About that global warming business.

As my friends back in SnOwHIO recover from their most recent blizzard and as I wait for our 24" dusting from last week to melt so I can finally walk my fiancee's pug without her needing scuba gear to go out, all we can do is scoff at the global warming alarmists on the left.

Despite what we see before our eyes, AlGoreists shout over our questions again and again that the science is settled.

Well, one of the sources of their science is finally speaking up.

Phil Jones is the director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, a key “consensus” institution that has recently been caught up in an e-mail scandal revealing a mindset of global-warming advocacy rather than dispassionate inquiry. Asked by the BBC what it means when scientists say “the debate on climate change is over,” the keeper of the flame sounded chastened. “I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this,” Jones said. “This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the . . . past as well.”

Jones discussed the highly contentious “medieval warming period.” If global temperatures were warmer than today back in 800–1300 A.D. — about a thousand years before Henry Ford’s assembly lines began spitting out automobiles — it suggests that natural factors have a large hand in climate change, a concession that climate alarmists are loath to make. Jones said we don’t know if the warming in this period was global in extent since paleoclimatic records are sketchy. If it was, and if temperatures were higher than now, “then obviously the late-20th-century warmth would not be unprecedented.”

Jones also noted that there hasn’t been statistically significant warming since 1995, although the cooling since 2002 hasn’t been statistically significant either.

No, environuts, the science isn't settled, and that comes from one of your own demi-gods.

Now can we start focusing on the real problems facing our planet?