Climate scientists increasingly show no warming in peer review papers

Pioneer cover

From the press release: From the moment he is handed a possibility of making the first alien contact, Saunders Maxwell decides he will do it, even if doing so takes him through hell and back.

Unfortunately, that is exactly where that journey takes him.

The vision that Zimmerman paints of vibrant human colonies on the Moon, Mars, the asteroids, and beyond, indomitably fighting the harsh lifeless environment of space to build new societies, captures perfectly the emerging space race we see today.

He also captures in Pioneer the heart of the human spirit, willing to push forward no matter the odds, no matter the cost. It is that spirit that will make the exploration of the heavens possible, forever, into the never-ending future.

Available everywhere for $3.99 (before discount) at amazon, Barnes & Noble, all ebook vendors, or direct from the ebook publisher, ebookit.

The uncertainty of science: Climate scientists are increasingly publishing papers that show no clear temperature global trend.

Last year there were at least 60 peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals demonstrating that Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.

Just within the last 5 months, 58 more papers and 80 new graphs have been published that continue to undermine the popularized conception of a slowly cooling Earth temperature history followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.
Yes, some regions of the Earth have been warming in recent decades or at some point in the last 100 years. Some regions have been cooling for decades at a time. And many regions have shown no significant net changes or trends in either direction relative to the last few hundred to thousands of years.
Succinctly, then, scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals have increasingly affirmed that there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of long-term natural variability. [emphasis in original]

At the link are 80 graphs from the most recent papers. Take a look. If you are convinced that the climate is warming than you must come up with an explanation for this data. Or you can put your fingers in your ears, cover your eyes, and chant “La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la!” as loud as you can so that you don’t have to deal with it.


Every July, to celebrate the anniversary of the start of Behind the Black in 2010, I hold a month-long fund-raising campaign to make it possible for me to continue my work here for another year.

This year's fund-raising drive however is more significant in that it is also the 10th anniversary of this website's founding. It is hard to believe, but I have been doing this for a full decade, during which I have written more than 22,000 posts, of which more than 1,000 were essays and almost 2,600 were evening pauses.

This year's fund drive is also more important because of the growing intolerance of free speech and dissent in American culture. Increasingly people who don't like what they read are blatantly acting to blackball sites like mine. I have tried to insulate myself from this tyrannical effort by not depending on Google advertising or cross-posts Facebook or Twitter. Though this prevents them from having a hold on me, it also acts to limit my exposure.

Therefore, I hope you will 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


  • geoffc


    I can’t hear you!

    That is UNpossible!

    But do not worry, 50 more papers does not even come close to diluting the 97% [deleted] consensus. Get back to me when it is down to 12%. That is my new stupid benchmark.

  • Dick Eagleson

    What we may be witnessing here is the beginning of something analogous to the collapse of a Ponzi scheme. The Warmists have been fiddling with the raw surface temperature data for years to bolster their alarmist political activism. If the Earth is not actually warming, or warming only very slightly, it is necessary to keep making bigger and bigger such “adjustments” in order to keep up the pretense that every year that passes is “the warmest on record.” This is directly analogous to a Ponzi scheme’s need to keep taking in steadily more new investor money so as to keep earlier investors paid their above-market yields. Sooner or later a point of brittle fracture is reached. Perhaps this is the year Climate Ponzi goes smash.

  • LocalFluff

    Their fraud might’ve worked out if temperatures had kept on rising by chance. Which might’ve looked like a 50/50 chance to the naive politician. However, no change is the by far most common result, I think in most kinds of contexts. I was day trading stock options years ago. Historic price/time diagrams look quite exciting, but sitting in front of the screen all day guarding positions reveals that almost all of the time nothing happens. Then it all happens at once. Anyway, we can scientifically prove that if God exists, he doesn’t love Al Gore. If temperatures were to start rising now, he doesn’t love Donald Trump either. Weather betting is a bad idea. Even the variance in temperature varies over time. Not the kind of stuff you want to rely on. CO2 concentration however rises steadily and significantly, which reveals its non-correlation with temperature.

  • Cotour


    “What we may be witnessing here is the beginning of something analogous to the collapse of a Ponzi scheme.”

    This will never be true for a significant number of adherents, their religion of “global warming” has no room for it. Actual facts and observation is no longer a factor, it is a movement based in their political ideology only.

  • wayne

    “Climate Change is a Scam!”
    Dr. Patrick Moore, PHD in Ecology and founder of Greenpeace, dissects the scam that is modern “climate change”.
    -Louder with Crowder
    May 1, 2017

  • geoffc: As I have warned a number of people recently, I will not tolerate bad language on Behind the Black. Deleting one letter from a curse word is insufficient. It is also not necessary to use the word to express yourself as a civilized person. Do it again and you will be banned.

  • Joe

    Totally anecdotal, I look at thermometers all day, for like the last thirty years, these machines I work on are loaded with sensors, ambient temp sensors included, I haven’t seen much of a change, I also don’t believe in the scam, I do believe the climate changes, but I don’t think out side of urban heat island effect, that we have much to do with it.

  • wayne

    That sounds, like a cool job! (literally and figuratively)

    I’m old enough to distinctly recall, “they” were preaching the coming Ice Age in 1975/76. “They” also claimed we would have no oil by the year 2000, (and Christmas lights, were a Sin) and….(most recently) If I liked my Doctor, I could keep him..

    Disingenuous liars, all. (If “they” told me the sky was blue, I’d wonder what scam “they” were attempting to pull on me.)

  • Dick Eagleson


    You are almost certainly correct. Even after the Global Warming fraud becomes apparent to nearly everyone, there will still be True Believers who will not be dissuaded by mere facts and evidence. In this way, the Warmism cult is not like a Ponzi scheme in that I don’t know any victims of, say, Bernie Madoff who still stubbornly cling to the belief that they have money. As the late, great Robert A. Heinlein once put it, “It’s a pretty serious thing when a man’s religion fails him.”

  • Edward

    The world’s population is beginning to realize that Al Gore lied in his convenient (to his pocketbook) movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” His predictions are not coming true, and predictions made since then are obviously not on their way to becoming true.

    We are 1/6th of the way through the 21st century, but neither the temperatures nor the oceans have risen by 1/6th of any of the predictions for the end of the century. Measurements have shown that neither has risen by much at all. Scam or not, everyone is coming to grips that man does not have the effect that Al Gore, Leonardo di Caprio, Bill Nye (the not-a-scientist guy), and others have tried to convince us.

    That these papers are being published suggests that climate science is beginning to reject the nonsense that was foisted upon us over the past three or four decades and are getting back to actual science that should eventually accurately predict future climates. Only time will tell.

    Unfortunately, many of these more-honest scientists are basing their own charts and graphs on the historical data that the warmists and alarmists are trying to invalidate. How all this will work itself out is also to be seen. Will the historical data remain valid or do we have to start climate science from scratch?

    Dick Eagleson wrote: “What we may be witnessing here is the beginning of something analogous to the collapse of a Ponzi scheme.

    Nice analogy, even though the two do not work the same. Before Charles Ponzi came along, the scheme that is now named after him was called a “bubble scheme,” mainly because when it popped, there was very little left to compensate the victims. Sometimes, former “winners” would be “volunteered” to help partially compensate the current set of victims. The Madoff affair worked like a typical bubble scheme, with similar final results.

    Unfortunately for today’s global warming victims, previous winners spent their ill gotten gains, and there are few with the funds to even partially compensate those who were scammed. Germans alone spent hundreds of billions in pursuit of curing global warming. The Kyoto Accord and Paris Agreement had never intended to have an actual effect on global warming or the perceived disastrous effects, but nations signed up to pay anyway. Paying the price without receiving any benefit is a poor economic model, and it looks like theft or fraud, hence another appropriateness of the Ponzi scheme analogy.

    Perhaps the worst part is that after Kyoto, temperatures actually stabilized, but nobody cheered or declared victory that we were all saved. That is because everyone understood that Kyoto was a worldwide scam and had no effect on temperatures. Everyone. Instead, the scammers declared that disaster was only years away and that more must be done, so they tried to create a Copenhagen agreement scam and now are trying to create the Paris agreement scam.

    Dick Eagleson wrote: “The Warmists have been fiddling with the raw surface temperature data for years to bolster their alarmist political activism. If the Earth is not actually warming, or warming only very slightly, it is necessary to keep making bigger and bigger such “adjustments” in order to keep up the pretense that every year that passes is “the warmest on record.

    Amazingly, by adjusting the previously collected historical data, the scientists are implicitly claiming that the data is not valid. Sometimes they explicitly state that it was not reliable because of the varied collection methods. The problem that this presents is that no matter how much they tamper with the data, they cannot make it any more reliable, effectively eliminating the best temperature history that we have for determining the problem, whether there actually is a problem, and (if there is) how large the problem is.

    A bat would tell you that the sky is black. The bat would be correct, too, because the sky is black more of the time than it is blue, but most people miss that fact, since they sleep most of the time that the bat is awake.

  • Mitch S.

    Edward wrote:
    “The Kyoto Accord and Paris Agreement had never intended to have an actual effect on global warming or the perceived disastrous effects, but nations signed up to pay anyway.”
    I agree the signers knew the accords had no effect on the climate but most nations didn’t signup to pay, they signed up to collect. Less developed nations to collect the payouts promised them and other nations so their politicians could reap the benefits of being able to claim “We’re saving the planet” while personally benefiting from inside deals to line their pockets with “green” money.

    Just this evening on John Batchelor I heard someone comment that China signs every deal/treaty/agreement but they don’t keep to those agreements when it doesn’t suit them. The US is the only country that takes such agreements so seriously that they won’t sign on if they don’t intend to keep it.

    Look at Germany. They have spent a lot on solar etc but when they freaked out after Fukushima they closed their nuclear plants and replaced most of the power by burning coal. If they were really committed to paying to reduce carbon emissions, they would have phased out the nuc plants only as their capacity was filled by non-carbon emitting sources.
    And Germany’s refusal to meet their NATO obligation shows how much they care about international agreements.
    The US is the sucker nation.

  • Joe

    Wayne, used to be a cool job, big corporations look for pennies and dimes in some pretty stupid ways, my penance for not getting a college education.

  • Mitch S.

    Came across an article titled:

    “Einstein still annoyingly right as researchers weigh white dwarf”

    The first sentence is:
    “A key feature of scientific theories is that they make successful predictions, which we can use to determine whether they’re likely to be right.”

    But it seems in climate “science” if the prediction isn’t successful, simply “correct” the data to make it so.
    I’m surprised these “Relativity skeptics” aren’t ostracized.

Leave a Reply

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