Mole, you wrote:

"We know from physics that atmospheric carbon dioxide will trap heat. We know that carbon dioxide is rising and that temperature is rising in pace with the carbon dioxide rise. ... This would be considered standard scientific evidence in support of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. A prediction is made based on physics and the observed changes match well with what is predicted. Evans suggests that something more is needed."

By "prediction" do you mean a climate model? How accurate do climate models have to be to "match well" with observed changes? The last few decades suggest that, thus far, climate models have not "matched well" with what's actually been observed in the climate.

I think Evans' point is that the previous beliefs about CO2 and warming has been overstated. X amount of CO2 might still lead to a temperature increase of Y, but Y is not nearly as large a value as previously thought.

That's why no climate model has yet to "match well" with actual observation. Temperatures are not quite "rising in pace with the carbon dioxide rise," because the assumptions about the ratio of X to Y are incorrect.

I think this because no one will come out and say 'X amount of carbon dioxide leads to Y degrees of warming.' Such a prediction would be immediately contradicted by observational evidence. That's why I don't understand how you can write this: "Basically the realities of the field are that you have the physics and you have observation of what is really happening and in this case the observation fist (sic) precisely what you would predict from physics and supports the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis."

Could you point to a single example where a prediction about global temperatures and the subsequent observation of global temperatures were "precisely" the same?

Evans is ultimately arguing that the amount of warming we're experiencing compared to the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is so low that it's not worth spending any money on the problem.

But, that last point is a public policy question, not a scientific one.