now explain why that isn't a problem.

I should point out that this article/thread at Troppo was nominated largely because of the commentary, not because of the ill-informed and badly written original article. It is a pity there isn't an easy way to reproduce them, not just because that's where the best bits are, but because THEY are what made it one of the best posts of 2008. As it stands, it looks like David Evans has garnered the award, when that's not the case.

I suggest that next year, if a similar nomination is made and the commentary can't be copied across, that such nominees be discarded, as a matter of fairness.

Taswegian wrote;
Here's a simple argument if we accept that CO2 increases solar heat retention.

But this is surely the point. With the present CO2 level does
doubling the amount of CO2 give twice the temperature effect ?
As it is non linear each increase has a smaller effect.
The real question is at what point on the curve are we ?

David Evans, the lefts hocus-pocus "I'll put a spell on you, rants" will continue to rage until their high priests freeze over and fall into their porridge.

Hotspots have been addressed. Nothing to see here, move along. Next argument please.

As for this popycock about Alarmists and sceptics. An Alarmist is anyone who makes an alarming claim. Such as if we take action our economy will fall into ruin. Popycock and an alarmist statement.

What a short memory David has. "The media has avoided presenting information that undermines AGW". I remember non too fondly the period from 2001 until 2006 where anti AGW rubbish would get a full page spread and scientists trying to make a correction were ignored.

The media is the media, they like sensational and will quote out of context.

A scientifically scoped, out highly unlikely to happen, worst case scenario with lots of qualifying factors such as "If carbon emisions increase AND Solar activity increases AND land clearing rates stay the same AND gacial melt continues as is AND warming seas don't turn out to sequester more CO2 THEN the seas might rise a fair bit". Gets reported as. "The seas will rise a fair bit, this means the opera house will be under water"

David Evans - Alarmist.