ClimateGate Exposes that the Real Data Shows No Excess Warming

Getting past the bad behavior of the climate cabal, the real news is that they do not have the data to support their warming case.

This reconstructed email thread is devastating to their beliefs. These charts of little hockey sticks turn out to be bogus – the underlying data does not exist to support the charts. It is bad enough that the computer models were wired to always produce hockey sticks, even when random temperature data is inserted. This is worst since it is outright fraud.

You can read the email and see the arguments. A quick summary:

  • The data shows that the 1930s were as warm or warmer than now, with a similar rise up
  • These mini hockey stocks suppress the ’30s and elevate the ’90s to produce the effect
  • The data shows no drastic warming anywhere in the world except maybe central Europe, and that is likely due to heavy urbanization
  • The data for the Nordic countries shows that none of them have anything like the warming shown in the little chart above for Europe
  • The climate cabal claims they excluded heavily urbanized areas, yet their data shows more than 500 central cities included. It is well known that the urban heat effect has skewed the readings up. They are lying about what is in the data.

A cursory reading of the email snippets can lead one to dismiss this as over-reaction to some bad behavior. The reconstructed email shows that conclusion is premature. Reading the emails in context, and combining that with fraud wired into the computer models, makes a clear case of fraud. Sure, some of the cabal could go to jail for destroying the data to keep it out of a FOI request.

I think the worse crime is to fake the science.

Disclaimer: This page contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, we may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!

About Duncan Davidson 228 Articles

Affiliation: NetService Ventures

Duncan is an advisor to NetService Ventures, where he focuses on digital media and the mobile Internet.

Previously he was at four start-ups: Xumii, a mobile social service based on a Social Addressbook; SkyPilot Networks, the performance leader of wireless mesh systems for last-mile access, where he was the founding CEO; Covad Communications (Amex: DVW, $9B market cap at the peak), the leading independent DSL access provider, where he was the founding Chairman; InterTrust Technologies ($9B market cap at the peak), the pioneer in digital rights management technologies, now owned by Sony and Philips, where he was SVP Business Development and the pitchman for the IPO.

Before these ventures, Duncan was a partner at Cambridge Venture Partners, an early-stage venture firm, and managing partner of Gemini McKenna, a joint venture between Regis McKenna's marketing firm and Gemini Consulting, the global management consulting arm of Cap Gemini.

He serves on the board or is an adviser to Aggregate Knowledge (content discovery), Livescribe (digital pen), AllVoices (citizen journalism), Xumii (mobile social addressbook), Verismo (Internet settop box), and Widevine (DRM for IPTV).

Visit: Duncan Davidson's Blogs

1 Comment on ClimateGate Exposes that the Real Data Shows No Excess Warming

  1. It is understandable that many people have latched on to the emails, but in their defense the people at CRU indicate that the emails are ‘without context’ or somehow ‘normal banter’ in a scientific institution.

    The program code however is different.

    It is the actual program code, the modeling code that contains the most damaging evidence. I am not talking about the ‘comments’ in the code but rather the actual computer program source code itself.

    Unlike comments and emails the computer code can only be interpreted in one way. Unlike the comments and the emails the computer code is whole unto it self and requires no external context.

    So now everyone has the code.

    However now CRU have somehow ‘lost’ the world’s raw climate data that they used in their modeling.

    It may have been necessary for them to have lost the raw temperature data. If the raw temperature data was available then they might be asked to reproduce Exactly The Same Results, in front of skeptical witnesses, as they had used in their peer-reviewed publications that were distributed to the world. This might have been impossible without using some infected modeling code, which an investigating scientist might discover.

    If the results can not be reproduced the paper that used the results should be withdrawn. Then every paper that cited that paper, and so on until the whole web of pseudo-science that can be traced back to the original fabrication has been purged from the libraries.

    It is not scientific unless an independent body can reproduce the results.

    For information on the possible code infection see:

    Anthropogenic Global Warming Virus Alert.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.