Phil Jones does an about face on "statistically significant" warming

When we use a 60 year sample, we find the same general rate of increase from 1800-1860, from 1840-1900, from 1900-1960, from 1940-2000. Thus, there was nothing remarkable about the temperature increase in the 20th century, in-spite of the massive industrialization that followed the end of WWII. The current alarm fostered by the IPCC is due to a mistake in statistical sampling. They did not test their choice of end points to make sure they were not the underlying cause of the results they were seeing.
We would see the same thing if instead of using 1 year as a sample size to judge annual temperatures, we were use 1.5 years. In our first sample we would go from December to July, and the next from July to December. This would give us the misleading notion that our first sample was showing a big increase in temperature, while our second sample was showing a big decrease in temperature.
By using a 100 year sample instead of a 60 year sample, the IPCC finds the same thing. A big increase in temperature in one century and no increase in another. However, when you change the sample size to 60 years, both centuries show the same increase in temperature, independent of CO2 production.
I would encourage anyone that is convinced of their position to repeat this simple test. Check the temperature records since the LIA using a 60 year sample size instead of a 100 year sample. Is there anything remarkable about the 20th century if you do that? If not, then how can CO2 and industrialization explain when we are seeing?
3 years ago I was a climate believer. It was only after I read the climate gate papers that I began to question the results. It was this simple observation, that there is no difference between the 19th and 20th century when you use the correct statistical treatment of the endpoints that convinced me to look further.

“Modern climate science is not debating this topic, modern climate science is reporting back on changes resulting from the physics and chemistry of how we are changing the oceans and atmosphere.”
This is not correct. The oceans are currently caustic with a PH > 8. A neutral ocean has a PH of 7. An acidic ocean has a PH less than 7.
What is happening is not “acidification” of the oceans. The correct scientific term is “neutralization”. When you add an acid to a caustic solution (base), you are not acidifying the solution. You are neutralizing the solution. You are not acidifying the oceans until they read a PH < 7, which will never happen because the salt in the ocean is a buffer that will prevent this.
This is basic inorganic chemistry and the simple fact so called "scientists" continue to use an unscientific term for what is happening is clear evidence that they are not scientists trained in chemistry.
CO2 is not acidifying the oceans. It is neutralizing the oceans. You would need to add as much acid to the oceans as there is salt before you could start to turn them acidic. All the fossil fuels on earth are a drop in the bucket in comparison to the salt in the oceans. Even if you burned all known and projected future supplies of fossil fuels on earth in a single day you would not acidify the oceans. It is physically impossible due to the salt content.

“Simple – it is impossible to explain the changes we are seeing the composition of the earths atmosphere, changes in ocean level and ocean acidification absent these forcers.”
In the contrary. Your position assumes that we know everything there is to know about the physical world. That is something happens, then the only explanation must be something that we know. We don’t stop to consider that maybe the reason we cannot explain what we are seeing is because there are things about the world that we have not yet discovered.
So, in the past when there was climate change, we sacrificed virgins and burned people at the stake, because we could think of no other explanation for what we were seeing. Now the IPCC is saying we should sacrifice industrialization to prevent climate change.
Everything in the real world has 3 truths. The things we think are true that are true, the things we think are true that are false, and the things we don’t know. Of these three truths, the smallest truth is the things we think are true that are true. Most of what we think is true in science will be shown by later generations to in fact be incorrect. Just look at what we believed to be true 100 years ago as compared to today. By far the largest truth is the things we don’t know.

Only a few million years ago the earth had higher temperatures, higher CO2 levels and more “acidic” oceans than a present. This represents the more “natural” state of the earth. We don’t “know” why current conditions are no longer like they were a few million years ago. As such, we have no way to know if what we are seeing now is part of a natural cycle, where the earth returns to its more natural state, or if something else is the cause.
What we do know is that when you look at the temperatures since the LIA, then once you correctly adjust for the end-point problem, there is nothing remarkable about this century as compared to the past. However, only this century has industrialization. As such, there is no evidence that industrialization is causing any significant temperature change, because there is no significant temperature difference between the rep and post industrial temperatures.
What we do see is a lag between temperature increase and industrialization, which suggests that if there is a cause and effect relationship, it must be temperature that is causing industrialization. Industrialization cannot be the cause as it occurred after the temperature increase started, and there has been no acceleration in temperature since the LIA, except for that created as a statistical artifact of the choice of endpoints.

“So you are saying that the modern understanding of chemistry and physics is so broken as not to be usable?”
On the contrary, they are very usable when you apply the correct scientific methods with a good degree of skepticism. For example, we use the theory of gravity to predict the orbits of the planets, without the slightest idea of how gravity works. We don’t even know the speed of gravity, yet we use it to make very good predictions. The value of science is not in “truth” but in prediction. “Truth” belongs with politics and religion.
Where “science” goes wrong is when it start placing “truth” ahead of prediction. “We know the science is true, therefore the prediction must be true”. Rubbish. We know the prediction is true not because the science is true but because the prediction has proven itself reliable, time and time again. Most importantly, the prediction has never been in error. That is the true measure of science. Not the number of times a theory is correct – even a stopped clock is correct twice a day – but rather that the prediction has never failed to be correct, time and time again.