Phil Jones, the scientist at the center of the Climategate scandal, answers questions from the BBC. In the interview, Jones maintains that he never intended to “trick” the public about global warming or subvert the academic peer-review process. He also clears up some confusion about the global warming record, confirming that the warming rates for the periods of 1860-1880, 1910-1940, and 1975-1998 “are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.” While the scandal has provided plenty of fodder for global warming skeptics, Jones says he’s “100% confident that the climate has warmed.” [%comments]
An Interview with Climategate’s Phil Jones
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Did he intentionally mislead the public? Perhaps not.
Did he become so convinced of his hypothesis that he cut corners on his scientific principles, undermining the integrity of his research. Most likely.
Freakonomics,
Interesting how you neglet the biggest bombshell admited by Phil Jones.
“there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995″
When considering that they have previously stated that 15 years on no warming would prove the theory invalid, this is a HUGE admission.
Interesting how the reading public is immensely more knowledgeable of the subject than Freakonomics who’s mission is to report it to us.
Your bias has been exposed Freakonomics…
Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain!
Al Gore manages trillions of green/AGW investment money. Biased? No, he is a Nobel-winning self-denying saint.
http://www.generationim.com/
Nobel-prize winner Pachauri has similar money-making entanglements.
The UN has a huge effort to help get private investors to put money into green/AGW investments:
http://www.unpri.org/
BBC could have broken ClimateGate email story, but chose to NOT run the story…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231763/BBC-weatherman-ignored-leaked-climate-row-emails.html
Why not? Because BBC has their retirement investment portfolio heavily in green/AGW investments…
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/156703/-8bn-BBC-eco-bias-
Sure, we need to control pollution. But turning over control of all energy consumption to a hadnful of self-designated global rulers, with no accountability mechanism? This is the technical definition of global totalitarianism. What’s not to love? Yes, we face two reasonable dangers: AGW, and global control from a self-appointed board with no accountability, no vote, no constitutional rights, no appeal, no due process, etc.
Right now, the evidence is trending toward one of these being reality, and one of these being myth. “Follow the money.”
The simple fact is that the facts are not simple. Climate science is in its infancy. If the scientists who do the research know little, the deniers know even less. Yet they scream like apostates outside a church meeting… not trying to contribute, simply to tear down. Suppose the facts don’t support agw. Does that mean that we can keep on doing nothing? Keep driving our gas guzzlers, keep chopping down the rain forest? Interesting reading: http://www.examiner.com/x-17373-Phoenix-Signs-of-the-Times-Examiner~y2010m2d17-Is-global-warming-a-myth
It’s funny how AGW deniers accuse scientists of cherry picking data and then decide to say that over the last 13 years there has been no warming. You do realize that the only reason that it works out to show no warming is that you are cherry picking the warmest period in the recent past due to the unusually strong 97-98 El Nino event as your starting point for drawing your regression line for temp. change. Yes, if you begin the charting just two years on either side of this anomaly there is once again a warming trend. Would you people quit pretending like you have the slightest clue about the science.
The AGW house of cards, forged from leaps of highly extrapolated, speculative logic and artificial willfulness, may have crumbled, but that doesn’t mean that the main hypothesis, the one that rested on that house of cards, can’t stand. Haven’t you people ever heard of floating cities? Google floating cities and you’ll have all the proof you need. Geez, where is Dan Rather when we need him most?
So, we’re back to “100% confident that the earth has warmed”, a point that isn’t even controversial, and speaks nothing whatsoever to attribution – whether it’s natural, cyclical, statistically significant, or anything else. Yes, let’s definitely get back to non-controversial basics, and see if we can’t make people believe that it supports all the newly extrapolated nonsense all over again from there.
Seeing as this is ostensibly a blog about economics, perhaps someone could write up a quick post about the meaning and implication of “statistical significance” in this argument? I get the feeling that a lot of the commenters here and elsewhere don’t quite grasp that concept.
This is about much more than the debate on AGW/climate change it is about the integrity of modern science, probably mans greatest achievement (I’m an artist).
If we allow science by consensus to become the dominant method
we may as well revive all sorts of theories including eugenics (there was a chair in Eugenics at Stanford Uni. before world war two).
As for climate sceptics…its my understanding that to be a scientist you have to be sceptical.