What Phil Jones stated was that within the time line of one decade THE CONFIDENCE LEVEL OF 95% WAS NOT MET for showing a rise in global temperature. Think of it in this way: Scientists have a 99.9% CONFIDENCE that an earthquake will occur in the pacific region within the next 100,000 years, but only a 5% CONFIDENCE of it occurring in the next 10 days. Until they can have a confidence of 95% that warming has occurred within a set time frame, then they can not say they there is statistical proof of warming — this usually takes 3 decades of data. Phil Jones did also say, however, that he personally believes global warming is occurring and that man is accelerating the process.

Take some time do some net surfing about the real scientific evidence. I wish the nay-sayers were right !!!!

I really don't have time to go into all the ways AGW has been shown as a flawed theory by other scientists. The info isn't difficult to find.

The truth is, the theory is built on rotten data and deceit. Until you can show me untainted numbers from, say, East Anglia or the NASA GISS, you don't have science. You have a sibling of new-Earth creationism.

Here is a reputable source that clearly shows a rapid net global temperature increase between 1975 and 2007. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice…
You cannot deny global warming based on 3 examples.

More to the point, what is the cause? Is it 'anthropogenic', or as people not trying to hide their ignorance with long words would say, man made?

It's simple chemistry that when you burn a hydrocarbon it releases carbon dioxide, and I hope you don't deny that. I'm sure you've seen the famous 'hockey stick' graph, but it seems rather obvious that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased as people have been burning things that release CO2 when burned.

So, mankind is contributing to the increase in CO2; net global temperatures are increasing. This suggests a link between the two.

Although I cannot offer a magic bullet that will destroy your scepticism, I can point out that the theory is valid and is based on a mass of evidence. Yes, it is just one theory, and there may be other contributing factors, but nevertheless we need to limit our contribution. It seems ridiculously selfish not to do anything – after all the USA will suffer relatively little compared to Bangladesh or Sub Saharan Africa. Perhaps this is your real objection – you're not willing to have a less comfortable life for the sake of those who do not salute the star spangled banner. No amount of evidence can outweigh that level of selfishness. When it's American jobs or African lives I know which I would choose.