——————————

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

Phil 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.

——————————

95% significance level… that’s REALLY not significant, is it?… hahahha ha ha

[OK, for the non-statistics-nerds here, it's either a 5% significance level, or the value 0 is an element of the 95% confidence interval of the trend variable's coefficient estimate... Phil Jones made a 1st year student's mistake]

ha…ha.. eh.. it’s funny… oh dammit, it is!

The IPCC is not a scientific organisation. It is a PR organisation specifically set up to generate support for AGW. Those whose job it is to provide it with data therefore have that goal constantly in view.

Furthermore, the British group of UK-government funded organisations, like UEA, the Met. Office, the Hadley Centre, the Grantham Institute and other Universities, have an equally over-arching but limiting scope, since their Government funding for climate research depends wholly on the provision of data supporting AGW.

When this is your job, any data not supporting your reason for existence (and respect in the scientific community) is not valid.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/012345/full/news.2010.71.html

From the guy that wrote a book on it:

Sunstein, Cass R. “Throwing precaution to the wind: Why the ‘safe’ choice can be dangerous.” boston.com – The Boston Globe, July 13, 2008. LinkText Here

Excerpts quoted:
Main point: “Yet the precautionary principle, for all its rhetorical appeal, is deeply incoherent. It is of course true that we should take precautions against some speculative dangers. But there are always risks on both sides of a decision; inaction can bring danger, but so can action. Precautions, in other words, themselves create risks – and hence the principle bans what it simultaneously requires.”
…
“In the context of climate change, precautions are certainly a good idea. But what kinds of precautions? A high tax on carbon emissions would impose real risks – including increased hardship for people who can least afford it and very possibly increases in unemployment and hence poverty. A sensible climate change policy balances the costs and benefits of emissions reductions. If the policy includes costly (and hence risk-creating) precautions, it is because those precautions are justified by their benefits.
…
“The nations of the world should take precautions, certainly. But they should not adopt the precautionary principle.“

Nah, there’s a ton of other bogus papers on top of that mere four-pager. “Statistically insignificant”

There was/is discussion of moving from the term Holocene to Anthropocene. That may have something to do with it. Teamocene might be a better term for what the are studying.