An article in New Scientist picks up on the vexed question of Phil JOnes' recent prognostications of significance in the temperature records. The author, Andy Coghlan links to the story here:
Jones told New Scientist that in the short time since his latest statement on the data's "significance" had been aired in the media, some sceptics had already challenged it in blogs.
Having made this unexceptionable statement, the article strangely continues as follows:
But Jones insists that his latest analysis is correct because it is a combination of land and marine temperatures. "It's the combination that gives the true global picture," he says.
To which the only meaningful response possible is "Huh?". We agree on few things across the climate divide, but there is no dispute that we are looking at "a combination of land and marine" temperatures. It's the statistical treatment that is the principal beef of people on this side of the debate, although clarification of which dataset Jones used for his latest analysis would have been useful too. Jones statement here makes no sense.
It really would have been nice if Andy Coghlan had asked for Jones data' and code. That would have moved things forward.