In his Radio 5 interview, James Delingpole correctly framed the argument over AGW as being over (a) how large the effect is (b) how much warming there will be and (c) how much of a problem it is.
Vicky Pope at the Met Office has taken a different approach in an article in the Guardian today.
You can see research by the Met Office that shows the evidence of man-made warming is even stronger than it was when the last IPCC report was published. A whole range of different datasets and independent analyses show the world is warming. There is a broad consensus that over the last half century warming has been rapid, and man-made greenhouse gas emissions are very likely to be the cause.
Long-term changes in our climate system have been observed across the globe, from shifts in rainfall patterns to a decline in Arctic sea-ice. The changes follow the pattern of expected climate change and bear the fingerprint of human influence, providing the clearest evidence yet that human activity is impacting our climate. The rate of warming and ice melt varies and some regions warm faster while others don't warm at all for a while. Again, it's the big picture that's important.
Given the overwhelming evidence for man-made climate change, it could be argued that it shouldn't be necessary to keep going over old ground to prove it time after time. In fact, it's essential we move on and focus on the future, because climate change will pose challenges for humanity.
Saying that it warmed in the last century is not really helping anyone get to grips with the debate, since everyone agrees that this is the case (we can quibble over UHI and stuff like that, but this is not going to make the warming trend go away). How these changes are "rapid" somewhat eludes me, since even Phil Jones has agreed that warming at similar rates has been observed in the past.
Likewise, "overwhelming evidence for manmade climate change" is a point of agreement across all sides. Man has affected the climate since the forests were cleared for agriculture. The question, as I say, is how much raised carbon dioxide levels will affect the climate and to what extent it is a problem. The evidence for this, I would say, is not overwhelming at all, relying on models that have no proven skill in predicting the temperature.