The continuing (and growing) influence of the Koch brothers' operations over US politics

What bothers me most about the Koch Brothers is their racial bigotry, and their wealth to spread hate and ignorance.

I am not aware of (thought perhaps I've forgotten) any overt racism from these guys, certainly not in recent years. Their father was a key figure in the John Birch society, of course, and they've learned not to openly say certain things but I have no evidence they concur with the bigotry of the JB movement.

Still, in a sense it doesn't matter if they harbor such sentiments because they have been and are acting now to thwart maximal voting (by African Americans and Latinos particularly but also any group that can be expected to vote predominately for the Dem party. That makes them functional racists in any case.

But that's really not the big thing here which is the ultra-extremism of their political ideas. They are so inculcated with the notion that liberal democracy and social programs are an axiomatic evil that they will (and have) built up a vast organization which has the goal of ensuring their political vision is implemented and that progressive/liberal governance is thoroughly and permanently prohibited. They are the most threatening force for the destruction of real democracy in the US because they do not believe in it and because of the level of wealth and organization at their disposal.

http://www.alternet.org/7-disturbing-facts-about-koch-brothers-relationship-race-and-civil-rights

Yes. I'm familiar with that data. But again, this points to a functional racism (they will happily include racist individuals and organizations in their network or support them financially) rather than personal sentiments about non-whites.

If there is some concrete evidence that, like Trump and his father who purposefully acted to keep African Americans out of their buildings, that would be something else.

Yes, I'm aware of Murray and his work. He is a speaker who has been welcomed in right wing circles for two decades as an ideological and political intellectual who "validates" certain helpful notions.

I've noted this elsewhere but it should be included here as well being highly relevant to the topic
http://bit.ly/2giTIvO

I could go on about Trump's complete ignorance of the relevant issues but Jon Chait has already done it. http://nym.ag/2giTfK3
He's not acting out of any knowledge or even any discernible philosophy. He's either being manipulated by the people and forces around him without a sense of that or he is aware but feels he needs to keep these powerful interests on his side.

Vox also has a great piece on all of this including the wide benefits that NASA's research gives the US and the world. http://bit.ly/2giPrbA

One of the most egregious aspects to what Walker and those like him are doing is making the claim that climate research is "politicized". By which he/they imply that the scientific findings are warped or false because some political agents are somehow convincing the scientists involved to find X but not Y, and these scientists are playing along for reasons usually unstated. There's one exception to that which I'll address below.

Of course, this is a completely disingenuous and propagandist narrative. The science on GW emerged slowly until the present where scientific consensus is overwhelming in conclusion about the reality of GW and the dire threat it poses for nations/peoples around the world and to the world's ecosystems. But there has been politicization, for sure, though it is coming from political agents serving the interests of energy industries (the research on this is deep and there's lots of it).

Finally, the motive most often given for scientists fabricating results or hiding contrary results, etc is "There's money to be made by them". The fundamental notion there is that where ever money arrives in a human situation, one must presume that individual greed will always or often overturn other considerations such as professional ethics. That's a bad argument for lots of reasons but in this particular case, it's about as lousy as arguments get. Why? Because if you hold that a financial interest inevitably corrupts, then you ought not to be looking at a relatively small number of scientists (who'd mostly be working on other questions for not much money) but you'd be looking at the wealthiest industries in the history of the world and the threat to their bottom lines.