AGW "Science" Called Further Into Question

So this doesn't prove there's no anthropogenic climate change, and of course there's always climate change the question is only whether there's an impact from man's activity.  This does show that when I've thought they were no where near being close to proving an anthropogenic component, they were even farther from proof than I thought.  The only way to prove AGW is to have a model which successfully predicts climate for a ten year run or so - and also backwards, and which is verifiable in construct by other scientists
"The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. 

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory. 

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0feuhoWmd