Phoenix94
Try going to some of the original sources rather than relying exclusively on daily fishwrappers like the Daily Mail and sites like Science and Public Policy and American Thinker. None of these sites would publish a balanced article if they were put on the rack.
The original Jones interview is available at the BBC site at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm: here is the relevant section:

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

Jones: "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."

In other words, it has gotten warmer, despite what the deniers want to say.

Question: "How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?"

Jones: "I'm 100 percent confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."

Don't you understand that certainty decreases with reduction in sample size? With a "sample" down of 2 years, you could show either dramatic cooling or warming, depending on which two years were chosen- but the statistical significance would be close to zero.

...are you amenable to hearing the original stuff, or do you prefer to just re-broadcast these convenient lies?

Kenny, why would we want to go to science journals?

Don't you remember, the CRU, & the rest of the mob got control of what was printed in them, or have you not read the e mails? I suppose, like Examinator, & Qanda, you don't read them, to avoid seeing the truth.

Ok Hasbeen, you ask us to be specific, why can't you?

1. Which journals are you referring to? Dates or volume numbers would be a good start.

2. What mob?

Incidentally, what makes you think I haven't read the emails?

Sure, some are sloppy - but hey, they're just as sloppy as those between McIntyre, Watts and Inhofe.

And in no way do they diminish the overall conclusions.

______

And, did you finally go to the BOM site and see the truth, you asked for it, remember? Let me guess, you didn't understand it (and not a word about AGW).

Jedi
It is interesting that you still see Phil Jones and the IPCC as “balanced” .

Phil Jones’s interview has a lot more than first meet the eye –especially if you're one-eyed( like you and qanta).

This is what you saw:
<<Jones: "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."In other words, it has gotten warmer, despite what the deniers want to say.”>>

But what you didn’t see, through your one green eye was the second half of that section that read. <<[from] 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative(-0.12C per decade)>> –funny how you missed that bit!

And in view of the reversal of trend, it’s only fair I return the compliment: “In other words, it has gotten [cooler], despite what the [alarmists] want to say”.

So what does it all show? Only, that climate is not static it bounces around-and its not all one-way(much to you and qanta’s disappointment)And there is little-to-no correlation between CO2 and climate warming.

Qanta
Re <<Sure, some are sloppy - but hey, they're just as sloppy as those between McIntyre, Watts and Inhofe>>

Ah but you miss the point, qanta.
That, others were sloppy, we already knew, because the IPCC & its acolytes, like you, already told us so (a thousand times or more).
What (supposedly) distinguished the IPCC & it’s spokespersons from, those others, was that the IPCC-side had nothing to hide.
Actually your story went something like this : “everybody's got something to hide except me and my monkey”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lngGPsJ1pQ

But NOW we know different . The Himalayan glacier prognostications were not only, NOT peer reviewed, they were based on hearsay.
And you can’t write it off as an accident (as much as you’d like to).

An accident is a different beast altogether .An accident is a where circumstances conspired to make you do something you didn’t intend .
The Glacier report was chosen ,proof read and intentionally printed.The mistake lay only in the IPCC believing they could get away with it. And they almost did. It sat in the IPCC report for months –and none of you eagle-eyed seekers of truth noticed –or leastways dared to mention it.

But when it was exposed . The true IPCC believers moved overnight from denial mode to ‘well it’s all to be expected” mode.

To hors from qanta

3000 + pages

2500 + scientists

1000 + research papers

You get the drift ...

I'm surprised there are so few errors - it's a mammoth task!

Tell you what, give them a buzz and let them know they haven't got a friggin clue about the science.

No Hors, not the IPCC (they are just the messengers trying to collate the stuff) - buzz the scientists that actually do the research and tell them where they have got it all wrong.

(Ssshhhhhh - listen up Hors, this is a secret between you and me - changes to the IPCC process is needed, and will happen. But guess what, you can't change the science ... no matter how much you want to, that wouldn't be, well, umm, er ... science)