So to paraphrase Ken. Prof Jones firstly mounts scientifically thick arguments and then rebuts his own position with a thin argument. What a logical position!

Jones has also confirmed that his data can not be relied upon to be accurate and believes it has probably been skewed by urban heat. Information that is obviously in the thin category. Now if a computer model which has been fed Prof Jones' suspect data spits out an AGW scenario this would be thick evidence of a minor part of the decline in Polar Bears since top predators only eat seals. Do seals have thin skins?

Or is it vice versa Ken? Does the egg or the CO@ comes first?

Green Logic in action.

I notice that a scientist's honesty - a period of 15 years not being long enough to get a statistically significant climate trend - is of course misread as 'not warming' despite the obvious that all the temperature records actually show warming over that period. 9 of the 10 hottest years on record were in the last decade! Once more when a scientist takes the time and effort to explain, someone grabs a phrase that sounds like what they want to hear and that becomes the whole story. Of course it's warming over statistically significant periods like 30years and efforts to find trends in periods too short to seriously count don't count.

This is rather like those who think some news stories about cold weather in parts of the world through January amount to global cooling. Have they checked how much of the world was warmer than average through January? No. Is it much more of the world than showed cooler than average? Yes. Actually January was globally the warmest January in the 30 plus years of the RSS satellite record. Is there a clear warming trend in that record? Yes. Do other temperature records show a clear warming trend? Yes. All do, over periods of 30yrs and over much shorter periods.

It's not climate scientists who have a poor record with selecting facts and making supposed scientific conclusions out of them.

Ken,

First— terms:
You use the word ‘scientists’ as if the only scientists, were on the pro-AGW side.
There are as many scientists on the anti-AGW side --- regardless of what qanda & others pretend.

Next—time frames :
You claim honest Phil declares the “period of 15 years not being long enough to get a statistically significant climate trend”

Now while it’s true that Phil bemoans : “1860-1880 [as] only 21 years”
And in talking of 1995 to 2009, he says: “Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods”
No where in this interview does he say, what you imply he says: “ I cant make a call because the time frame it is too short”

And in fact, if you knew your IPCC catechism, you’d know the IPCC has been making calls on such short frames for a while – just so long as the findings suit their preferred scenario!

No, the reason Phil was nervous is here :
Questioner “ Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming ?
Phil Jone’s Answer “Yes, but only just.”
Translation: there has been NO changes that would indicate global warming over that period

Background:
In any study/experiment you need to set parameters . One adopted by Phil & Co was that changes in temperature of less than .12C +/- will be deemed insignificant –inadmissible.
Why?
Here’s a secret -- natural systems are NOT static .
Temperatures swing first this way, then that way.
A swing of .12c+ is within the parameters of ‘noise’ --especially if it’s followed by a .12c swing in the opposite direction.

Now Phil clearly doesn’t like having to ‘fess-up to this, note his little quip “but only just’.
And a few others on OLO don’t want to see it either .
But there’s no escaping it!
Using the measures Phil and his team set –THERE HAS BEEN NO GLOBAL WARMING SINCE 1995!

The Obama administration campaigned upon 'transparent government'

This bloke made repeated attempts to obtain data sets from NASA.

Garbage in Garbage out

I thought this PJTV Video: " Climategate 2.0 - The NASA Files: It’s The Data, Not The Globe, That’s Cooked (Part 1)" was interesting and hope you do too.

http://www.pjtv.com/v/3102