Conscious Choice cover

From the press release: In this ground-breaking new history of early America, historian Robert Zimmerman not only exposes the lie behind The New York Times 1619 Project that falsely claims slavery is central to the history of the United States, he also provides profound lessons about the nature of human societies, lessons important for Americans today as well as for all future settlers on Mars and elsewhere in space.

 
Conscious Choice: The origins of slavery in America and why it matters today and for our future in outer space, is a riveting page-turning story that documents how slavery slowly became pervasive in the southern British colonies of North America, colonies founded by a people and culture that not only did not allow slavery but in every way were hostile to the practice.  
Conscious Choice does more however. In telling the tragic history of the Virginia colony and the rise of slavery there, Zimmerman lays out the proper path for creating healthy societies in places like the Moon and Mars.

 

“Zimmerman’s ground-breaking history provides every future generation the basic framework for establishing new societies on other worlds. We would be wise to heed what he says.” —Robert Zubrin, founder of founder of the Mars Society.

 

Available everywhere for $3.99 (before discount) at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and 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.


Sea level fraud by the Colorado Sea Level Research Group

The dishonesty of climate scientists: A comparison of the raw data with the published adjusted sea level data reveals unexplained “adjustments” made by the Colorado Sea Level Research Group at the University of Colorado that increase the reported rate of sea level rise without any explanation.

In 2004, the rate of sea level rise for the 1990s was measured at 2.8 mm per year (margin of error 0.4 mm). Somehow, in 2015 that same data for the 1990s now shows the rate to be 3.3 mm per year, adjusted upward 0.5 mm per year, an amount greater than the margin of error noted in 2004. There is no justifiable reason that I can see for these adjustments, and if there is, they have not provided it.

Be sure you click on the link and look at the graphs. They are quite damning.

Note also that when I began my effort to unravel the climate change field back in 2004, I spent a lot of time reading older literature describing then what was known about sea level rise. These earlier published papers from the late 1990s, generally agreed that the rate of sea level rise for the past century had averaged around 2 mm per year. When I started looking at the modern data in 2004, however, the accepted rate was 2.8 mm, but I could find no explanation for why the consensus had upped the number from 2 mm. Nor did any published work explain how the previously published sea level data from before 1990 had somehow changed to this higher number.

They have now upped the rate again to 3.3 mm per year, but have once again provided no explanation as to why. The adjustments themselves are very suspicious, since they all go in one direction. Either they are allowing their biases to color their judgment, or they are committing outright fraud for the sake of selling the idea of global warming.

Either way, this is not science. Until they provide a good explanation for the adjustments, their funding should be stopped, now.

One more thought: Even at higher 3.3 mm per year, the total sea level rise for the next century will be a whopping one foot, hardly something to panic about.

Readers!
 

My July fund-raising campaign for 2021 has now ended. Thank you all for your donations and subscriptions. While this year’s campaign was not as spectacular as last year’s, it was the second best July campaign since I began this website.


And if you have not yet donated or subscribed, and you think what I write here is worth your support, you can still do so. I depend on this support to remain independent and free to write what I believe, without any pressure from others. Nor do I accept advertisements, or use oppressive social media companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook. I depend wholly on the direct support of my readers.


If you choose to help, you can contribute 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

7 comments

  • Cotour

    This is what you get when you measure sea level from a mile high and two thousand miles from the sea, maybe they should think about moving a little closer?

    (high IQ sarcasm alert)

  • pzatchok

    I would be more worried about the sea levels dropping.

    They would only drop for two reasons. Both very bad.

    One the glaciers are rebuilding and we are starting that ice age we are due for. Buy a new winter coat and expect less rainfall.

    Our oceans are being stolen by aliens at a rate noticeable by man. All hail our new overlords.

  • Cotour

    We have all heard of “social justice”, now we have “climate justice”.

    http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/u-n-tribunal-to-judge-u-s-for-climate-debt/

  • Edward

    It is reasonable for us to consider the possibility that a fraud is being perpetrated upon us.

    1) Explaining data and the differences between the data taken and the data used is basic science; more basic than Science 101, it is middle school science. It is the first thing taught about data reporting in the first science class in which a student is required to collect data. Thus for the Colorado Sea Level Research Group at the University of Colorado to ignore the data discrepancy is a violation of basic science.

    2) They should have noticed the discrepancy in the data between their own reports. It is their business, after all. Both graphs list TOPEX satellite data as their source for the 1993 to 2002 portions of the plots, but it is obvious by inspection that the data points are different between the two reports. First, the 60-day smoothed lines are greatly different. Second, differences between the data points on the two graphs are clearly different near the 1998 mark and the 2001 mark, where high level readings are not as high or are fewer in number. Even the Jason-1 data can be seen as different near the 2003 mark, demonstrating that the Jason-1 datasets are also suspect. One or more of each satellite’s dataset is not the original data.

    The 2015 report should explain or reference an explanation as to why these datasets are different from their prior report(s). If this is not done, they are either poor scientists or could be suspect of intentionally hiding something. This does not seem to be on their FAQ list: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/faq or their links page: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/weblinks or even the AVISO page (the TOPEX data-source site) http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/data/products/ocean-indicators-products/actualitesindicateurs-des-oceansniveau-moyen-des-mersindexhtml.html It looks like it is AVISO that has made the adjustments without explanation, but the University of Colorado does not seem to have noticed or does not seem to care.

    3) The University of Colorado changed their data-presentation method between the two years, using different colors. This is suspicious. Not only does it make noticing the discrepancy harder, it obfuscates everything about the data. To make matters worse, the more recent map has a narrower range (-10 to +10mm) than the 2014 map (-15 to +15mm), and the 2014 map shows a few locations that exceed +12mm, which is well beyond the range in the reportedly worse situation of the 2015 map.

    4) It is obvious that the satellite datasets are being tampered with, and it is further obvious that the University of Colorado is drawing conclusions based upon their altered datasets without discussing these alterations and how they might affect the accuracy of their conclusions. The faking of data (changing without notice or explanation) is the very definition of fudged data: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fudging “v.tr.1. To fake or falsify: fudge casualty figures”

    5) If we cannot trust the satellite data, then what can we trust in the science of climatology? It seems that it is not only NOAA but foreign science organizations are also modifying their data without announcement or explanation – two violations of established methods of science. Put together, these appear to be actions of fudging data, and it appears that the University of Colorado is comfortable using such apparently fudged data.

  • Edward,

    Your research and writing in this post is so good it should be a post on the main page. If I wasn’t in Mexico on a semi-vacation I think I’d want to put it there, with your permission. If you say yes, I will see if I can make it happen.

  • Edward

    Thank you for the compliment. You have my permission.

  • Time is my problem right now. Between sightseeing and writing about what I see, I might not be able to do it. I will try however, if I can get the time.

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 *