I normally object to the ways in which global warming alarmists portray skeptics. But I will accept this from Phil Jones
They [skeptics] mostly look at observation papers and ignore modelling ones, as they believe by default models are wrong!
Models are nothing more than scientific hypotheses programmed into computer code. As such, I must admit to finding papers that merely model various hypotheses (generally in a very nontransparent and non-replicable sort of way) to be the least interesting of all possible papers. It is far more interesting to see someone lay out their hypotheses and attempt to justify them with observational data. In climate, the prevalence of modelling tends actually obscure this discussion, as we don't always see all the relevant hypotheses that form the foundation of a model, and even when we do, we usually don't see the details of its implementation (which can be as important to the results as, say, the exact wording of a poll question).
So, yes, if Dr. Jones wishes to defines the sides in this debate as skeptics whose science is driven by observational data and alarmists whose science is driven by computer models no one has seen or replicated, I will accept those definitions.