A non-paleontologist documents significant errors in the work of several noted paleontologists.

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

Dinosaurgate: A non-paleontologist documents significant errors in the work of several noted paleontologists.

About two and half years ago, Dr. Myhrvold came across a 2009 paper by Dr. Erickson as he was trying to answer the question, “Why were dinosaurs big?” He said data in two of the graphs, one plotting the length of the thigh bone versus age, the other mass versus age, conflicted with each other. “I instantly knew that this couldn’t be correct,” Dr. Myhrvold said.

Dr. Myhrvold said he contacted Dr. Erickson, asking for the original data. While Dr. Erickson answered some questions, he said the data was on a computer he had gotten rid of and later that he did not have time to answer more questions, Dr. Myhrvold said.

Dr. Myhrvold was able to obtain some of the data from other researchers and thought he could do a better statistical analysis. Last year, he submitted a paper with his calculations — a fairly esoteric scientific disagreement about how best to extract reasonable generalizations from a limited number of fossils.

Dr. Erickson was one of the reviewers and argued strongly against publication. While praising Dr. Myhrvold’s accomplishments and saying the calculations appeared to be numerically correct, Dr. Erickson said the paper would not advance scientific understanding.

“In fact it will hurt our field by producing inherently flawed growth curves, misrepresenting the work of others, and stands to drive a wedge between labs that are currently cordial with one another,” he wrote. [emphasis mine]

Shades of Phil Jones of Climategate fame, who when asked for his original climate data first stalled, then stonewalled, then admitted that the data had been “lost.” Similarly, like the Climategate scientists who tried to squelch the work and careers of anyone who challenged them, the paleontologist being accused here attempted to prevent the accusation from been published.



  • D. K. Williams

    No reputable journal would assign a paper to a reviewer with a conflict of interest. Dr. Erickson should have been given the opportunity to respond after the paper had been accepted and that’s it.

  • Cotour

    I have read many accounts on this web site of professional scientists, who for reasons known to them, are willing to falsify the data and their conclusions in their investigations. From Dinosaurs to the climate and global warming. And I ask this question:

    How do we know when the truth is being represented in science?


    If their was an agenda, either political or driven by government, thought to be so important, what wouldn’t a scientist lie about if given the proper incentives?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *