Ok spindoc, here's one bloggers partial transcript of the hearing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/01/parliamentary-climate-emails-inquiry

I tried to get from the parliamentary HoC Science and Technology Committee site, they seem to have sever errors (or no web page?).

Anyway, here's a link to the full report:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

Now, what on Earth in all this makes you think that Jones 'effectively “pulled the plug” on AGW' or that 'that his views now contradict the “warmers”'?

I'd really like to know what gave you that impression.

No Bugsy, I don't want a "partial Blog", especially not from the Guardain for goodness sake, what are you on?

I am pointing you to two specific questions asked of Phil Jones, is the globe warming? and what is the link, if any, with residual atmospheric carbon?

Thank you for the link to the parliamentary hearing report but I have a full copy, that is not the "transcript" I pointed you to.

If this is all you read you are destined to be a warmer. Take your dammned blinkers off!

Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a link to the transcript you have apparently read.

Bugsy

I have this 203 page pdf (similar to your 61 page summary, but contains more detail) - spindoc should have this too.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387ii.pdf

I'm not sure where spindoc has "pointed" you to either. Nevertheless, he should provide the web link - if only to compare apples with apples.

No link from spindoc bugsy, at least not yet.

This is the original BBC Q&A with Phil Jones that raised the ire of the 'denialosphere' in the first place - specifically about the trend since 1995.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

But I don't spindoc is referring to this transcript - there certainly is no question about "residual atmospheric carbon", one question that spindoc is "pointing" you to.

Will just have to wait and see if he can actually "point" to the transcript himself.

Bugsy, why don’t you get together with qanda and start work on the following from the link you kindly provided?

Re Global Warming?

Q91 Ian Stewart: Is the highest.
Professor Jones: Is the warmest going back to 1850,
it is 0.16 warmer than the 1990s and that was warmer
than the 1980s.
The margin of error is 0.15
Verifiability? Q100 to Q105
Access to raw data? Q107 to Q118
Can the CRU findings be reproduced? No. Q135
CRUTEM3 contradictions Q139 to Q143
Availability of raw data? No, only derivative Q145 to Q150

Memorandum submitted by Richard S Courtney (CRU 01) This submission concerns the importance of an email (see Appendix A) from me that was among the files hacked (?) from CRU. It demonstrates that in 2003 the self-titled “Team” knew the estimates of average global temperature (mean global temperature, MGT) were worthless, and they acted to prevent publication of proof of this.

See: Memorandum submitted by Godfrey Bloom MEP (CRU 18)

See: Memorandum submitted by Clive Menzies (CRU 19)

See: Memorandum submitted by Dr Michael Simons (CRU 20)

See: Memorandum submitted by David Shaw (CRU 22)

See: Memorandum submitted by Dr D R Keiller (CRU 23)

See: Memorandum submitted by David Holland (CRU 24)

See: Memorandum submitted by Ronald K Bolton (CRU 25)

Funny how this lot didn’t hit the media, only the bit about no fraud from Phil Jones. It is however, from the very same Hearings.