Where global warming science should be today following Dr Phil Jones' revelations

That's Fox News's Glenn Beck with some actual reporting of Dr Phil Jones's BBC interview, reporting that has been sadly lacking from the BBC itself.

Dr Jones' recent online interview with the BBC's Roger Harrabin (the unscientifically trained environment analyst has not been headline news in the Main Stream Media and the BBC have been happy to put the full interview up and not analyse the incredible admissions within it, in an apparent hope that it will fade away and they can go back to proselytising on behalf of the 'warmists'. Do read the whole interview it's fantastic as you find Dr Jones happy to claim that a 0.12C per decade increase in temperature is "quite close to the significance level" but that a 0.12% decrease in temperature is just "not statistically significant"; hmmm that seems reasonable. Here's the full Q&A on that for you to read:

"B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant. "

The other extract that needs to be quoted every time a government minister or 'warmist' claims that the debate on climate change is settled is this one:

"N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well. "

For more information on 'Climate Change' take a look at Watts Up With That, Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit and Bishop Hill.