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.

“The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever.”

Link here.

This is a nicely written review of some of the research that Steven Goddard, Paul Homewood, and others have done to uncover the wholesale and unjustified adjustments to the surface temperature data that have been done by scientists at the Goddard Institute of Space Studies and at NOAA. Essentially, the warming of the past half century has been faked by artificially lowering the recorded temperatures of the past while artificially raising the recorded temperatures of the present.


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


  • Frank

    I am a skeptical scientist, but I haven’t seen any detailed explanation with examples from those responsible for these adjustments so am hesitant to call it fraud YET. I do smell smoke however. Let’s see the justification with a clear background and detail and the exact algorithms used.

  • mivenho

    The science is unsettled.

  • Cotour

    I think it would be a toss up in all time scientific scandals between this “climate chaos” contrivance and a certain other official government agency “scientific” / technical report. Either way the take away from this known structural situation is an absolute statement, and there are few absolute statements that can be made.

    Absolute statement #1: It must be your default position related to all announcements and pronouncements by any politician or government official that what ever they say must be assumed to be a 100 percent lie, until other wise established through your own due diligence.

    Why? Because the acquisition of power and the retention of power (politics) require it.

  • Jake V

    Snow in winter!! Proof of global warming!!

  • Edward

    “Say it ain’t so, Joe!”

    How could the respected climate scientists of the world possibly be involved with changing data without making clear that this is what they are doing and explaining why they are doing it? [End of sarcasm]

    This process makes them suspect of fudging the data. those who fudge data do so without informing the rest of us, those who do not fudge tell us about the change and clearly explain why, so that the rest of us can determine whether their thought process is reasonable.

    I *am* ready to call it fraud, considering that the East Anglia scientists were fudging data — the purpose of “hiding the decline,” and “lost” their data rather than show it to the world for verification. The climate science community has shown that they will not publish evidence that does not point in the direction of global warming/anthropogenic climate change/the need for government tyrannical control over our lives in order to save our lives/whatever, and those who disagree with this direction are routinely insulted and harassed. The IPCC has used statements out of magazine articles as scientific evidence equal to peer reviewed papers. Worse, the peer review process in several areas of scientific-paper publication has been shown to be deficient — especially in the area of climate science.

    The use of the scientific method in climate science is so bad that when temperatures stopped climbing as predicted, rather than question the prediction, the climate science community questions the reality. And now they are fudging the data to make it look like temperatures have climbed more that previously reported. Please allow me to remind everyone of one of the basic methods and tenets of science:
    “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That simple statement is the key to science.”
    Yet those working in the climate sciences ignore that their computation results do not agree with observation and continue to rationalize their computation results as right.

    “You cannot prove a vague theory wrong.”
    When everything that happens proves the theory, then the theory cannot be proved wrong. Floods and Hurricanes prove global warming, but so do droughts. Both lack of snow and excessive snow prove global warming. I could go on, but here is the list of things that are caused by global warming, thus are proof of global warming:

    Then again, no one has linked global temperature with human activity, other than to say that the temperature is rising and humans are putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Correlation does not prove causality, so the climate scientists need to demonstrate the causality — which they haven’t done. With logic like that, we could prove that CO2 levels in the atmosphere cause increased use of computers.

    The pattern is clear. The trend has been demonstrated. Climate science has turned itself into a culture as scientific and respectable as astrology. Maybe the climate scientists could tell us which day that it is good to go to the dentist.

    Either this area of science is guilty of the most horrendous dereliction of due diligence ever seen (incompetent), or they are fraudulently fudging their data and conclusions (malicious). Our policy makers should not be using the conclusions of climate science to set policy that affects our lives. That they do makes them either incompetent or malicious. I have concluded that it is the latter, in both cases.

  • Sandra Warren

    Keep up the good work. These stories are barely mentioned in most major media so we need to spread it around grassroots-style.

  • Cotour

    Keeping in mind that we are in a continuing general warming trend related to the last advance of ice and rising of sea levels which is a cycle of approximately 100 K years.

    The mitigation of pollution, absolutely, all day every day. The amount of human activity (which is the issue) that effects the climate and to what degree, is the question. And you can not come to a proper answer to the question if from the start those who are gathering and interpreting the data have already decided what that answer should or needs to be and are willing to “adjust” that data to fulfill that preconceived notion.

  • Edward

    The net result of all of this is that the past keeps getting colder as time goes on.

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 *