Blog Archive

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Don Easterbrook caught in too many lies and scientific frauds to count! Talk about academic dishonesty! Where is Easterbrookgate, huh!?!

Don Easterbrook's research misconduct

by Tim Lambert, Deltoid, June 2, 2010

Don Easterbrook has produced a response to my post on his hiding of the incline. Rather than correct his misuse of a graph of Holocene temperatures from Global Warming Art, Easterbrook has the cheek to call Gareth Renowden's correct identification of his source "an outright, contemptible lie". Renowden busts him again by showing an earlier version of the graph that Easterbrook claims did not come from Global Warming Art.

Look at Easterbrook's and the original version side by side:

Easterbrook's graphOriginal graph at global warming art

You'll notice that Easterbrook's version does not have the indication of where temperatures were in 2004, instead indicating that current temperatures are almost one whole degree lower than they really are.

There is another difference between the two graphs -- the temperature scale is on the opposite side of the graph, so it is perhaps conceivable that Easterbrook started with an earlier version of the GW Art graph, one that did not have the indication of 2004 temperatures. In that case, the incorrect baseline would be the product of incompetence rather than dishonesty, with Easterbrook failing to notice that the endpoint of the temperature reconstruction is over one hundred years ago.

But have a closer look at the "2004" and the corresponding region in Easterbrook's graph:


Notice how part of the green curve has been erased? Easterbrook was a bit sloppy when he erased the inconvenient "2004" from the graph and accidently took out part of the green curve as well. That's research misconduct and Easterbrook should be sanctioned by Western Washington University.

And note that Easterbrook wasn't just some obscure presenter at the Heartland Conference. Fox news chose Easterbrook's presentation as the most important in the whole conference.


1. wow, so that looks lie a plain out lie now.

Posted by: sod | June 2, 2010 4:04 PM

2. The labels of "Present day temperature" and "present global warming" is just as big of a lie as erasing the actual present-day temperature point.

Easterbrook also is quite sloppy. Note the second graph here:

His arrow puts the LIA at somewhere around 700 AD. He's done the same thing before:

But the doctored graph and his response reveals that he's more than just incompetent/sloppy. Cranks/hacks need to be exposed, and kudos for Tim Lambert and others for continuing to do this.

Posted by: MarkB | June 2, 2010 4:44 PM

3. There's more to come: Easterbrook's various presentations on the coming cooling are a rich vein for the diligent researcher... ;-)

4. Looks like the bottom of the blue curve (where the Climatic Optimum label is on the orginal) was also sloppily truncated by Easterbrook in his modified version.

5. Seems Easterbrook is not just a contemptible liar but a plagiarist as well, and not even a very good one at that!

Posted by: Jim Eager | June 2, 2010 5:11 PM

6. It's a sad day when any old knucklehead can butcher a graph and be dressed up in the press for a scientist with something to say.

Posted by: JamesA | June 2, 2010 5:27 PM
7. If I search for 'Easterbrookgate' I don't get any hits - surely this needs to be corrected? Or is the joke, old now... sorry.

Posted by: cbp | June 2, 2010 7:22 PM


Does anyone feel like editing Wikipedia to include the evidence for research misconduct? Perhaps we could call it Eastergate?

Posted by: Thomas Moore | June 2, 2010 7:28 PM

9. What do we get from this?

Easterbrook committed fr@ud;

Easterbrook lied when responding to accusations of fr@ud;

Easterbrook has utter contempt for his audience, as evidenced by the crude amateurish nature of his fr@ud.

Posted by: TrueSceptic | June 2, 2010 7:30 PM
10. I got all confused because for some reason I looked up Gregg Easterbrook instead of Don Easterbrook to find out who this guy is. Attention to detail is obviously important when dealing with these folks, which is why I would never have found Don Easterbrook's fraud and why I am thankful that other people have been diligent enough to illuminate this example of bad denier behaviour.

Posted by: Steve L | June 2, 2010 7:46 PM
11. I've been calling it Cooling-gate, but I'm not greatly enamoured with the coinage.

How about "Bunnygate"? (DE's email includes "bunny", probably referring to the Easter lagomorph).

Which immediately prompts the thought: Bunnies can and will go to France... Obscure UK political reference. ;-)

12. Compare the breath-taking scale of Easterbrook's and Monckton's data misrepresentation, and compare them with the wortst of any errors that have been found after years of careful scrutinisation by tens of thousands of critical researchers, journalists, and contrarian vested interests.

Then compare the responses of the Denialati to the mistakes in the consensus science, and to the Easterbrook/Monckton malfeasance.
Notice a difference?

Posted by: Bernard J. | June 2, 2010 9:35 PM
13. From Easterbrook's reply:
I have the entire Greenland oxygen isotope data in my computer and use it extensively to plot data, so why would I use anything else? The data I use has never been altered in any way.
Note that this does not explicitly deny using and altering the GWA slide. He just asks a question "why would I use anything else?" and then he makes a statement about his data, not the slide he used in his powerpoint.

But he is explicitly lying when he claims that Gareth's correct assessment of the origin of the graph is "an outright, contemptible lie."

Posted by: Physicalist | June 2, 2010 9:41 PM
14. The intellectual dishonesty of the denialatii never ceases to amaze me.

Posted by: Connor | June 2, 2010 10:07 PM
Looks like the bottom of the blue curve (where the Climatic Optimum label is on the orginal) was also sloppily truncated by Easterbrook in his modified version.
I noticed that too.

Another subtle thing I noticed about Don's graphs is the way the "present day temperature" line (which is of course 0.75 °C below the present day temperature), is not quite straight. It drops by a pixel in the middle (exactly in the middle), strongly suggesting it was drawn in by hand.

If you're plotting the data yourself using some stats package or other, surely you'd use said stats package to add your horizontal line, and thus get it straight and correctly positioned with minimal effort.

By the same token, the fact that Don's graphs both exhibit this subtle anomaly indicates that Don didn't re-plot the data to create the later graph, because then he'd have had to re-draw the horizontal line as well. Any sensible person would have gone back to their stats package and simply generated a new graph, not used MS paint to manually scrub things out.

16. Also note Mauri Spelto's complaints that Easterbrook uses his photographs without proper attribution, and that he thinks Easterbrook knows they're really his:

Posted by: Marco | June 3, 2010 12:53 AM

Original post and more comments at this link:

No comments: