No, what I am saying is he said the CRU data matched the observations in the 20th century.
Welllllll, from 1960 on, it didn’t because he compared temperature readings to temperature readings. Of course it would match.
When he made his statement in the report, he just said the CRU data agreed but never told anyone that from 1960 on that he was using the temperature data.
I think that makes it a lie.
Stopping the proxy data and splicing in the instrumental record is an even bigger lie.
All proxy data needs to be calibrated to the present. We all knew why they were doing this crap...they were hiding the lack of warming.