Fox News touts Don Easterbrook‘s talk at Heartland’s Conference:

“Rather than global warming at a rate of 1 F per decade, records of past natural cycles indicate there may be global cooling for the first few decades of the 21st century to about 2030,” said Easterbrook, speaking on a scientific panel discussion with other climatologists.

But Gareth Renowden has been looking at Easterbrook’s slides and finds evidence of fraud

Looking through Easterbrook’s slides, it seems he has taken a graph of Holocene temperature variations prepared by Global Warming Art (used at Wikipedia), and altered it to fraudulently bolster his case. … Easterbrook has quite deliberately altered the graph to reduce “current temperatures” by 0.75ºC and make the curve fit his storyline. The original suggests that current temperatures are comparable to, perhaps higher than the warmest period of the Holocene, the post-glacial climatic optimum 8000 years ago. Easterbrook’s version gives the impression that for most of the last 10,000 years temperature has been warmer than today.

That’s not all. On slide 28 he states:

IPCC models predicted 1°F warming from 2000 to 2010

He offers this graph to prove that the IPCC was wrong and the globe is cooling.


That trend line looked very wrong to me. Too much of the data is above the green line. So I grabbed the RSS MSU data and plotted the same subset with the OLS trend. It looks like this:


Note that Easterbrook’s fake trend exaggerates the decrease. More importantly, despite talking about what the IPCC models predict for 2000-2010, he has only shown cherry picked temperature data for 2002-early 2009. Look at what happens if you use the data for 2000-2010:


The world is warming, not cooling as Easterbrook claims. And notice how much it has warmed since the previous Heartland conference in March 2009, where Easterbrook predicted:

Beginning this year, global cooling will cause crop failures and food shortages.

Anybody notice the global cooling induced crop failures in 2009?


  1. #1 TrueSceptic
    May 24, 2010

    99 jakerman,

    I replied with quotes of the comments from that thread. The reply is being held because a certain name is included. I hope Tim lets it through.

  2. #2 Rebuttal
    May 24, 2010

    Reply to article by Don Easterbrook: Don Easterbrook hides the incline by Tim Lambert: Deltoid

    Sunday, May 23rd 2010, 4:35 PM EDT Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
    As some of you may know, my recent paper at the Heartland global climate conference has been attacked by Gareth Renowden and posted by Tim Lambert on his blog.

    Although I don’t normally even read this kind of garbage, I responded to an inquiry by Andy Revkin with the attached.

    Don Easterbrook

    “When you are losing an argument on the basis of facts and evidence, the oldest trick in the world is to invent some outrageous lie, the more outrageous the better, and while people are reacting to the lie, attention is diverted from the real issue. It is a sure sign of desperation in distracting attention from facts and data. The outrageous charge of fraud made by a self professed “photographer and truffle grower” (Gareth Renowden) is not worthy of response, but because the charge is so easily refuted, I will do so……”

    Please click PDF file to download FULL response to “hides the incline” from Don Easterbrook

  3. #3 TrueSceptic
    May 24, 2010

    103 Rebuttal,

    Oh, the irony!

    BTW amusing comment by ‘goodcarbon’ at that site. Is it a Poe, though? It’s so hard to tell these days.

  4. #4 J Bowers
    May 24, 2010

    “The truffle grower”? ROFL. Willis Eschenbach used the pig-in-a-trough line at me the other week. If Gareth Renowden is reading this; Gareth, if you ever need truffles sniffing out see if Tim has my email address. I’ll come over. Not a problem, apparently I’d be a natural.

  5. #5 Deep Climate
    May 24, 2010

    The critique is correct in essence, but some of the details aren’t quite right.

    The IPCC projected (under various emission scenarios) a global temperature increase of about 0.2C per decade over a period of 31 years. The projections were for the twenty-year average from 2011-2030, relative to a baseline 31 years earlier, i.e. 1980-1999.

    So, yes, there is no shorter-term projection in the IPCC. Not only that, but the intervening years to 2010 are specifically excluded from the projections!

    It seems to me this was done in an attempt to discourage “premature evaluation” of the fit of observations to projections. Not that that has prevented “sceptics” from succumbing.

  6. #7 Marco
    May 24, 2010

    If anyone wants some more fun with Don Easterbrook, ask him what the most contemporal time point of the GISP2 icecore is (that’s where the graph comes from). I don’t think he knows.

    Inform him of that (1905 or so), and then ask him to find the observed warming of central Greenland (where GISP2 is located) over the 20th century and to add that to the graph.

    It’s about 1.5 degrees according to CRUTEM, which puts the current temperatures at the very least equal to the warmest temperature of the past 10,000 years.

  7. #8 TrueSceptic
    May 24, 2010

    108 Marco,

    Notice that the graph in the “professor’s” rebuttal is not the same as the one that Gareth shows at Hot Topic.

  8. #9 Rattus Norvegicus
    May 24, 2010

    Yes, I thought it looked a little fishy. The graph he used in his presentation looks nothing like the GISP2 record as shown on the page pointed to by Gareth.

    Talk about moving the goalposts.

  9. #10 Bud
    May 24, 2010

    @Marco (108)

    Isn’t that the same trick that Martin Durkin used in The Great Global Warming Swindle?

  10. #11 TrueSceptic
    May 24, 2010

    111 Bud,

    This is weird, but Easterbrook is being more dishonest than Durkin was, and by a large margin.

  11. #13 Ron Broberg
    May 25, 2010

    re Marco 108: I did something similar last year with Box 2009.

  12. #14 Marco
    May 25, 2010

    Thanks, Ron. I was thus wrong about the temperatures today being as warm as the warmest over the last 10,000 years. But up it goes…

  13. #15 jakerman
    May 25, 2010


    So [this is the chart]( Girma will need to pay up on when 0.56C anomally is exceed.

    Too early to say if this year is a redhot contender on HadCRT, but [it is a contender](

  14. #16 TrueSceptic
    May 25, 2010

    116 jakerman,

    Yes. I expected to win quite soon, 2011-2 maybe, but not as soon as this year! We shall see…

  15. #18 bill
    May 26, 2010

    Easterbrook’s century of missing data – the game continues across the Tasman:

  16. #19 Dr. Schweinsgruber
    May 28, 2010

    Fake regression lines are common with the Friends of Science, a Calgary denial cult. They typically show the 2002-2010 trend, claim it is a decade, and start their regression line close to a maximum. Their current regression line stops in 2009, as the 2009/2010 El Nino would create a positive trend.

  17. #20 bill
    May 29, 2010

    Latest on ‘Cooling-gate’ over at Hot Topic – commenter Glacier Guy finds slide in an Easterbrook presentation from 2007 that irrefutably shows him to have modified a Global-Warming Art graph to create his ‘Holocene Temperature Variations’ chart… here

  18. #21 TrueSceptic
    May 29, 2010

    121 bill,

    There are some denialists who put a lot of work into their claims, such as Glassman (RocketScientistsJournal) but I just don’t get people like Easterbrook. He must take people for fools if he thinks his shoddy little efforts won’t get exposed by any genuine sceptic.

  19. #22 Bernard J.
    May 29, 2010

    Someone once said:

    When you are losing an argument on the basis of facts and evidence, the oldest trick in the world is to invent some outrageous lie, the more outrageous the better, and while people are reacting to the lie, attention is diverted from the real issue. It is a sure sign of desperation in distracting attention from facts and data.

    This is an observation that well applies to Easterbrook and his egregious fraud.

    Oh, and who was the sage who thusly quothed? Why, [Easterbrook himself](, of course.

  20. #23 TrueSceptic
    May 31, 2010

    So, what do we have?

    Easterbrook is a cheap fraud. So cheap that he gets a child (or a rank amateur) to take graphs from a website and crudely alter them to misrepresent the content.

    That would not be too bad if we had a “mea culpa”. Instead we had an ad hominem* attack on the person who exposed the fraud.

    *Yes, that was an example of a genuine ad hominem.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.