It has come to my attention that many climate Deniers are rejoicing in some rather trite diatribes by Dr Evans. However, I'm left wondering whether these fans bothered to google him before placing their anti-science faith in him?

Dr Evans is not a climatologist and has never published in a peer-reviewed climate journal. He belongs to right-wing think tanks and is mainly published and promoted by Denialist think tanks like the Lavoisier Group. He's not even a 'rocket scientist' as he has claimed to be, but instead has a Phd in electrical engineering. And he was not even responsible for climate modelling!
http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans

His claims are full of factual errors, such as the supposed lack of a tropospheric hot spot. Dr Barry Brook — Professor of the climate change department of Adelaide University and pro-nuclear advocate — says:

<<
(1) the hotspot was not a signature of the greenhouse effect – it is a signature of warming from any source, and
(2) that the hotspot is not actually missing…
>>
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans-born-again-alarmist/

Once again, Oooops! But that’s what you get when you place your anti-science faith in non-climatologists.

How does Professor Brook sum up Dr Evan’s behaviour?

<<
Despite this revelation and other careful countering of his claims, Dr Evans chose to simply ignore these corrections and repeat himself on ABC 891 radio in Adelaide. This led me to a point-by-point explanation, on the same radio show, the next week, describing where Dr Evans was in error. Both interviews are podcast here for audio download.

Surely then, Dr Evans must now, in his words, once again “be an alarmist again instead of a skeptic” (apparently there is no middle ground). No? Unsurprisingly, he deploys the standard non-greenhouse theorist approach of yet again blithely ignoring any refutation and simply repeating the exactly the same arguments again in a third forum. So, yet again, a climate scientist had to patiently refute this.

Perhaps Dr Evans doesn’t understand that whilst everyone is entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts.
>>
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans-born-again-alarmist/

Eclipse Now, You doth protest too much.You like others make references within a clack of paid so called scientists sucking on the public purse.How credible are your links?Is this just another lie like all the BS we have been fed about the evils of CO2? The grand lie has now been revealed.The earth has not warmed since 1998 and I'm about to light my wood fire.Perhaps you could send you carbon fascist cops around to arrest me.

Wood is carbon neutral Arjay because the trees did their Co2-absorbing thing before the wood was cut.

But there you go again — pretending to love science while calling thousands of climatologists and every National Science Academy on the planet self-interested liars 'sucking on the public purse'. Good one! ;-) I just love how quickly you become a caricature of yourself.

Myth: Global warming stopped in 1998
You've just repeated one of my FAVOURITE pieces of Denialist propaganda. It's my favourite because even other Denialists are starting to warn against using it, see below.

1. Here's New Scientist responding to this myth in 2007. It's getting a bit old now.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462

2. Why does NASA show 2005 as HOTTER than 1998, and 2007 as drawn with it?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M

3. The MET dataset shows 1998 as the super-spike that it was as their measurement of 2005 *just* misses beating 1998. But they still accept global warming. El Nino & La Nina are waves in the bath, but Co2 added to global warming is the tap left on. They can see the long term trends.

I could make ANY story I want from the temperature record by choosing short enough trends. When are you going to look at the 20 year trends instead of cherrypicking those *few* years that show the conclusions you want?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html

4. Fellow Denialists are worried about pushing this myth.

At the 2009 Heartland Institute conference (of global warming sceptics), well known climate denialist Dr Patrick J Michaels explained that El Nino and La Nina cycles can, in the short term at least, disguise the longer term trends and concluded:

"Make an argument that you can get killed on and you will kill us all…
If you loose credibility on this issue you lose this issue!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4

NASA also admits that past planetary warmings were caused by the sun.Just google "past warming by the sun NASA" and you will get many articles saying that NASA in 2009 reported a study done by them that past warmings were caused by the sun.NASA has since taken that study off its site.Why?

Eclipse Now,

You seem to have done an enormous amount of research, at least into the science behind your personal beliefs. I am always curious as to how so much information can result in maintaining the status quo? How can you possibly have access to so much information and not spot that you have been had?

What will you do when the house of carbon collapses? Will you blame the scientists in whom you place so much faith, the media that led you down the garden path, the politicians, the IPCC, celebrity advocates or commercial opportunists? What will you write when it all goes belly up?

You need to replace those who you consider “plausible” with some original thought of your own otherwise you are left with “abandon ship now”, “have a bob each way” or say to your self “please God let me be right”.

It is sad that so many are putting so much effort into this scam. You have reached rock bottom, don’t keep on digging. Like so many other warmers, you are looking increasingly desperate.

want to see how insane the carbon cops are?

""Wood is carbon neutral Arjay
because the trees did their Co2-absorbing thing
before the wood was cut.""

the same rule applies to coal
and petro chemical?

mate if your lot is right
the problem is putting c02..into the air....NOW*
REGARDLES OF WHERE IT NOW COMES FROM..its into the air now

so where it came from dont count

this is the same selective ignorance
that ignores the 'other' greenhouse gasses
like nitrous oxide from farmers speading nitrogen
or methane from home composting bins and mining..[both far worse greenhouse type gasses]

your being spun lies
noting tax on petrol is comming ibn a few years
its only 'out'..now to make tony lok bad

[him saying 1000 when its NOW only 500..
when the 1000 came FROM GOVT..

but..by clever spin and modeling
obnly 1000 paying..became 500]

but ignore your own lies/spin
go on name calling...

BUT NOTE*
only one third of the people are decieved

money corrupts
carbon tax will corrupt absolutly