New Leak: Tree Expert Snubbed in Michael Mann Criminal Conspiracy
New leaked emails from ‘Climategate 3’ (March 13, 2013) prove Dr. Don Keiller, an undisputed expert in Environmental Plant Physiology, was rebuffed and scorned by climatologists when contacting them to advise that tree ring data was unreliable for global temperature reconstruction.
The revelations are affirmed by Principia Scientific International, one of several bodies in possession of the password to all the remaining emails on the server of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), University of East Anglia, released yesterday.
Dr. Keiller, Principal Lecturer in Biomedical Science at Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, is noted for his expertize in plant biochemistry, included the veracity of tree ring data as a means for gauging past temperatures. Dr. Keiller first had his attention brought to concerns of “fantastic claims” by Michael Mann and other doomsaying climatologists after examining a peer-reviewed analysis of Mann’s ‘hockey stick graph’ by statistician, Steve McIntyre, that purportedly proved that modern temperatures were alarmingly higher than those for any period in that last thousand years.
In his leaked email of October 02, 2009 Dr. Keiller wrote to Professor Phil Jones and his colleague, Keith Briffa that their “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. Of implicit concern to Dr. Keiller was the indication that Briffa and Mann’s alarmist papers in dendroclimatology were intentionally rigged such that hockey-shaped graphs appeared no matter what raw data was fed into them.
These and other devastating emails are now being provided for the use of PSI’s Chairman, Dr. Tim Ball in his ongoing court battle against disgraced climatologists, Dr. Michael Mann. The Nobel Prize Committee humiliated Mann last year when they revealed he had lied when he claimed he was a “Nobel Prize winner.”
The full e-mail exchange is below. Further devastating emails will be released as and when PSI has redacted the personal and private details of individuals involved.
date: Wed Oct 28 16:04:00 2009
from: Phil Jones
subject: FW: Yamal and paleoclimatology
There is a lot more there on CA now. I would be very wary about
responding to this
person now having seen what McIntyre has put up.
You and Tim talked about Yamal. Why have the bristlecones come in now.
This is what happens – they just keep moving the goalposts.
Maybe get Tim to redo OB2006 without a few more series.
X-Authentication-Warning: ueamailgate02.uea.ac.uk: defang set sender to
Subject: FW: Yamal and paleoclimatology
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:39:48 -0000
Thread-Topic: Yamal and paleoclimatology
From: “Keiller, Donald”
X-ARU-sender-host: cambe01.ad.anglia.ac.uk (CAMEXCH.ANGLIA.LOCAL)
X-ARU-MailFilter: message scanned
X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028)
X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Hold at 5.00] SPF(none,0)
X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default)
X-Canit-Stats-ID: 34330416 – 89bde843c4e5 (trained as not-spam)
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 127.0.0.1
Dear Professor Briffa, I am pleased to hear that you appear to have
from your recent illness sufficiently to post a response to the controversy
surrounding the use of the Yamal chronology;
and the chronology itself;
Unfortunately I find your explanations lacking in scientific rigour and I
more inclined to believe the analysis of McIntyre
Can I have a straightforward answer to the following questions
1) Are the reconstructions sensitive to the removal of either the Yamal
and Strip pine bristlecones, either when present singly or in combination?
2) Why these series, when incorporated with white noise as a background,
still produce a Hockey-Stick shaped graph if they have, as you suggest, a
And once you have done this, please do me the courtesy of answering my
Dr. D.R. Keiller
From: Keiller, Donald
Sent: 02 October 2009 10:34
Subject: Yamal and paleoclimatology
Dear Professor Briffa, my apologies for contacting you directly,
since I hear that you are unwell.
However the recent release of tree ring data by CRU has prompted much
discussion and indeed disquiet about the methodology and conclusions of a
number of key papers by you and co-workers.
As an environmental plant physiologist, I have followed the long debate
starting with Mann et al (1998) and through to Kaufman et al (2009).
As time has progressed I have found myself more concerned with the whole
scientific basis of dendroclimatology. In particular;
1) The appropriateness of the statistical analyses employed
2) The reliance on the same small datasets in these multiple studies
3) The concept of “teleconnection” by which certain trees respond to the
“Global Temperature Field”, rather than local climate
4) The assumption that tree ring width and density are related to
in a linear manner.
Whilst I would not describe myself as an expert statistician, I do use
inferential statistics routinely for both research and teaching and find
difficulty in understanding the statistical rationale in these papers.
As a plant physiologist I can say without hesitation that points 3 and 4 do
not agree with the accepted science.
There is a saying that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.
Given the scientific, political and economic importance of these papers,
further detailed explanation is urgently required.
Dr. Don Keiller.