Government Schools are dangerous. Why not defund them ?

Another school shooting … this time at a high school in Michigan.

Remember when these incidents used to be horrifying, and big news? They’re still every bit as horrifying for the individuals involved. But they’re no longer news. Other than more fodder for totalitarian media and government to say it’s time for mass gun confiscation. (Good luck with that, tyrants).

Since government-run schools are either unable or unwilling to ensure even minimal safety — for DECADES now — then why don’t we defund them all? And let parents and innovators in PRIVATE education figure out better ways. Millions of us are mortally petrified at even the mention of the word “flu”. Aren’t these schools way, way more dangerous?

#ShutThemDown

Why Paid Abortion Leave is Just Plain Stupid

A new era of abortion acceptance has begun, and, typical of the abortion industry, it has to do with money. In several places across the United States, cities have begun to offer bereavement time off for abortions—meaning that men and women are now being compensated and given days off for killing their child.

This new policy has popped up in cities like Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Portland, Oregon. In both Pittsburgh and Portland, city workers can get up to three days of fully paid bereavement leave off following a loss of pregnancy—and abortion is included as an eligible “loss” of pregnancy (similarly, the City of Boston pays workers for up to 12 weeks of abortion time off under the guise of “parental leave”). Portland’s ordinance even goes so far as to specifically outline that abortions do not need to be “deemed medically necessary” in order to qualify for this leave.

These pro-abortion cities are calling this “bereavement leave,” but that smells a little fishy.

In the coming weeks, I will be taking bereavement leave for a couple days following the death of my grandmother. The time off will be spent travelling for her funeral and comforting loved ones in their grief. We will celebrate her beautiful life and mourn the lack of her presence in our lives now. The purpose of my bereavement leave will be to commemorate her. CARTOONS | Steve Kelley View Cartoon

But what is the purpose of bereavement leave following an abortion? Who are they commemorating? After all, the meaning of bereavement is the “state of being sad because a family member or friend has recently died.”

According to some pro-abortion supporters, no one dies during an abortion. Many pro-abortion supporters refuse to accept that preborn children are alive. They refuse to call victims of abortion violence ‘babies,’ referring instead to preborn children as ‘clumps of cells’ or ‘pregnancy tissue.’ Abortion advocates who do acknowledge that a child dies in abortion often portray this as a positive or empowering fact.

To give men and women bereavement leave following an abortion is a logical inconsistency.

Here are three reasons why:

1. Pro-abortion supporters do not get to talk out of both sides of their mouth. There is either a child who has been killed during an abortion, or there’s not. (Spoiler alert, there is a child!) If there’s a child being killed during an abortion, abortion is wrong and should be illegal because children shouldn’t be killed. That means there is no place for paid abortion leave.

2. If pro-abortion supporters insist that the preborn are just clumps of cells and not really children, then there should be nothing to mourn about an abortion. We don’t do bereavement leave for colonoscopies, do we? If an abortion is an innocuous medical procedure, there is no place for paid abortion bereavement leave.

3. If pro-abortion supporters want to argue for paid abortion leave on the basis that women need recovery time after an abortion, that doesn’t fall under bereavement. It also defeats their lie that abortions are safe and easy, a myth widely propagated by the abortion industry. Once again, this policy is inappropriate.

Additionally, what message does it send to parents who are suffering the loss of a child through miscarriage, stillbirth, infant loss, or the loss of an older child, when city officials place elective abortion in the same category and grant the same benefits to a parent who has intentionally snuffed out the life of his or her child? It is a mockery of the suffering of parents who loved their children.

To make matters even worse, these cities are compounding the injustice by making taxpayers violate their consciences by paying for this abortion leave with their hard-earned money.

SFLA is on the ground working to change these policies. In Portland, Oregon, SFLA has launched its Campaign for Abortion Free Cities, and every day we get closer to our goal of eradicating abortion therein—and everywhere else, too.

Pro-life advocates should work proactively in their cities and states to stop similar policies from going into effect. Paid abortion leave will not become a norm in our country if SFLA and the Pro-Life Generation have anything to say about it — and we certainly do.

Caroline Wharton

Free market is a Hard Sell

Free market often seems a hard sell. The resistance and opposition to its seemingly straightforward case emerges and persists, over and over again. It is all very strange, since, after all, how many people do not want the personal liberty to make their own choices about what to buy, where to live, and the amount they are willing to pay for something?This is the crucial task as hand: Restoring a sense of right and wrong in terms of what are people’s individual rights in making their own choices and in their freedom of associations and agreements with others.
[Click to Tweet]

The same applies to their decisions on the supply side of the market. Which one of us does not want to decide what type of job and employment we’d like to pursue, the wage we are willing to accept for a job offered to us, and the ways we might apply our talents and abilities?

The alternative is for someone else to make all such decisions for us. When the fairy-tale rhetoric and utopian dreams about socialism are put aside, and people are told that a real socialist system involves the government telling you where you will live, the kind of job to which you will be assigned, and the wages and amenities of lifet to which you will be allowed, along with the personal freedoms that will be restricted or done away with, many of them soon become disillusioned, and even, sometimes, strongly opposed.

There is also the important moral element to the free-market society, that being that all human relationships should be based on mutual agreement and voluntary consent. Most people do not want to be coerced into associations and relationships to which they do not consent.

Stated in such general terms, certainly a majority of people in the United States would, no doubt, say they believe that these are essential and desirable elements to a free and good society. If the interested person were willing to sit through a more detailed explanation and understanding of the economics of the free society, they would most likely also agree with the logic of division of labor and comparative advantage.

Division of labor and gains from trade

When individuals specialize in their labors and develop their particular skills and abilities, all are made better off in a social setting in which we each offer in trade that which we decide to specialize in and obtain in exchange from others the goods and services we could not produce on our own, or at least not as effectively in terms of qualities or costs as some trading partners. Even if we are more productive and cost-efficient in many or most things compared to potential trading partners, by buying some things from these less efficient producers, it frees up our time to specialize in those areas where our productivity and income-earning possibilities are greatest.

A standard example of the latter is the highly valued lawyer who could do his own gardening around his home in, say, four hours, while a professional gardener might take five hours to do the same job. But if the lawyer’s opportunity cost is such that if those four hours are freed up to represent clients in court for $100 an hour, then even if the less efficient gardener were to charge him $50 an hour, for a total cost of $250, the lawyer would still be ahead to the tune of an additional $150 by entering into an exchange with a less efficient trading partner. If the lawyer values more highly what the extra $150 of income would enable him to buy than doing his own gardening, then both, clearly, gain from the market transaction. The more productive and the less productive all can find a place at the common table of free-market collaborative association.

So why, then, are people so often resistant to allowing the free-market to go about its work? To say there is “one” answer to this question would, of course, be completely misplaced. But a central one, in my view, is an aspect that has its origin in the very system of the division of labor that improves the overall economic wellbeing of all those participating in the social network of specialization.

Consumer interests and trade restrictions

Each of us in our respective producer roles in the division of labor offers for sale the particular good or service that we have chosen to specialize in. Only to the extent to which we are successful in producing, marketing, and selling that good or service to others in society can we earn the financial means that enables us to return to the marketplace in our role of consumer. In that role, we demand all the other diverse goods and services others in society are, in turn, specializing in the production and sale of so they, too, can earn the financial means to be consumers in the arena of competitive exchange.

Another way of expressing this is that while we are consumers of many goods, we are normally the producer of one or more goods or services. None of us can be a consumer unless we have first succeeded as a producer. As a consequence, we pragmatically place far greater importance on our producer role than on our consumer role in society.

Suppose you produce and sell a product that earns you $5,000 per month, or $60,000 a year. And further suppose that during the year, you spend that $60,000 on 20 different types of goods (e.g., food, housing, clothing, entertainment, transportation, etc.), or, on average, $3,000 per year on each of these categories, or $250 per month (just for the sake of the example).

Imagine that some of the domestic producers of clothing were to lobby their representatives in Washington, D. C., and successfully have an import tax imposed on their foreign competitors’ clothing apparel entering the United States, a result of which is the price of clothing in America increases by, say, 10 percent. This means that the clothing you had been purchasing for $3,000 over the year, or $250 per month, would now cost you $3,300 per year, or $275 per month.

As a consequence, you would find that your income now did not go as far as it had before in the purchase of clothing. You would have to reduce your apparel purchases accordingly, or marginally reduce your buying of other things, so to maintain the real amount of clothing purchased even in the face of the 10 percent rise in its price.

You might mumble and grumble, and if you were aware that this had been caused by the lobbying activities of American clothing manufacturers, you might curse it as another instance of “crony capitalism.” But out of $60,000 of expenditures during the year on all the various types of goods and services you buy, are you really going to become a radical anti-tariff activist over the loss of $25 a month in your standard of living due to this instance of trade protectionism? In many instances, it’s not even equal to the cost of one evening’s nice meal at a pleasant restaurant. And that $300 is barely 0.005 percent of your total $60,000 of spending on all goods and services over the year.

Consumer interests and trade restrictions

Each of us in our respective producer roles in the division of labor offers for sale the particular good or service that we have chosen to specialize in. Only to the extent to which we are successful in producing, marketing, and selling that good or service to others in society can we earn the financial means that enables us to return to the marketplace in our role of consumer. In that role, we demand all the other diverse goods and services others in society are, in turn, specializing in the production and sale of so they, too, can earn the financial means to be consumers in the arena of competitive exchange.

Another way of expressing this is that while we are consumers of many goods, we are normally the producer of one or more goods or services. None of us can be a consumer unless we have first succeeded as a producer. As a consequence, we pragmatically place far greater importance on our producer role than on our consumer role in society.

Suppose you produce and sell a product that earns you $5,000 per month, or $60,000 a year. And further suppose that during the year, you spend that $60,000 on 20 different types of goods (e.g., food, housing, clothing, entertainment, transportation, etc.), or, on average, $3,000 per year on each of these categories, or $250 per month (just for the sake of the example).

Imagine that some of the domestic producers of clothing were to lobby their representatives in Washington, D. C., and successfully have an import tax imposed on their foreign competitors’ clothing apparel entering the United States, a result of which is the price of clothing in America increases by, say, 10 percent. This means that the clothing you had been purchasing for $3,000 over the year, or $250 per month, would now cost you $3,300 per year, or $275 per month.

As a consequence, you would find that your income now did not go as far as it had before in the purchase of clothing. You would have to reduce your apparel purchases accordingly, or marginally reduce your buying of other things, so to maintain the real amount of clothing purchased even in the face of the 10 percent rise in its price.

You might mumble and grumble, and if you were aware that this had been caused by the lobbying activities of American clothing manufacturers, you might curse it as another instance of “crony capitalism.” But out of $60,000 of expenditures during the year on all the various types of goods and services you buy, are you really going to become a radical anti-tariff activist over the loss of $25 a month in your standard of living due to this instance of trade protectionism? In many instances, it’s not even equal to the cost of one evening’s nice meal at a pleasant restaurant. And that $300 is barely 0.005 percent of your total $60,000 of spending on all goods and services over the year.

Consumer interests and trade restrictions

Each of us in our respective producer roles in the division of labor offers for sale the particular good or service that we have chosen to specialize in. Only to the extent to which we are successful in producing, marketing, and selling that good or service to others in society can we earn the financial means that enables us to return to the marketplace in our role of consumer. In that role, we demand all the other diverse goods and services others in society are, in turn, specializing in the production and sale of so they, too, can earn the financial means to be consumers in the arena of competitive exchange.

Another way of expressing this is that while we are consumers of many goods, we are normally the producer of one or more goods or services. None of us can be a consumer unless we have first succeeded as a producer. As a consequence, we pragmatically place far greater importance on our producer role than on our consumer role in society.

Suppose you produce and sell a product that earns you $5,000 per month, or $60,000 a year. And further suppose that during the year, you spend that $60,000 on 20 different types of goods (e.g., food, housing, clothing, entertainment, transportation, etc.), or, on average, $3,000 per year on each of these categories, or $250 per month (just for the sake of the example).

Imagine that some of the domestic producers of clothing were to lobby their representatives in Washington, D. C., and successfully have an import tax imposed on their foreign competitors’ clothing apparel entering the United States, a result of which is the price of clothing in America increases by, say, 10 percent. This means that the clothing you had been purchasing for $3,000 over the year, or $250 per month, would now cost you $3,300 per year, or $275 per month.

As a consequence, you would find that your income now did not go as far as it had before in the purchase of clothing. You would have to reduce your apparel purchases accordingly, or marginally reduce your buying of other things, so to maintain the real amount of clothing purchased even in the face of the 10 percent rise in its price.

You might mumble and grumble, and if you were aware that this had been caused by the lobbying activities of American clothing manufacturers, you might curse it as another instance of “crony capitalism.” But out of $60,000 of expenditures during the year on all the various types of goods and services you buy, are you really going to become a radical anti-tariff activist over the loss of $25 a month in your standard of living due to this instance of trade protectionism? In many instances, it’s not even equal to the cost of one evening’s nice meal at a pleasant restaurant. And that $300 is barely 0.005 percent of your total $60,000 of spending on all goods and services over the year.

Here Comes Omicron

You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul.” — Mahatma Gandhi

“Compliance is the food that feeds totalitarinism.” (Robin Bittel on Facebook)

Breitbart headline: “Joe Biden Voices ‘Great Concern’ About Omicron Variant that ‘Spreads Rapidly’”.

Are you kidding me? Biden and his kind are ECSTATIC. They have another media-driven excuse to triple down on tyranny. AND the perfect way to distract Americans from the systematic dismantling of their nation.

Trump was headed for a landslide win in 2020. We got COVID. Now Republicans are headed for a blowout in 2022. We’re getting Omicron.

Seeing a pattern yet? Are you stupid enough to obey and comply AGAIN?

How will the government keep track of vax mandates for all the coming viruses? Plus boosters. I warned you it’s never going to end.

Dictatorships don’t simply impose totalitarian control 100 percent for all time. They loosen controls and reimpose them. In 2020, America was virtually a dictatorship. In 2021, it seemed to loosen. Now the stage is being set for the reimposition of controls and, I believe, new controls that the most imaginative of us could never foresee. Once a majority of us conceded the premise last year that the government may do ANYTHING it wishes to anyone, any time it decrees an “emergency”, it was all over. If you think you’re free when the government temporarily “gives” you back rights that it was never entitled to take away, then you will probably be shocked and horrified when they return and proceed to take all of your rights away. This is how tyrants have always worked, and always will work. It’s not new. It’s just less excusable, after all the blood spilled in the cause of freedom — freedom that now so many of us are willing to surrender at the mere utterance of the word, “virus.”

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Immanuel Kant and the Foundation of Critical Race Theory

Princeton University professor Allen C. Guelzo, comments on the foundations of CRT in an AEI podcast: as a “reaction against the Enlightenment and against the confidence that scientific reason could discover the answers to things”:

….Kant was appalled at the irreligious conclusions to which reason had driven the Enlightenment. He was determined to find a way around Enlightenment religious lack of faith. So he says, what can we know for certain? Well, if we rely strictly on reason, we discover that reason only works on what our physical senses tell us, and that’s not much. Reason can’t penetrate into the essence of things. Some other tool was needed to reach what he called the thing in itself. So, to brush back the influence of reason, Kant develops a critique of reason, a critical theory, if you will.

….when you see how little reason can penetrate to the real lessons of things and you awake to a new reality. And that reality is that reason has blinded you. That is critical theory…

… critical theory set off a chain reaction of romantic investigations for non-rational explanations of reality.

….some of those non-rational explanations took a form of nationalism. That’s what you find in the philosophy of Georg Hegel. Some of them took the form of out-and-out racism. … Above all, you find non-rational explanations of reality based on economic class, and that is Karl Marx.

…And you might think that economics functions as what Adam Smith called a natural instinct to truck and barter. But in reality, it’s governed by the oppressive relations of class. Especially in the hands of Marx, critical theory uncovers the activity, not of employers and employees, but of an oppressor class and an oppressed class.

And the payoff?

…it promises an emotional burst of revelation and indignation. It allows you not so much to understand because remember, understanding is a function of reason, it allows you to denounce. It allows you to replace the question, is what I know true with a different question, whose interests does this question serve?

…. If the only purpose of questions is to serve the interests of a dominant or oppressive class, then no question that you ask about the truth of a situation or the truth of an event or the truth of a proposition, none of that kind of questioning about truth has any meaning. And any answer you come up with, which doesn’t speak in terms of some hidden structure of oppression, can simply be dismissed as part of the structure of oppression.

Read the rest.

Marc A. Thiessen writes in the Washington Post on “The danger of critical race theory”:

Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, authors of “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction,” state that “critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”

….Ibram X. Kendi, one of CRT’s leading advocates, openly declares: “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

This is the opposite of what the civil rights movement stood for. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. did not argue that America was systemically racist; he argued that racism was un-American.

By dispensing with the reason the only solution is violence:

“… If your critical race theory is impervious to questioning and evidence, then fine: I will retreat into my critical race theory and it too will be impervious to evidence and the questioning. At which point then the only solution becomes violence.”

New COVID Panic Brewing: We’ve Seen this Movie Before

This morning, the stock market is tanking and the World Health Organization (WHO) is holding emergency meetings to discuss a new COVID-19 variant.

WHO is the Chinese Communist Party. Biden is their puppet, a useful tool in the destruction of America’s prosperity and liberty. They’re sounding the alarm about a new variant of COVID. Brace yourselves: They’re worried about Biden’s sinking popularity due to inflation, high gas prices, massive spending and taxation, and a decline in our way of life. Perhaps they’re worried about election fraud and social media censorship not being enough in the next two election cycles. So will lockdowns and mask mandates soon return? We have seen this movie before.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate [of the Earth].” The models can’t properly model the Earth’s climate, but we are supposed to believe that, if carbon dioxide has a certain effect on the imaginary Earths of the many models it will have the same effect on the real earth.

The climate models are an exemplary representation of confirmation bias, the psychological tendency to suspend one’s critical facilities in favor of welcoming what one expects or desires. Climate scientists can manipulate numerous adjustable parameters in the models that can be changed to tune a model to give a “good” result. Technically, a good result would be that the climate model output can match past climate history. But that good result competes with another kind of good result. That other good result is a prediction of a climate catastrophe. That sort of “good” result has elevated the social and financial status of climate science into the stratosphere.

Once money and status started flowing into climate science because of the disaster its denizens were predicting, there was no going back. Imagine that a climate scientist discovers gigantic flaws in the models and the associated science. Do not imagine that his discovery would be treated respectfully and evaluated on its merits. That would open the door to reversing everything that has been so wonderful for climate scientists.  Who would continue to throw billions of dollars a year at climate scientists if there were no disasters to be prevented? No, the discoverer of any flaw would be demonized and attacked as a pawn of evil interests. Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer come to mind. There are many more skeptical scientists keeping quiet in varying degrees.

Testing a model against past history and assuming that it will then predict the future is a methodology that invites failure. The failure starts when the modeler adds more adjustable parameters to enhance the model. At some point, one should ask if we are fitting a model or doing simple curve fitting. If the model has degenerated into curve fitting, it very likely won’t have serious predictive capability.

A strong indicator that climate models are well into the curve fitting regime is the use of ensembles of models. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) averages together numerous models (an ensemble), in order to make a projection of the future. Asked why they do this rather than try to pick the best model, they say that the ensemble method works better. Why would averaging worse models with the best model make the average better than the best? This is contrary to common sense. But according to the mathematics of curve fitting, if different methods of fitting the same (multidimensional) data are used, and each method is independent but imperfect, averaging together the fits will indeed give a better result. It works better because there is a mathematical artifact coming from having too many adjustable parameters that allow the model to fit nearly anything.Top Articles By American ThinkerRead More

It’s funny watching a Kennedy struggle with the Rittenhouse casenull

One may not be surprised that the various models disagree dramatically, one with another, about the Earth’s climate, including how big the supposed global warming catastrophe will be. But no model, except perhaps one from Russia, denies the future catastrophe.

There is a political reason for using ensembles. In order to receive the benefits flowing from predicting a climate catastrophe, climate science must present a unified front. Dissenters have to be canceled and suppressed. If the IPCC were to select the best model, dozens of other modeling groups would be left out. They would, no doubt, form a dissenting group questioning the authority of those that gave the crown to one particular model. With ensembles, every group gets to participate in a rewarding conspiracy against humanity.

Fitting the model to climate history comes up against the fact that past climate history is poorly documented or unknown. There are scientific groups that specialize in examining and summarizing the vast trove of past climate history. Their summaries improve on the original data in ways that always seem to support global warming catastrophe. The website realclimatescience.com specializes in exposing this tampering with climate history.

Because so much of climate history is unknown, for example, climate influencing aerosols, the modelers have to make up the missing history. Each modeler is free to make up his own history, so the various models fit different assumed past climates. It would be very surprising if modelers weren’t manipulating their fabricated climates to make their models behave better.

Scientists are always cautioned not to fall in love with a theory or method. If they do, they will lose their objectivity. Facts that support their love will be celebrated, facts that cast doubt on their love will be ignored or forgotten. But if you spend years, or decades, married to a modeling methodology, divorce becomes less and less likely.

Pennsylvania: Do This Instead of Buying Expensive Solar Panels (It’s Genius)POWERHOME SOLARThis is What Happened to Opie’s Mother, According to Andy GriffithDefinitionTelevision’s 35 Most Fake Reality ShowsDefinitionTo Andy Griffith, This is What Happened to Opie’s MotherDefinition

The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization in Washington, DC that touts itself as the science advisor to the government. Their advice has some common threads. They never criticize the scientific establishment and they always promote spending more money on science. Like the teachers’ unions, they pretend to support the common good but actually promote their constituency’s special interests.

The Academy sponsored a report on the future of climate modeling. They apparently saw nothing wrong with staffing the study committee with professional climate modelers. The report advocated more money for climate modelers and urged hiring professional public relations people to present results to the public.

The purported climate catastrophe ahead is 100% junk science. If the unlikely climate catastrophe actually happens, it will be coincidental that it was predicted by climate scientists. Most of the supporting evidence is fabricated. There Is no out-of-the-ordinary climate change taking place. The constant comparisons of the current climate with preindustrial climate are nonsense because according to climate theory and the models, the effect of CO2 was extremely minor before 1975. Since 1975 nothing points to a climate catastrophe or a new long-term trend.

The fake climate catastrophe has spawned a fake energy paradigm – replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar electricity. Wind and solar are claimed to be cheaper than traditional sources of electricity but non-fake accounting reveals that wind or solar electricity costs five or even ten times more than traditional electricity, exclusive, of course, of government subsidies and mandates. The reason it costs so much is that the erratic nature of wind and solar requires maintaining the traditional electricity generating system intact and ready to operate when wind and solar fail. Solar fails every night, every cloudy day, and more often in winter. Wind fails at random times, or somewhat predictable times, and often has a seasonal cycle. If the renewable energy advocates were logical, they would be advocating for nuclear. Nuclear is reliable and does not produce CO2.

Climate change and wind and solar electricity are a snipe hunts, diverting the country from serious problems in favor of imaginary problems with imaginary solutions that enrich the promoters and their political friends with status and money.

Photo credit: Pixabay license

Norman Rogers spent 10-years studying climate change and climate change scientists. He is the author of the book Dumb Energy, about wind and solar energy. He is on the board of the CO2 Coalition and was formerly on the board of the National Association of Scholars. He holds a master’s degree in physics.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.

If you would like to comment on this or any other American Thinker article or post, we invite you to visit the American Thinker Forum at MeWe. There, you can converse with other American Thinker readers and comment freely (subject to MeWe’s terms of use). The Forum will be fully populated and ready for comments by midday (Eastern time) each day.

SUPPORT AMERICAN THINKER

Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong.

Thank you.https://js.stripe.com/v3/elements-inner-card-443812a4bac53fa8cfbf4492575b01bb.html#wait=false&mids%5Bguid%5D=NA&mids%5Bmuid%5D=c05ad1b1-350e-40f3-86c1-261fdc59b7c812c380&mids%5Bsid%5D=NA&style%5Bbase%5D%5BfontFamily%5D=Roboto%2C+Open+Sans%2C+Segoe+UI%2C+sans-serif&style%5Bbase%5D%5BfontSize%5D=16px&style%5Bbase%5D%5Bcolor%5D=%23000000&style%5Bbase%5D%5Bfont-weight%5D=400&style%5Binvalid%5D%5Bcolor%5D=%23ff2f00&rtl=false&componentName=card&keyMode=live&apiKey=pk_live_ylKFAuZgL0gwhmJlAURCf48f&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Farticles%2F2021%2F11%2Fthe_profound_junk_science_of_climate.html&controllerId=__privateStripeController3781

$5$10$50Othernullhttps://lockerdome.com/lad/8965120688797543?pubid=ld-7146-6908&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com&rid=www.americanthinker.com&width=692

https://www.facebook.com/v2.6/plugins/like.php?action=like&app_id=172525162793917&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fx%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2F%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Df8b4fc3d43fd9c%26domain%3Dwww.americanthinker.com%26is_canvas%3Dfalse%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.americanthinker.com%252Ff2d40d8ced08b4c%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=90&font=arial&height=25&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Farticles%2F2021%2F11%2Fthe_profound_junk_science_of_climate.html&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=false&share=false&show_faces=false&width=90https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.a53eecb4584348a2ad32ec2ae21f6eae.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-1&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Farticles%2F2021%2F11%2Fthe_profound_junk_science_of_climate.html&size=m&text=The%20Profound%20Junk%20Science%20of%20Climate&time=1638056912497&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Farticles%2F2021%2F11%2Fthe_profound_junk_science_of_climate.html%23.YaLDyht6YjM.twitterShare209

American Thinker on MeWe

| Print| Email

Around The Web

4 Signs That Your Heart May Be At Risk (Check Now)PhysioTruHere Are 23+ Hottest Gifts of 2021TrendingGiftsPennsylvania: Do This Instead of Buying Expensive Solar Panels (It’s Genius)POWERHOME SOLARIt Was the Most Famous Movie Line Ever, but He Was Never Meant to Say ItItsTheVibeThe Crumbling Abandoned Mansions of Famous StarsItsTheVibe[Pics] All-time Top 30 Most Overrated SingersStandardNewssponsored contentFrom the WebPowered by ZergNet

Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ Transformation Is Beyond Staggering

Lady Gaga Shared This Blunt Reaction To Rittenhouse Verdict

Here’s What You Don’t Know About Greta Thunberg

Anna Kendrick Refuses To Do Nude Scenes And It’s No Secret Why

When You Start Sleeping Naked, This Is What Will Happen

Mike Lindell Explains Why God Kicked Trump Out Of White Housesponsored content

RECOMMENDED

|Pennsylvania: Do This Instead of Buying Expensive Solar Panels (It’s Genius)Can I Get Life Insurance After a Heart Attack?Doctors Stunned: This Removes Wrinkles Like Crazy! (Try Tonight)Here Are 23 of the Coolest Gifts for This 2021[Pics] Television’s 35 Most Fake Reality ShowsUnsold 2020 Suvs Almost Being Given Away in Huntingdon (See Prices)|

RECOMMENDED

Pennsylvania: Do This Instead of Buying Expensive Solar Panels (It’s Genius)Here Are 23 of the Coolest Gifts for This 2021Here Are 23+ Hottest Gifts of 2021The Most Successful Attorneys in Huntingdon. See the ListThis Revolutionary Portable Heater for Under $50 is Selling out in the UsThe 25 Strangest Animals Species on EarthThis Is How Much Attorneys Make In 2021 (See Their Salaries)Quiz: 93% Fail This ‘Name the Vintage Item’ Quiz. Will You?Bad Taste Coming Through the Keurig Machine?Ranking The Best Drummers of All-Time 1-25

FOLLOW US ON

American Thinker on Facebook
American Thinker on Twitter
American Thinker on MeWe

Recent Articles

Blog Posts

Monthly Archives

nullsponsored contentFROM THE WEBby ZergNet

Put Salt In The Corners Of Your Home, What Happens Is Staggering

Why Archie Is Noticeably Different In Meghan Markle’s New Photo

Jeff Foxworthy Kind Of Disappeared And It’s No Secret Why

TV Nerds Who Are Absolutely Gorgeous In Real Life

Tiffany Trump’s Transformation Is Really Beyond Staggering

What The World Needs To Know About McDonald’s Filet-O-FishAbout Us | Contact | Privacy Policy | RSS Syndication © American Thinker 2021