The wheels are really falling off the Great Climate Change Hoax now. We’re almost so punch-drunk with revelations of concocted science and dodgy grant-seeking deception that it’s almost getting tiring to turn over the next rock and watch what crawls out from underneath. Today we read:

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.

Fantastic. Isn’t it rather difficult in reality to say the debate is over when you’ve dropped your evidence down the back of the sofa?

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.

No one needs to worry about the “hockey stick” model, because it has already been destroyed. Sonicfrog has the relevant part of the BBC interview, and the real graph of the temperatures all the way back into the Global Climate Optimum.

Here are some of the key parts of the actual BBC interview from their transcript:

D – Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.

So, he is telling us that he really doesn’t know that much about how climate works, and is simply inferring a man caused relationship because that is what he wants it to be. And we also have:

E – How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

However these quotes are the clear winners:

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. (question G in the BBC interview)

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. (question b)

Surely it is Game Over, now? All that remains is for the few hard-core believers – David Cameron for one – to accept that they have been led up the garden path and quiety drop this nonsense with the minimum of fuss.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Really? You think?