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. And if you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.

James Hansen’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has once again been caught changing its past climate temperature data without explanation.

James Hansen’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has once again been caught changing its past climate temperature data without explanation.

Surprise of surprise, the change had the effect of making the long-term temperature record support conclusions of faster warming. The biggest changes were mostly pre-1963 temperatures; they were generally adjusted down. That would make the warming trend steeper, since post-1963 temperatures were adjusted slightly upward, on average. Generally, the older the data, the more adjustment.

Hat tip to reader jwing who alerted me to this story. As I commented to him, this “also is old news, to my mind, even though this is a new discovery of corruption. This kind of fraud has now been on-going for the past decade, with no signs of any effort to fix it. Worse, the climate science field even denies that it has a problem. Thus, I don’t trust anything they tell me. I check everything twice, and then have doubts besides. Which is why I remain entirely skeptical of any claims these climate scientists make.”

And in this case, the climate scientist in question is James Hansen.


I must unfortunately ask you for your financial support because I do not depend on ads and rely entirely on the generosity of readers to keep Behind the Black running. You can either make a one time donation for whatever amount you wish, or you sign up for a monthly subscription ranging from $2 to $15 through Paypal or $3 to $50 through Patreon.

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.

Your support is even more essential to me because I not only keep this site free from advertisements, I do not use the corrupt social media companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook to promote my work. I depend wholly on the direct support of my readers.

You can provide that support to Behind The Black with a contribution via Patreon or PayPal. To use Patreon, go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation. For PayPal click one of the following buttons:


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


If Patreon or Paypal don'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

Or you can donate by using Zelle through your bank. You will need to give my name and email address (found at the bottom of the "About" page). The best part of this electronic option is that no fees will be deducted! What you donate will be what I receive.


  • Jim

    Its not true that they give no explanation, and the article is wrong that the last change noted is in February. This is from NASA website:
    “September 26, 2012: NOAA/NCDC replaced GHCN v3.1 by GHCN v3.2. Hence the GISS analysis is based on that product starting 9/14/2012. Version v3.2 differs from v3.1 by minor changes in the homogenization of the unadjusted data. A description of the modifications in the adjustment scheme and their effects are available here.”

    GHCN v3 replaced v1. If interested in why, here is a pdf put out by NOAA (not NASA) on those changes:

    Even the author of the article admits that anyone using data takes advantage of improvements in the analysis of that data. NASA should not?
    And it simply is not true that they make these kinds of changes willy-nilly and at any time. The author says:
    “But I find the idea of constantly changing data troublesome.” They do not.
    They make one change and the author assumes they must have done that in the past and will do so next month as well.
    But he did get one thing correct:
    “So maybe this isn’t that big of a deal.”

  • jwing

    It is a big deal…these are the same scientific experts and government officials who knowingly placed temperature monitoring stations next to asphalt parking lots, air conditioning vents while removing monitoring stations that would have given non-biased temperature readings. Do you still remember the incrimminating climategate emails? If you can rationalize the need for a scientist to arbitrarily change even one data point, you forever compromise the integrity of your arguement of that of a truly objective scientific analysis to subjective bias. Let’s face it; your arguement then becomes rhetoric to support a political environmentalist ideology/agenda. You can’t have it both ways…at least not anymore. The global warming hypothysis has been exposed.

  • David

    Except, NASA only published this update/explanation after the American Thinker piece was posted the day before, 09/25/12. Thus, when written, the post was correct.

  • jwing

    Simply put…it’s not rocket science. There should be no need for such confusion over longitudinal temperature recordings. If climate science is “good science,” it should be completely transparent in its methodologies. After all, we’re not dealing with top secret data pertaining to national security. We’re talking about the weather, and yet somehow, even the weather has become politicized and irrational. It used to be said that the only safe convesation was the weather and never about religion or politics.

  • Jwing,

    I understand all this. All I was asking for was an explanation for David’s cryptic post.

    Thanks anyway. We are in agreement on this.

  • David

    Just 2nding Jwing’s earlier post.

  • David

    BTW, Bob, found your blog through your great segments on The John Batchelor Show last night. I’m located in the greater Huntsville, AL area where NASA is a big deal. It’s my great honor to know some of the pioneering NASA folks from the early days. Thus, I was reached by last night’s discussion by the “NASA thinks it owns space” discussion. Still, it was “NASA, or at least James Hansen, has officially joined the climate change (or should we call it the climate data change) fraud” which engaged me.

Readers: the rules for commenting!


No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.


However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.


Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

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