Human beings are unprincipled. Not by any conscious mechanism, we just aren’t hardwired for group think. We couldn’t solve the climate crisis even if it was a real thing. Those in power know this that is why we must be forced into compliance for their fake crisis. It’s a power and money grab, nothing more. And we know it’s a scam because those in power don’t take it seriously. The day the politicians, the bankers, the uber wealthy etc. give up their lavish lifestyles and take to biodynamic farming, getting around on horse and cart, living simple peaceful lives is the day I will pay them some attention.

Expand full comment
Sep 10Liked by Unbekoming

Thank you for pulling this opus together, friend.

A precision dissection of the (public)Agenda.

For every public challenge of the day, the solution from Power always seems to be communism/authoritarianism.

Zooming down to the individual level, there are youths who have taken their lives over this issue. The existential dread that is being propagated in our children at the indoctrination centers known as schools is leaving some with the idea that suicide is the best choice. Some will survive, hobbled. Others, taken and likely seen as offerings to Moloch by the Luciferian devotees behind the curtain.

There is a human cost to these insane policies, even before they kill us wholesale with their lunatic ideas like sequestering all the CO2, or darkening the sky.

We need to roll back these global Organs, these unaccountable evil institutions.

Else they will be stomping our faces, forever.

There can't be co-existence with evil.


Expand full comment

Thanks for the link to the Ed Berry book, not sure if you have read the Michael Crichton article

Aliens Cause Global Warming, that speaks about Carl Sagan.


It also contains the brilliant quote,

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."

Expand full comment

If it’s invisible and a threat and takes a global response to fix it’s fraud. Every time.

Expand full comment

Good Heavens! And everybody thinks Carl Sagan is so brilliant. He is a friggin' idiot! OR a bought-and-paid-for shill of the Globalists!!!! Or both.

Expand full comment
Sep 10Liked by Unbekoming

I only know a few people who believe the global warming nonsense. I’d love to be able to share this with them, but they think I’m a knuckle-dragging mouth-breather and global warming is their religion. If I denigrate their religion, I won’t convince them, but I’ll have to listen to an interminable lecture on it. 🙄

I hate it that all reason has fled.

Expand full comment

My mouth about fell open when I saw that name. I hadn't heard of the book, and I don't even have time to read your post right now (I will), but I know this person from a former life decades ago and I can vouch for his credentials and certain parts of his story according to what I knew back then. And that's all I can say.

Expand full comment
Sep 10Liked by Unbekoming

I appologize for the errors in grammar and spelling. I was unable to find the edit function.

Regarding "climate change" or whatever you want to call it (scam), Dr VA Shiva says it isn't climate change it is pollution. Check him out here: https://vashiva.com/

Expand full comment

Sagan always was a Goofball of the highest order.

Expand full comment
Sep 10·edited Sep 12Liked by Unbekoming

> But here he is, first finding a clever rationalization for why the government was right to spend all the wealth of the nation on something that didn’t happen, because well, it could have:

You need to watch again. He is not conflating. He pointed out that the argument that was use to justify spending on the cold war (the militaries argument*) could just as easily be applied to the threat of global warming. But here he is, first finding a clever rationalization for why the government was right to spend all the wealth of the nation on something that didn’t happen, because well, it could have been applied to Global Warming but it is not.

The real pt of my writing you is urge you and your subscribers to read the works of Dr Lynn Margulis. Your understanding of our current situation will be enlightened. I have notice that this climate nonsense is particularly in vogue to day because almost everyone has forgotton the work of Lynn Margulis with James Lovelock on Gaia/Earth.

So I do urge you to read her many books I have found them all worth while and I have read most several times of the last 20 or 30+ years.

* Along with all the money spent on the cold war. There was a huge amount spent on Vietnam. The argument of that day was the domino effect. That if we didn't save Vietnam from the communist that soon we would be surronded by communist nations looking to destroy the US.

Well we didn't save Vietnam from the communists and we are not threatened by them today. All the arguments by the military industrial complex, like the current rational for the Ukraine fiasco is nonsense.

be well,


Expand full comment
Sep 10Liked by Unbekoming

There are 7 Major theories of Climate Change, and a new one by Ethical Skeptic that points out only the warming of our core can account for the recent fast warming of the oceans. In addition to this,

I like this youtube video....the Greenland Ice core...of course they are messing with the interpretiation of what the cores mean vs. temp and Co2, but this guy seems to be on the up and up :https://tritorch.substack.com/p/the-best-911-truth-video-you-will?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web

Expand full comment

The Undesigned Universe - Peter Ward

“ . . . it is these ocean state changes that are

1:02:28 correlated with the great disasters of the past impact can cause extinction but

1:02:35 it did so in our past only wants[once] that we can tell whereas this has happened over

1:02:40 and over and over again we have fifteen evidences times of mass extinction in the past 500 million years

1:02:48 so the implications for the implications the implications of the carbon dioxide is really dangerous if you heat your

1:02:55 planet sufficiently to cause your Arctic to melt if you cause the temperature

1:03:01 gradient between your tropics and your Arctic to be reduced you risk going back

1:03:07 to a state that produces these hydrogen sulfide pulses . . . “


Expand full comment
Sep 10Liked by Unbekoming

I don't know if you've seen this, but I thought it might interest you. A research paper, published in 2017, basically says that atmospheric and surface warming, on rocky planets that don't have significant geothermal surface warming, is a function of the amount of solar energy striking the atmosphere and atmospheric pressure....period. The makeup of the atmosphere, including greenhouse gasses, is irrelevant. The authors claim that this is universal to all of the rocky planets in the solar system, regardless of the makeup of their atmospheres. I've included links to the substack article about this research paper, and also to the research paper itself. The paper is quite technical, and I didn't make any attempt to understand the formulas and equations, but the conclusions drawn from the research certainly blow all of the mainstream climate modeling mumbo jumbo out of the water.

Thank you for all of the interesting things that you post.



Expand full comment

Too bad Sagan didn't delve into the profiteering, power manipulations, and dishonesty of the Cold War. Too bad that he didn't foresee that the same bad developments could happen with a "War On Carbon". Too bad he was so unscientifically sure of his own views on climate change. It's also too bad that I bought into his logic, at least partly, at the time this speech was made. However, I very much doubt that he was a shill for Empire, because in those days concern for climate change was not common. In every decade of every age, there are "gloom and doom" movements. Some of these movements gain traction and develop into full-fledged manias, and others fizzle out early. There are always profiteers lurking behind all such movements, waiting for opportunities. To avoid more such problems, we need to develop a cultural resistance to mania.

Expand full comment

Carl Sagan reminds me of Mr. Rogers - It's a wonderful day in the Milky Way, a wonderful day in the Milky Way, won't you be mine, could you be mine... :)

Expand full comment

Here's another you can ignore if you "don't need no education"..


Expand full comment