I find it strange that the only bit of climate science that Dr Evans believes is the bit about the tropical hotspot being an indicator of global warming trends. Whether or not the hotspot was absent or not may or may not be subject to legitimate debate (I haven't done the research on it so I don't know) but whatever the case he seems to believe in it - so long of course as he regards it as having been absent.

If you have any doubt about where this Emmision Trading is about
to take us, read this from our very own ASX.

http://tinyurl.com/6scwpy

http://www.asx.com.au/resources/newsletters/investor_update/20090113_march_of_the_etfs.htm

The Russian Oligarchs funded themselves on the European ETFs and
others are now going to repeat their example with all sorts of
"Financial Instruments".
I would have though that we would have had enough of this immaginative
financing.

The ETFs are nothing more than a modern day indulgences.
Where oh where are you Martin Luther ?

If David Evans and his cohorts from the Australian Climate Science Coalition have any credibility at all, they should at least provide empirical evidence for their theories. But they can't,won't and haven't. Considering climate scientists appear to have no qualms with the co2 and temperature models from tree rings, ice cores and geological carbon isotope concentration, why is it that Evans et al don't understand?: continuously refusing to countenance the mass of current evidence for AGW. Climate science does not ignore the underlying natural cycles affecting our weather and climate. You know the four seasons etc. We now MEASURE increasing global co2 concentrations and increasing temperature trends that are not part of the normal climate cycle. And remembering the famous old summer science school Prof. "why is it so?". The IPCC has explained it, while Evans and rest the ICSC "Scientific Advsiory Panel" have not.