The truth is that Prof. Jones has not said any such thing. The headline of that story is sensational fluff, especially given that the Daily Mail didn't even interview him. Here is what Prof Jones actually has said, to Nature: "The science still holds up" though, he adds. A follow-up study verified the original conclusions for the Chinese data for the period 1954–1983, showing that the precise location of weather stations was unimportant. "They are trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow them out of all proportion," says Jones of his critics.
I was curious about some other things that Prof. Jones has actually said so I did some more internet searching and found transcripts of a BBC interview he did recently. He was quoted as saying, "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."
Actual statements of Prof. Jones are in line with the over whelming majority of evidence on this matter. His work seems to be honest and well supported by other research, even if his record keeping is sloppy. But even if his work was fraudulent (it isn't, but if it was) that wouldn't alter the course of climate science. His work is interesting, but not crucial. There are literally thousands of independent studies that come to consistent conclusions of climate change.
Like this one which says, "Results from a detection and attribution analysis show that greenhouse warming is detectable in all analyzed high-variance reconstructions (with the possible exception of one ending in 1925), and that about a third of the warming in the first half of the twentieth century can be attributed to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The estimated magnitude of the anthropogenic signal is consistent with most of the warming in the second half of the twentieth century being anthropogenic."
Is there still scientific argument? Sure. There always will be argument about details and specifics. It is in exploring those disagreements that science is advanced. But that doesn't mean that the experts in this field of science disagree about the generalities, like "is the climate warming?" and "is human activity contributing to that warming?" Consensus is especially true among scientists who are actively involved in climate research and publish in peer reviewed journals.
A fact addressed in this study which says, "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
I continue to disagree with the climate change deniers. Not because I always disagree with their politics in general. Not because I accept the authority of some shadowy theory I don't understand. Not because I want huge economic changes. Not because I see this as a chance to force a New World Order on people. No. I disagree with them, because their position is not supported by the science, by the evidence, by reality to the best of humanity's ability to understand it.
I don't want the climate change scientists to be right. I don't want the Earth to warm or rainfall to change. But what I want reality to be is irrelevant. The facts are what they are and my opinion of them has no bearing on their veracity.
[edit -- I changed the first line to include anthropogenic, to be more accurate of his views]