Midnight Meme Of The Day!

 

by Noah
Sunday Thoughts:

Christonuts just get more and more weird by the week. Sure, we already knew about Republican Christian types who believe the world is only 6000 years old and that our ancestors rode to work on dinosaurs. In their demented and critical thinking challenged minds, they know that's true because they saw it in The Flintstones and, for them, The Flintstones is a documentary. What? It's not just more leftist Hollywood propaganda? Anyway, some Christonuts appear to be taking their lunacy a step further, professing to believe that dinosaurs are, as their Dear Leader Donald would say, a hoax! They believe that dinosaurs never existed and, if you talk to them, they'll claim that Darwin's theory of evolution disproves them and so does the Bible because dinosaurs aren't mentioned, not on a single page or in a single verse! Or, as I would say, "Not a single God damn verse!"

Enter the group that goes by the name of Christians Against Dinosaurs, or, C.A.D. Christians Against Dinosaurs is fighting to reveal "the truth" about "The Dinosaur Lie." They claim to specifically believe that the scientific community made up the very idea of dinosaurs to thwart religion. In Tucson, Arizona, C.A.D. has launched a campaign to have a lifesize model of a Tyrannosaurus Rex removed from its location outside of a local McDonalds. Perhaps the group are really a militant group of Vegan militia who just have it in for meat eaters, or, maybe they fear the dinosaur because it isn't white. In any event, they think it should go and their facebook page now has approximately 25,000 likes. A spokeswacko on the page says:

Please help! This McDonald's has this dinosaur and refuse to remove it! This is Tucson, Arizona. Call the manager and demand removal of this blasphemy!

Is C.A.D. real or a satire? Does it even matter? It's all too real and believable and good satire has an all too real ring of truth about it. The poor writing of the above quote indicates that C.A.D. might be real. Plus, it is Arizona. Months of hundred degree weather does all sorts of things to the brain. Really, with today's Christians the world over, it's hard to tell whether they're joking or not. In fact, real Christians have been doing things just like this for hundreds of years, maybe 2000 years. Well, you decide. To me it's like something right out of a Carl Hiaasen novel. Another member of the group had this to say:

Yes, the dinosaur should go unless they're willing to compromise with a plaque of some kind stating that it's a fictional character.

Sure, buddy. Whatever you say. Now can I give you a list of people I know of devil worshipers who dress up as dinosaurs to eat aborted fetuses they get directly from witches employed by Planned Parenthood.?

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

As I write this on Tuesday afternoon, Hurricane Sally has parked itself, barely moving, in the Gulf Of Mexico, bashing a length of coastline from the Florida panhandle through Alabama and Mississippi all the way to Baton Rouge. Because it's stationary, the weather forecasters had to up the possible maximum rainfall totals from up to 15 inches to up to 30 inches or more. The residents in multiple areas may even be assaulted by not the usual one storm surge but two. Do I hear three? The coastline is low level to begin with. Would I live in such a place? No. But millions of my fellow humans, such as they are, do. Judging from their voting patterns, those fellow humans don't believe climate change is a problem. What it's gonna take is anybody's guess. It doesn't help that the politicians they elect tell them climate change is a hoax and there's nothing to panic about, or, as the idol of republicans everywhere says, "Science Doesn't know."

The freakish all but stationary Hurricane Sally is only a Category 1 hurricane and it's causing mega damage. What happens when a category 4 or 5 storm acts the same way as Big Bad Girl Sally? That's bound to happen sooner or later. Even a Category 3 will dump even more rain and it will do it with the added characteristic of action like God's own magnificent giant new power sander, leaving nothing, nada, zippo in its wake. That day is coming. The only thing science doesn't know is which day on the calendar that is. But, not to worry. No need to panic. It may come, but one day, like a miracle, it will disappear. And so will a lot of things; land, businesses, cars, boats, people... but not psychopathic and sociopathic scumbag politicians.

Does A President Actually Need To Know Anything... About Anything?

Smarter Than Trump by Chip Proser

Justin Amash plans to run for president on the Libertarian line. I wish he would have stayed in Congress but there's a strong chance he would have lost his seat. Jesse Ventura may run too (as a Green, no less). And Trump continues his real time meltdown in public. Or, as The Guardian's Arwa Mahadawi put it-- he's unravelling so badly that even his supporters can't ignore it. She wrote that she doesn't know "what kind of disinfectant he's been injecting, but the man does not appear to be well. The president’s lethal medical musing has turned him into (even more of) a global laughing stock and the widespread ridicule has clearly bruised his fragile ego. While Trump has never been a paradigm of calmness or competence, he has become increasingly irate and erratic in recent days. Now even his diehard supporters seem to be cooling towards him."

On a more serious note though, perhaps there are still some Republicans who have enough faith in science and reason to have had not with Trump. Historically, he's the most anti-Science president ever-- and that didn't start with his horrific and catastrophic response-- if you want to call it that-- to the pandemic. The NY Times' Lisa Friedman and Brad Plumer reminded their readers that he never tires of reminding everyone what a scientific genius he is. And that despite a signature "disregard for scientific advice... a defining characteristic" of the Trumpanzee regime.

As the nation confronts one of its worst public health disasters in generations, a moment that demands a leader willing to marshal the full might of the American scientific establishment, the White House is occupied by a president whose administration, critics say, has diminished the conclusions of scientists in formulating policy, who personally harbors a suspicion of expert knowledge, and who often puts his political instincts ahead of the facts.

“Donald Trump is the most anti-science and anti-environment president we’ve ever had,” said Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University. The president’s actions, he said, have eroded one of the United States’s most enviable assets: the government’s deep scientific expertise, built over decades. “It’s extraordinarily crazy and reckless,” he said.

...Well before winning the presidency, Mr. Trump had publicly questioned science by expressing skepticism about vaccines and suggesting climate change was a hoax fabricated by China.

Once in office, Mr. Trump’s administration quickly began work on one of its most far-reaching policies-- the systematic downplaying or ignoring of science in order to weaken environmental health and global warming regulations. Automakers, farmers and others had sought regulatory relief, saying that more flexible rules would still ensure progress on environmental protection while avoiding bureaucratic mandates. However, in implementing the rollbacks, the administration has marginalized key scientists, disbanded expert advisory boards and suppressed or altered findings that make clear the dangers of pollution and global warming.

More recently, as the coronavirus outbreak engulfed the nation, Mr. Trump has repeatedly clashed with his own public health experts.

He was slow to react to early internal warnings to take the outbreak more seriously and has promoted the use of various drugs to fight the virus even as scientists said there was no proof they would be effective. On Thursday, he suggested that injecting disinfectants might help defeat Covid-19, drawing global condemnation and ridicule.

And last week Mr. Trump publicly downplayed a warning by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the administration’s most visible medical expert, that the United States still lacked adequate capacity to test for the coronavirus. “I don’t agree with him on that, no,” Mr. Trump said. “I think we’re doing a great job on testing.”

The president also suggested that the virus might be gone by the fall, a line that was immediately countered by Dr. Fauci, who said: “We will have coronavirus in the fall. I am convinced of that.”

Historians and foreign policy experts said the administration’s disregard for scientific expertise-- combined with the nation’s broader retreat from international trade agreements and cross-border defense alliances like NATO-- is diminishing the nation’s status on the world stage. “America’s friends feel like they don’t even recognize us,” said Kori Schake, director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research organization.

Other critics noted that Mr. Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, a 2015 pact among nations to combat climate change, has left the world adrift on one of the biggest challenges to face humanity. And now, amid a sweeping global pandemic, Mr. Trump has said he will halt funding for the World Health Organization.

Part of what elevated America after World War II, Dr. Schake said, was that “we represented modernity in all its advantages,” whether by creating a polio vaccine or landing a man on the moon. “It will be a real struggle to restore the admiration for the United States that is such an important part of our power in the world,” she said.

The administration faces immense challenges in navigating the coronavirus outbreak. Shutdowns nationwide have already pushed 26 million people into unemployment. But health experts have converged on a broad agreement that sending people back to work too soon, before measures like a robust testing system are in place, risks causing a surge of new infections, deepening the crisis.

In many cases, the administration’s guidance broadly follows that scientific understanding. But experts have also warned that Mr. Trump’s frequent exhortations to quickly reopen the economy threaten to muddle a vital public health message at a precarious time.

“It’s precisely because we’re in this uncertain and perilous moment that it’s all the more important to rely on the best scientific advice,” said Lawrence Gostin, a professor of public health law at Georgetown University.

Mr. Deere, the White House spokesman, said any suggestion that Mr. Trump hasn’t consulted and relied upon health experts and scientific advisers “is just false.” On Friday Mr. Trump announced a phased approach to reopening the economy that the White House said is “based on the advice of public health experts.”

Past administrations have, to varying degrees, disregarded scientific findings that conflicted with political or policy priorities. For example, the Reagan administration was criticized by health experts for being slow to respond to the AIDS crisis in the 1980s. And in 2011, President Barack Obama’s top health official overruled Food and Drug Administration scientists who had found that over-the-counter emergency contraceptives were safe for minors.

But within the Trump administration, the attacks on science and expertise have been far more broad.

“Scientists tell them inconvenient things,” said Jerry Taylor, president of the Niskanen Center, a centrist research organization, and former climate change denialist who now advocates for the acceptance of climate science. “Whether we’re talking about the E.P.A. or we’re talking about climate change broadly speaking, or we’re talking about the coronavirus, his administration is constantly engaged in magical thinking.”

Critics of the administration’s actions both on environmental matters and the virus say that federal policy has been shaped to favor short-term economic gain at the expense of public health.

With much of the nation sheltering at home from the coronavirus-- bringing commerce to a halt, sending unemployment skyrocketing and causing turmoil in the financial markets-- the motivations to restart the economy are powerful. But Mr. Taylor of the Niskanen Center said that some conservatives were incorrectly diagnosing the stay-at-home orders as the main driver of the nation’s woes rather than the virus itself.

Mr. Taylor likened it to the argument that government action to fight climate change would be too costly in various ways-- an argument that overlooks the significant costs of inaction. “If we leave the underlying problem unattended,” he said, “the economic cost will be far greater.”

Meanwhile, the pandemic hasn’t slowed the administration’s environmental rollbacks.

Over the past month the Environmental Protection Agency has issued several deregulatory policies, including on mercury pollution and automobile emissions, overruling advice from the agency’s own independent advisory board that such findings lacked scientific rigor. The E.P.A. also refused to tighten air quality standards, despite preliminary research suggesting that long-term exposure to dirty air could exacerbate the risk of death from the coronavirus.

The administration has maintained that it can safeguard health and the environment while loosening restrictions on industry. Andrea Woods, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., said, “We have never ignored the science in making the very tough policy decisions required of the agency.”

The parallels between the administration’s environmental rollbacks and its coronavirus response are not exact. When it comes to the coronavirus outbreak, there is still an important counterweight to many of Mr. Trump’s impulses, most notably Dr. Fauci. Asked last week if he felt that experts at the National Institutes of Health were unable to speak their minds or oppose Mr. Trump, Dr. Fauci was unequivocal. “Absolutely no,” he said.

That stands in contrast to the administration’s approach on issues like climate change, where officials who have spoken out have found themselves sidelined.

In July, Rod Schoonover, a State Department intelligence analyst, resigned in protest after the White House blocked his discussion of climate science in Congressional testimony. In other instances, the administration has promoted climate denialists’ work and allowed them to insert misrepresentations of scientific facts into federal documents.

Still, there have been some prominent staff shake-ups at health agencies.

Before the pandemic began, the C.D.C. had reduced its staff in Beijing from approximately 47 to 14 under the Trump administration, a move that critics have said may have complicated its ability to confront the outbreak earlier. An agency spokesman said it had been done to focus more on “technical collaboration” with China, which requires fewer people.

In February, Nancy Messonnier, a top C.D.C. official, was removed from overseeing the agency’s coronavirus response. Dr. Messonnier had warned that Americans need to prepare for a “significant disruption” at a time when Mr. Trump was insisting that the virus was “very well under control in our country.”

Last week, Rick Bright was dismissed as the director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the agency involved in work on coronavirus treatments. Mr. Bright said he had been removed after urging caution in expanding access to hydroxychloroquine, the controversial treatment embraced by Mr. Trump. He also said the administration had put “politics and cronyism ahead of science.”

Mr. Trump has said he “never heard” of Dr. Bright. Mr. Deere, the White House spokesman, accused critics of waging a campaign “to criticize this president for discussing anything that might provide hope to the American people.”

That said, this brief e-mail came from a sharp-witted and much-loved congressman last night:

What kind of moron begins an e-mail solicitation with "Hey there?"

This kind of moron:

"Hey there. I’m Joe Biden, and I’m writing to you about a truly special moment in our campaign.

This afternoon, Secretary Clinton announced she's endorsing us. I’m so proud to have her support."

The entire freakin’ world economy is collapsing, U.S. COVID-19 deaths equaled U.S. deaths in the war in Vietnam today, and this jerk is touting an endorsement from Ms. Yesteryear.  (Are you still famous if your husband left office 20 years ago?)

I just can’t stand it.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

The Republican Party has always been loud, proud and totally out in the open about its disdain for science. To them, science is just so much mumbo-jumbo and downright witchcraft.

Now with the coronavirus pandemic, we can see a blatantly obvious real-life real-time consequence of that disdain, a disdain that 62,000,000 voters endorsed when they put on their stupid red hats and voted for their false idol. Some of those voters will eventually die directly because of their vote. They'll never acknowledge that of course.

Republicans would also have you believe that they are "The Pro-Life Party." That's evil enough but their propagandists at FOX "News," Breitbart, Drudge, Sinclair, OAN, and others are even more responsible. So will be any of the rest of us who let their evil go unpunished. Based on recent history, that will be the case but those just named not only ignored the danger, they pushed the psychotic lie that it was all a bigly "democrat hoax." Ditto Rush "Medal Of Freedom" Slimebaugh and those that slither up and down the stairs of the White House and through the corridors of the Capitol Building. Death is their calling card. This is a crime against humanity.

Under Trump, The Republican War On Science Has Been Succeeding-- And Just When Mankind Needs Science Most

A couple of days ago, a friend sent me a blistering note excoriating me for using the picture of Trump above. That isn’t why I’m running it again-- at least not the entire reason. This absolutely crucial piece in the NY Times hadn’t run yet but the perspective it conveys is exactly why the Trump-Morlock portrait is so perfect and so appropriate. The illustration does H.G. Wells proud.

"In just three years, the Trump administration has diminished the role of science in federal policymaking while halting or disrupting research projects nationwide, marking a transformation of the federal government whose effects, experts say, could reverberate for years. Political appointees have shut down government studies, reduced the influence of scientists over regulatory decisions and in some cases pressured researchers not to speak publicly. The administration has particularly challenged scientific findings related to the environment and public health opposed by industries such as oil drilling and coal mining. It has also impeded research around human-caused climate change, which President Trump has dismissed despite a global scientific consensus."





Are Trump and his supporters the equivalent of Wells’ Morlocks? Do you think the Climate Crisis is an existential threat to humanity? I asked a few of the candidates campaigning on a Green New Deal platform exactly that question. Rachel Ventura, a member of the Will County Board, was originally inspired to run for Congress for two big reasons: Medicare-for-All and the Climate Crisis. The district’s useless New Dem incumbent, Bill Foster isn’t interested in working on either issue and is, in fact, hostile to progressive policy solutions. Rachel responded to my question very simply: “Yes the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity.” And the went on in some detail-- including the video below:

I am supporting the Green New Deal because I envision using healthy tax incentives or direct rebates for people to make their homes more energy efficient, incentives to buy EV’s or hybrid vehicles and incentives to use wind or solar when it makes sense geographically. The same tax levers could be used for businesses and municipalities who want to make their automobile fleets electric or improve the efficiency of the building envelope, or HVAC system. Lastly, the Green New Deal is a large-scale jobs package that will put people back to work with a federal job guarantee that pays living wages. There is a jobs training program to transition people who are working in the fossil fuel industry over to green collar jobs. The focus is to reward people, businesses and municipalities who make carbon-free decisions.

Bill Foster supports the Use It Act and the 100% Clean Economy Act. The USE IT ACT appropriates $50 million of taxpayer money to capture carbon and use the carbon + water to push more oil out of the ground through a process called Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). Researchers have shown that this is far from being a "carbon neutral" process even though scientists who work for the fossil fuel industry claim it is.

The 100% Clean Economy act may sound good because it uses some of the same "findings" as the Green New Deal, but the bill doesn't clearly transition to renewable energy. Instead it creates a carbon balance sheet that requires carbon producers to sequester that carbon through the use of carbon sinks or other means. The goal is to get to a zero-carbon balance. The bill is not clear about who will get tax incentives, but it is most likely the fossil fuel industry that will be asking the taxpayers to fund their continued existence and pay for the catastrophe that they created. The remainder of the bill defines the federal agency so various entities can have a seat at the table.

Unlike my opponent, I believe that we need to leave oil in the ground, and I oppose the expansion of new fossil fuel infrastructure (pipelines or otherwise). We need to make companies that profited from pollution, pay to clean that pollution up. I have taken the no fossil fuel money pledge and am also not taking corporate PAC dollars.

In this 1-minute video I explain the difference between the Green New Deal and a fossil fuel bailout bill that my opponent supports called "The USE IT ACT.”

Similarly, Liam O’Mara is the progressive Democrat running to represent Riverside County residents in a district held by useless conservative Trumpist (and long-time crook) Kevin Calvert, a notorious climate change denier. O’Mara teaches history in a university and respects science for what it is. "Global warming, left unchallenged," he told us, “is an existential threat to life on earth. It requires changes in the way we conduct business, and in the products and resources we use, and it demands serious innovation. Ken Calvert has a 5% rating from the League of Conservation Voters, and while he pays lip-service to renewable energy sources, he opposes the needed investment, and continues to support expansion of fossil fuel extraction and subsidies for polluting industries. We need a Green New Deal to transform our energy infrastructure, and unless he is replaced Calvert will remain a road block to any serious effort to combat climate change."

Eva Putzova is running for Congress in a vast ecologically-vulnerable Arizona district whose current rep, Blue Dog Tom O'Halleran, was formerly a Climate denying state legislator. He's changed the "R" next to his name to a "D" but he hasn't changed what he believes. "The climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity," said Eva without hesitation. "I support the Green New Deal which is the very least we can do to start addressing the problem of the ever-rising levels of C02 in our atmosphere. My opponent, the incumbent, opposes the Green New Deal or any large scale effort to address the climate crisis. He is part of the practical-do-nothing-corporate wing of the Democratic Party that is more concerned with business profits and mindless growth than with the fate of the earth. He, and all the other blue dog Democrats need to be replaced!"

Please consider helming Eva, Liam and Rachel do just that by clicking on the Blue America thermometer above and contributing what you can. Saving the planet is real and we all do what we can. Contributing $10 or $20 to candidates like this trio who will replace Climate Crisis deniers is one way to pitch in-- and relatively easy way at that.

With The Green Parties Sweeping To New Heights In Europe, It's Important To Understand That The U.S. Equivalent Is NOT The Democratic Party-- At Least Not Yet

MD-05 primary voters will choose between a Climate denier and a Climate activist

On Memorial Day, the NY Times ran an important story by Coral Davenport and Mark Landler that has gone largely unseen, Trump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science. They make the point that Trump rolled back environmental regulations, pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord, brushed aside dire predictions about the effects of climate change, and turned the term 'global warming' into a punch line rather than a prognosis. But what they're planning is even worse:

In the next few months, the White House will complete the rollback of the most significant federal effort to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, initiated during the Obama administration. It will expand its efforts to impose Mr. Trump’s hard-line views on other nations, building on his retreat from the Paris accord and his recent refusal to sign a communiqué to protect the rapidly melting Arctic region unless it was stripped of any references to climate change.

The U.S. Geological Survey, now controlled by Trump appointee James Reilly, widely considered the least intelligent of all the former astronauts, "has ordered that scientific assessments produced by that office use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040, rather than through the end of the century, as had been done previously." The purpose is to distort assessments of the future impact of climate change "because the biggest effects of current emissions will be felt after 2040."

In our radio segment yesterday, David Feldman and I discussed the shocking electoral success Green parties had across Europe in Sunday's elections. All the polling predicted immense gains for the Trumpist neo-fascist extremists and none had so much as mentioned the Greens. Other than in Italy, where there appears to be a genuine craving for another Mussolini-- Trump, amigo Matteo Salvini-- the neo-fascists made much smaller gains than predicted. And the big story was the unexpected victories of the Greens. Not a factor in an Italy and Austria, each bent on re-embracing fascism, nor in Hungary and Poland, where fascism has already taken root, the Greens vaulted into second place in Germany and third place in France, stunned Spain by picking up 4 of the country's 54 seats, gained another 4 U.K. seats as younger voters abandoned Labour, and picked up both EU Parliament seats and local council seats in Ireland. In fact the Green Party candidate, Ciarán Cuffe, came in first in Dublin-- by far, beating the Fine Gael candidate 63,849 to 16,473.

What Feldman wanted to know was if this Green success in Europe meant progressives would have more success in the U.S. That calls for a nuanced response. First of all-- other than on environment and Climate-- Greens aren't necessarily progressive in Europe. The sharp rise in Green voters across the better-educated countries of Europe was primarily caused by two factors. First of all voters under 40 have been growing exasperated that the mainstream right-of-center and left-of-center parties that dominate most of Europe have virtually ignored their growing concerns about the effects of Climate Change (so, same as here). But what happened Sunday was coincident with anger towards the mainstream parties on may unrelated issues-- Brexit, for example.

The politicization of young people over Climate issues is probably as strong in America as in Europe. But in Europe Green parties have been building political machines for decades. That hasn't been the case in the U.S., where Climate activists have been struggling to gain a significant foothold inside a Democratic Party that is riven with grotesque corruption and a geriatric leadership that is two generations away from "getting" the problem. In the advanced European countries the Green Party is now mainstream. Their ideas are catching fire within the Democratic Party, but the party leadership still sees those ideas as a fad. Dinosaurs like Hoyer, Clyburn and Pelosi will have to die off-- at least politically-- before those ideas and that energy came overcome opposition from the younger leaders handpicked by the older leaders to replicate themselves-- whether a Hakeem Jeffries, a Ben Ray Luján or a Cheri Bustos. When AOC took out the designated Democratic leadership's successor to Pelosi, Joe Crowley, reeking of corruption (now a scumbag lobbyist), she struck the loudest political chord for Climate ever heard in this country.

As we saw last night, one of the most potent weapons Steny Hoyer's primary opponent, Briana Urbina, is wielding against him is his own stubborn and clueless refusal to understand the urgency of dealing with Climate Change. Urbina is in her 30's; in 2 weeks Hoyer will turn 80. His home-- and K Street-- will be underwater before he groks the crucial nature of Climate Change.

Heather Grabbe, director of the Open Society European Policy Institute, a think tank, explained that "Neoliberalism has triumphed in economic policy, with both the center-right and center-left adopting it. And then the economic crisis came along... The left did not provide alternatives." Huge numbers of German voters told exit-polling firms that Climate and the environment were their top concern as they made their final decision about who to vote for. In Germany that benefited the Green Party, which took 21% of the vote while the Social Democrats (the German equivalent of the Democrats) took 15.6% and the CDU (the German equivalent of the pre-Trump Republicans) took 28.7%.

If Germany has a politician who is their version of Trump, it would be the disgusting Alexander Gauland, head of the neo-Nazi Alternative for Germany (AfD). After the elections he recognized that it was neither the CDU nor the Social Democrats but the Greens who he called "our main enemy." Aside from hating Muslims, Jews, and foreigners, the AfD hates Science and denies man-made Climate Change.

Out of 235 Democrats in Congress, only 93 have signed on as co-sponsors to AOC's Green New Deal Resolution, several of whom are non-believers, just trying to avoid primary defeats. Not even all the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have signed on-- not to mention Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn-- and the resolution is being actively opposed by the increasingly powerful Republican wing of the Democratic Party (the Blue Dogs and New Dems). Progressive leaders like Pramila Jayapal, Ro Khanna, Ted Lieu, Raul Grijalva, Barbara Lee, Jan Schakowsky, Jamie Raskin, Jim McGovern (MA), Mark Pocan and Judy Chu are on-board, but of all those dozens of freshman members, just 10 are cosponsors besides AOC-- Rashida Tlaib (MI), Ayanna Pressley (MA), Mike Levin (CA), Joe Neguse (CO), Chuy Garcia (IL), Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (FL), Deb Haaland (NM), Veronica Escobar (TX), Lori Trahan (MA) and Jahana Hayes (CT).

First-time voters in Germany overwhelmingly picked the Green Party as their TOP choice on Sunday. Why should they pick the Democrats while Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn-- practically, and effectively, Climate Change deniers-- lead it in Congress, not to mention Status Quo Joe?

Can The Republican War On Science Actually Kill Us?

Tara Haelle's new book, Vaccination investigation made her a natural for the TED talk above, which focuses on the vaccine hesitancy and vaccine refusal that has been increasingly erupting into unpredictable disease outbreaks that are difficult to contain. her goal was to explain what underlies the irrational fear, that is being adopted by the anti-Science Party (AKA- the Republicans). Trump, for example, likes to carry on in public about crazy and disproven conspiracy theories linking vaccinations to autism.

Can we really blame this new threat on the GOP? You better believe it! Arthur Allen reported for Politico yesterday evening that "most Republicans are rejecting Democrat-led state bills to tighten childhood immunization laws in the midst of the worst measles outbreak in two decades, alarming public health experts who fear the nation could become as divided over vaccines as it is over global warming. Democrats in six states-- Colorado, Arizona, New Jersey, Washington, New York and Maine-- have authored or co-sponsored bills to make it harder for parents to avoid vaccinating their school-age children, and mostly faced GOP opposition. Meanwhile in West Virginia and Mississippi, states with some of the nation’s strictest vaccination laws, Republican lawmakers have introduced measures to expand vaccine exemptions, although it’s not yet clear how much traction they have." A handful of Republican physicians are trying to combat this lunacy-- including Bill Cassidy (LA), Phil Roe (TN) Michael Burgess (TX) and Brad Wenstrup (OH), but they're not getting anywhere.

All states have mandatory vaccination laws, but they vary in how liberally they dispense exemptions on religious or philosophical grounds. That’s getting scrutiny as measles spreads.

Democrats present bills tightening the loopholes as science-based and necessary to fight disease, while sometimes demeaning their foes as misguided or selfish “anti-vaxxers.“ Republicans portray themselves as equally enthusiastic about the life-saving virtues of vaccines, but many are loath to diminish the right of parental control over their children’s bodies, and yield that power to the government.

...Fed by major epidemics in Israel and in Europe, measles has punctured the U.S. barrier of immunity at multiple points of entry in what’s shaping up to be the worst year for the disease since 1993, with 555 cases through early April. Outbreaks in six states include hundreds of cases in ultra-Orthodox communities in Brooklyn and Rockland County, N.Y. And the numbers are growing.

“What if God forbid someone dies?” said Jeff Dinowitz, a Bronx assemblyman whose bill to limit religious exemptions has nine Democratic co-sponsors-- but no Republican backers-- in the New York Assembly.

Andrew Raia, ranking Republican on the New York Assembly’s health committee, said he wouldn't support the bill. While not totally convinced by constituents who link their children’s autism on vaccines, and unaware of any real religious injunction against vaccination, he said, “I’m not a religious leader, and I’m not a scientist either, so it’s my job to weigh both sides.”

...Since becoming president, Trump has dropped the subject and scrapped a plan to create a commission led by Kennedy Jr. to investigate a supposed coverup of vaccine’s supposed harms by public health officials.

But officials worry they are “three Trump tweets away” from an even more polarized situation, noted MIT political scientist Adam Berinsky, who has studied communication around politicized public health and scientific issues.

In Texas, the Tea Party and related groups created an anti-vax PAC in 2015. It hasn’t yet gotten its chosen candidates elected, but the very existence of a vaccine-oriented political action committee shows the political salience is growing. Influential voices on the right, including Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones, have all raised suspicions about vaccines.

“There’s a credulity gap between the parties in regard to science that wasn’t there 25 years ago,” Berinsky said. And Trump could easily inflame the vaccine skepticism, should he weigh in. For a large share of the highly polarized U.S. population, “at the end of the day it’s not the arguments people are making, but who is making them,” Berinksy said.

...A century of vaccination laws has shown that states with the strictest ones have lower burdens of vaccine-preventable disease. Scourges including smallpox, polio and diphtheria have been eliminated.

Rules generally get tighter following big outbreaks of disease, and groups like the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have used the measles outbreak to push for an end to state laws that allow people to refuse vaccination of their kids on religious or philosophical grounds.

In 1972, during a measles epidemic in Los Angeles, public health authorities kept 50,000 children out of school until their parents could prove they were vaccinated. The success of that effort led to a nationwide push for stricter laws and more enforcement.

After 89 people, mostly children, died in a 1990 measles epidemic, millions of dollars were poured into expanding vaccine availability for the poor, and in 2000, the disease stopped circulating in the United States. Since then, every case has been linked to visitors from overseas-- although the virus has then spread here among the growing pockets of vaccine shunners.

So obviously the Republican war against Science isn't just about vaccines and medicine. Please watch the incredible animated video above-- a message from the future by Grandma AOC. And... let me add a little random context from this morning's New York Times, written after the redacted Mueller report was finally released: "The White House that emerges from more than 400 pages of Mr. Mueller’s report is a hotbed of conflict infused by a culture of dishonesty-- defined by a president who lies to the public and his own staff, then tries to get his aides to lie for him."

Weaponizing the Presidency by Nancy Ohanian

Climate Change-- Are There Any Democrats Who Would Sell Out To The Koch Brothers?

Pelosi is serious when she appoints members to the House Science Committee. Ryan and Boehner always thought it was a time for humor. Imagine the laughs when Ryan appointed Scientologist and Big Oil puppet Lamar Smith chairman. How about Orange County crackpot, stoner Dana Rohrabacher? Webster (FL), Loudermilk (GA), Biggs (AZ)... all laughingstocks. Ryan just put another Arizonan on the committee last week, newly elected crazy person Debbie Lesko (AZ). "She's another nutter. We can't put her on a serious committee; put her on Science, where she can rant and rave." But the biggest lunatic on the Science Committee has got to be Alabama freak show Mo Brooks. Brooks was just the star of his own article in ultra prestigious Science magazine this week, Republican lawmaker: Rocks tumbling into ocean causing sea level rise. Embarrassing? Not to Brooks; just to America.

The Earth is not warming. The White Cliffs of Dover are tumbling into the sea and causing sea levels to rise. Global warming is helping grow the Antarctic ice sheet.

Those are some of the skeptical assertions echoed by Republicans on the U.S. House of Representatives Science, Space and Technology Committee yesterday. The lawmakers at times embraced research that questions mainstream climate science during a hearing on how technology can be used to address global warming.

A leading climate scientist testifying before the panel spent much of the two hours correcting misstatements.

The purpose of the hearing was to focus on how technology could be deployed for climate change adaptation. But the hearing frequently turned to the basics of climate science. Many of the questions by Republicans and Democrats alike were directed to Philip Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts and former senior adviser to the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said he was bothered that established climate science has not been questioned more by the committee, which has accused federal climate scientists of fraudulently manipulating climate data and subpoenaed their records.

"I'm a little bit disturbed by, No. 1, over and over again, I hear, 'Don't ever talk about whether mankind is the main cause of the temperature changing and the climate changing,'" he said. "That's a little disturbing to hear constantly beaten into our heads in a Science Committee meeting, when basically we should all be open to different points of view."

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the committee, entered into the record an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that claimed sea levels are not rising because of climate change, a view that rejects thousands of scientific studies. The piece was written by Fred Singer, who is affiliated with the Heartland Institute in Chicago, Illinois, which promotes the rejection of mainstream climate science.

"To solve climate change challenges, we first need to acknowledge the uncertainties that exist," Smith said in his opening remarks. "Then we can have confidence that innovations and technology will enable us to mitigate any adverse consequences of climate change."

At one point, Smith showed a slide of two charts that he said demonstrated how the rate of sea-level rise does not equal the sharp spike in the consumption of fossil fuels. When Smith pointed out that rates of sea-level rise have only increased slightly compared with the rate of fossil fuel use, Duffy pointed out that his chart was from a single tide gauge station, near San Francisco, and that sea levels rise at different rates around the world. Smith did not show rising atmospheric CO2 levels or temperatures, both of which have climbed steadily in recent decades as emissions have increased.

"The rate of global sea-level rise has accelerated and is now four times faster than it was 100 years ago," Duffy told Smith in response to the charts.

"Is this chart inaccurate, then?" Smith asked.

"It's accurate, but it doesn't represent what's happening globally; it represents what's happening in San Francisco," Duffy said.

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) questioned Duffy on the factors that contribute to sea-level rise, pointing out that land subsidence plays a role, as well as human activity.

Brooks then said that erosion plays a significant role in sea-level rise, which is not an idea embraced by mainstream climate researchers. He said the California coastline and the White Cliffs of Dover tumble into the sea every year, and that contributes to sea-level rise. He also said that silt washing into the ocean from the world's major rivers, including the Mississippi, the Amazon and the Nile, is contributing to sea-level rise.

"Every time you have that soil or rock or whatever it is that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise, because now you have less space in those oceans, because the bottom is moving up," Brooks said.

Duffy responded: "I'm pretty sure that on human time scales, those are minuscule effects."

Brooks added that Antarctic ice is growing. That was true a few years ago, and scientists say it does not disprove the theory of global warming because different factors affect the Arctic and Antarctic rates of melting.

"We have satellite records clearly documenting a shrinkage of the Antarctic ice sheet and an acceleration of that shrinkage," Duffy said.

"I'm sorry, but I don't know where you're getting your information, but the data I have seen suggests... " Brooks said.

Duffy answered: "The National Snow and Ice Data Center and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration."

"Well, I've got a NASA base in my district, and apparently, they're telling you one thing and me a different thing," Brooks said. "But there are plenty of studies that have come that show with respect to Antarctica that the total ice sheet, particularly that above land, is increasing, not decreasing. Now, you could make a different argument if you want to talk about Greenland or the Arctic."

Earlier this year, NASA researchers determined that Antarctica's ice loss has accelerated in the last decade. More broadly, sea ice extent at both poles set a record low last year. Scientists are racing to better understand the changes occurring in Antarctica because much of its ice is land-based, meaning it could drive sea-level rise around the world as it melts.

Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) said scientists said in the 1970s that the Earth was cooling, a popular talking point of climate skeptics and the subject of a fake Time magazine cover that has become a meme. Duffy corrected him and said that was essentially an outlier position at the time and that scientists long ago determined that humans were warming the planet.

Posey also asked how carbon dioxide could be captured in permafrost in the periods before humans existed. Duffy told him that it was from non-decayed organic matter. Human activity is now causing the Arctic to warm and thaw the ground, releasing the carbon into the atmosphere, Duffy said.

Posey then asked about theories related to warming being beneficial for habitats and to people.

"What do you say to people who theorize that the Earth as it continues to warm is returning to its normal temperature?" Posey asked.

"Look, if you want to characterize a temperature above today's temperature as normal, you're free to do that, but that doesn't mean that's a planet we want to live on," Duffy said.

"I don't want to get philosophical; I'm trying to stay on science here," Posey said.

"I'm not getting philosophical; I'm getting extremely practical," Duffy said. "I'm being extremely practical-- if we let the planet warm 2 or 3 degrees, we will have tens of meters of sea-level rise, and the community where I live will essentially cease to exist."

Posey responded: "I don't think anybody disputes that the Earth is getting warmer; I think what's not clear is the exact amount of who caused what, and getting to that is, I think, where we're trying to go with this committee."

And speaking about climate deniers, the leaders of that movement in the U.S. are the Koch brothers. They've funneled millions of dollars to right-wing Republicans who support their reactionary program. But, as NPR reported early Thursday morning "in the era of Trump, what it means to be on the 'right' is changing, and the Koch network's tactics are changing to reflect new realities... The Koch brothers are going rogue." They're singling out some notorious corrupt conservative Democrats to bribe: so far Ben Ray Luján (NM), Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM), Raul Ruiz (CA) Pete Aguilar (CA) and Chris Coons (DE). They're paying them off under the guise of the Koch' s efforts backing immigration, which they support to keep wages low. Below is an expensive mailer they sent out to more than 100,000 of Luján's constituents in northern New Mexico:

Every candidate Blue America has endorsed will be a fighter for action on climate change. Few are campaigning on it as hard as Paul Clements in southwest Michigan (MI-06). It's very personal for him. This morning he sent us this way of looking at it:

When I was a little kid and knocked over a glass of milk, I remember saying, “The milk spilled.” But it’s pretty easy to clean up milk. And I couldn’t very well deny that there was milk all over the table.

I get it that some people don’t want to take responsibility for climate change. It has a terrible momentum. Ninety percent of the heat that our carbon pollution has captured is in the oceans, and some of that heat will come back to the atmosphere. The economic life of the world’s infrastructure already takes us past two degrees Celsius of warming. In a best case scenario the storm devastation in Puerto Rico, the fires in California, are only a pale foretaste of what is to come. I wouldn’t want to be responsible for droughts and floods driving hundreds of millions of people to become refugees either.

But closing your eyes doesn’t help. We are in danger of becoming desensitized to Trump’s lies (what, he lied again!) and to Republican climate science denial. We must not. America has contributed more to cumulative global carbon dioxide emissions than any other country. The death and destruction from unchecked global warming make climate science denial criminal. When the Republican Party packs the House Science Committee with deniers it is blocking responsible action that actually could save civilization. We are responsible and responsible behavior is extraordinarily urgent.

Tom Guild is a different kind of Democrat than Ben Ray Luján. Guild is not on the take, has nothing to do with the Koch brothers, and he is a firm believer in the proposition that as a nation-- and a species-- we have to get to work on remediating climate damage... and fast. "I remember," he told us, "early in my academic career there were studies that said people weren’t harmed by secondhand smoke. Later, it was revealed that those studies were funded by the tobacco industry. Now, it is clear to anyone who thrives on anything short of 'alternative facts,' that secondhand smoke is dangerous to anyone in its direct path and that millions have become sick and lost their lives because of exposure to secondhand smoke. Pregnant mothers and parents of small children have become particularly sensitized to and keenly aware of the dangers their nicotine habits pose to those they love. Now, come the science and climate deniers, claiming that humans as a significant and major cause of climate change is in dispute. Some scientists have concluded that we have about 100-150 years to turn things around or planet earth with go into an irreversible process that will eventually render our planet uninhabitable in the not to distant future. Climate deniers rely on 'quack' science, often funded by Big Oil and the fossil fuels industry, to make close cousin arguments to those made in the secondhand smoke debate a few decades ago. The stakes then were losing friends, family members, and loved ones to cancer, emphysema, and other dreadful diseases causing painful and agonizing death. The stakes surrounding the climate change debate today include losing the only inhabitable planet to which we have access. The best and brightest members of the US House, should be placed on important committees like the House Science Committee. Ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance undeterred can lead to the extinction of humankind in fairly short order. Can you say Dodo bird?"

No One Has Told The DCCC Yet, But Derrick Crowe Is Ready To Oust Lamar Smith In TX-21

On Monday, Evan Lund penned a post, Climate Denier Congressman Lamar Smith Contends With New Foe: Declining Voter Support, for an environmental website, Earth Island Journal, that should strike a note of fear in the Lamar Smith campaign... if they read environmental websites. They don't. From 1988 to 2002, Smith had never won reelection with less than 72% of the vote. "The secret to his winning ways?" asked Lund.

After receiving the Award for Conservative Excellence, Smith stated, “My votes represent my constituents. I continue to stand for liberty, personal responsibility, traditional values, and a strong national defense.” Simple as that-- keep your constituents happy, keep your job. Yet, as important as ideology is to attracting voters, campaign contributions are what keep the lights on, and in Texas, donors in the energy business hold sway over anyone seeking public office. True to its big motto, Texas is the nation’s leading energy producer and consumer, responsible for more than one-third of total US oil production and home to one-quarter of proven natural gas reserves. With more operable oil refineries than any other state, the industry generates enormous levels of revenue-- last year, it pumped $9.4 billion into state and local government budgets. For politicians, these industrial goliaths present a choice: either advocate for their interests or scrutinize their means of production. Not that it’s that cut and dry, but what is clear is that Rep. Smith forged his alliance long ago, having received over the course of his career more than $700,000 from the oil and gas industry.

As such, Smith’s enduring interest in dismantling regulations geared toward combating climate change can be interpreted as “bought.” There’s nothing conservative about his skepticism of climate science-- he is an outspoken denier of the causes and dire expected outcomes of anthropogenic climate change, and since being appointed the HCSST chairman, he has made it his mission to investigate federal agencies for what he believes to be rampant environmentalism and unnecessary, harmful regulation. His dismissive attitude doesn’t stop at manmade global warming-- he has openly doubted an EPA review documenting the dangers of glyphosphate, the peer review process itself at the National Science Foundation (NSF), and air pollution regulations informed by public health studies, to name just a few.

With an anti-regulation administration as his tailwind, Chairman Smith and Vice Chairman Frank Lucas recently recycled two pieces of legislation, wrapped them in shiny packaging, and reintroduced both to the House of Representatives as bills advocating for transparency and accountability in science-based policy, while guarding against the scrum of compromised bureaucracy. Both were passed by the House in late March, and await Senate consideration.

The first bill, the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act, is part of Smith’s continuing strategy to make the EPA, and science itself, great again. To purportedly promote governmental transparency and maintain the integrity of the scientific review process, the HONEST Act’s payload is prohibiting the agency from “writing any regulation that uses science that is not publicly available.” As the HCSST chairman, Smith already has the outright power to demand supporting documentation of published studies from federal agencies within his purview, a rule amended and expanded this past January. If an agency doesn’t comply, he can issue a subpoena. Since its inception more than 60 years ago, the subcommittee has invoked that power in total fewer times than Smith has in his first three years leading the committee.

Moreover, it’s not as if the EPA, or any federal agency, has closed its door to the public. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) already provides any person the right to access federal agency records, including, for example, the data cited in a study used by the EPA for the purposes of advocating specific policy. However, there are nine exemptions to the FOIA, and this is where the HONEST Act can harm the EPA. For example, the EPA can currently use and cite studies involving personal medical records to develop public health advisories. If signed into law, the HONEST Act wouldn’t necessarily inhibit the EPA from sourcing confidential information-- as long as everything confidential is redacted prior to public availability. Insurmountable? No, but considering the estimated cost of enforcing its stipulations and factoring in President Trump’s proposed budget cuts, the HONEST Act would almost guarantee less regulation and evidence-based policy from the EPA, irrespective of the public need for it.

Note: Only 7 Republicans had the guts to vote against Smith's crazy, dishonest and environmentally devastating bill. It passed 228-194, 3 corrupt Blue Dogs crossing the aisle and voting for planetary destruction: Jim Costa (CA), Henry Cuellar (TX) and Collin Peterson (MN). The second bill, the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Reform Act, "seeks to upend the types of professionals that comprise the 48-person panel of experts in place to provide independent scientific counsel to the agency." It passed 229-193, with 5 Republicans voting NO but 2 scummy Blue Dogs voting with the GOP, Peterson again, plus Oregon right-wing lunatic Kurt Schrader.

Currently, the majority of the board is academic scientists; if passed, the act will cater to industry representatives from private companies who “may have a potential interest in the Board’s advisory activities.” In brief, the SAB Reform Act would bar any scientist holding an EPA grant from serving due to the potential conflict of interest, as well as prohibit a board member from being awarded one for three years following their service, yet it would allow a scientist from say, Exxon, because that affiliation shouldn’t exclude their membership provided they disclose any conflicts.

Keep in mind that the SAB doesn’t award grants or establish budgets, and if a situation arose, for example, where a chemical studied by an SAB scientist was being investigated by the SAB, that member would already have to recuse themself. Smith maintains that there’s nothing to see here, claiming that reform is necessary to strengthen the public’s trust in the EPA through increased transparency, opportunity for public participation in the review process, and accountability of a well-balanced SAB.

...Meanwhile, the 2018 midterm elections are quickly approaching, and there are signs that Smith’s seat may be in jeopardy. Last year, for the first time in his career, Smith received less than 60 percent of the general vote, and many voters in his district are growing tired of his inaccessibility. And in a break from previous election cycles, in 2016 the editorial board at the San Antonio Express News refused to support Smith’s reelection bid. The board’s public announcement ended with a statement to their readers that they “have no doubt that Smith will be reelected, but in good conscience... cannot make a recommendation in this race.”

Although the DCCC has recruited and is secretly backing another one of their shitty "ex"-Republican multimillionaires pretending to be a Democrat, Joseph Kopser, there is real hope in a real Democrat, Derrick Crowe, who has been endorsed by Blue America. As Lund noted, Crowe is "prioritizing climate change policy as a key pillar of his platform. Albeit politically perilous for some candidates, choosing a side is a smart move because this debate is only getting louder. Public advocacy organizations like TX21 Indivisible and 314 Action represent a grassroots movement opposing Smith and his brand of ideological fervor that flies in the face of scientific evidence their members support... [Smith, an] emboldened politician, who has built his brand on publicly mocking and harassing climate scientists, finds himself in perhaps the most precarious position of his career. Almost a decade after Republican presidential candidate John McCain ran on a platform aligned with the consensus of climate scientists regarding emissions-reductions action, the evidence linking human activity to a warming planet has only grown stronger. A study investigating the economic impact of climate change in America recently published in Science Magazine revealed some disturbing potential outcomes for large swaths of Texas, including a 20 percent increase in energy costs by 2080. For politicians, climate change is becoming less a peripheral topic that can be casually dismissed and more like a voter issue with real-world, near-term implications. In terms of catastrophic outcomes, climate scientists keep telling us that the real question is not if they will occur, but when. For Lamar Smith, it might finally be time to consider the same."

Earlier today, we asked Derrick Crowe about the hypocrisy inherent in Smith's refusal to vote for aid for the victims of Hurricane Sandy in New York and New Jersey, but his apparent approval of spending potentially much more money closer to home for the victims of Hurricane Harvey. He pointed out that "Natural disasters and the growing climate emergency require us to pull together as a nation to deal with challenges that one region could never shoulder on their own. That's what we mean by 'one nation, indivisible.' Lamar Smith's grandstanding on his extreme version of conservatism endangers his constituents and Texans generally by undermining people's willingness to support our area when it's our turn to need help. In fact, this whole attitude extends to his larger stance on issues like health care.

"When you add the fact that Smith has consistently opposed real action on climate change, it's clear that Smith's reactionary politics are a liability to the people of this district. Consider that just a few weeks ago, Smith wrote an op-ed where he said global warming and 'carbon enrichment' have great upsides for which we should be thankful. Tell that to the victims of Hurricane Harvey, who had to suffer unprecedented rainfall, of which up to 30 percent could be attributed to human-caused global warming."

It's time-- truthfully, very much past time-- for every American to take a stand on this. We're either going to lead the world out of this severe existential climate mess or we're going to flush all of mankind's future down the toilet by going along with the corrupt, bought-off political hacks like Lamar Smith. Smith already has $814,898 in his war-chest for 2018 and, although Derrick won't have to match that, he will need help to get his message (and his name) known to TX-21 voters. Please re-read what he said above and, if it appeals to your way of thinking on this, consider helping fund his grassroots campaign to flip a red seat blue-- and, in the process, emancipate our brothers and sisters in downtown Austin! Just click on the 2018 Blue America ActBlue thermometer on the right and cruise down to Derrick Crowe's name and give what you can.

What Did Lamar Smith Learn On His Taxpayer-Funded Trip To Greenland?

Texas Congressman Lamar Smith is a joke. NO, I don't mean he's a joke the way most of the Texas GOP delegation is a joke. Smith is a very special joke. When the House GOP leadership decided to make Lamar Smith chairman of the House Science Committee, it was a big yuck all over Capitol Hill. Smith is a crackpot Christian Scientist who doesn't believe in Science itself-- nor in the whole concept of "facts." The committee dates back to 1959 when it was established as the House Committee on Science and Astronautics. The committee's heyday was under a mainstream and conscientious Republican, Sherwood Boehlert of New York. But soon after, it used to be a joke to Boehner and Cantor that they had another Texas non-Science believer, ancient and very, very senile Ralph Hall, as the chairman. When he couldn't keep his bodily functions in check any longer they decided to go with Lamar who they were sure would be just as entertaining. And if you don't like Lamar, they always laugh, #2 on the committee is another fringe lunatic-- albeit a stoned one-- Dana Rohrabacher. Other anti-science circus performers thrown onto the committee include Frank Lucas (R-OK), Mo Brooks (R-TX), Bill Posey (R-FL), Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), Randy Weber (R-TX), Steve Knight (R-CA), Brian Babin (R-TX), Gary Palmer (R-AL), Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) and crazy old Daniel Webster (R-FL). But Lamar is the chief in the Republican Party's War on Science.

Last week we found out that Lamar Smith had a fabulous-- and secret-- adventure to Greenland last May. He and a delegation including a bunch of other climate change deniers from his committee, plus 3 Democrats, went to the Arctic to see the impact of climate change first hand.

It had the potential to be an awkward or even hostile visit. As chair of the science committee for the past four years, Rep. Smith of Texas has waged a public war with federal climate scientists, or “so-called self-professed climate scientists,” as he called them in March. He’s challenged their research and integrity, repeatedly subpoenaed their emails, and voted to gut their funding.

Billed as an oversight visit for the science committee, the May 8–14 trip included a series of closed-door sessions for the politicians to inspect facilities and learn about federally funded science conducted at research hot spots in the Arctic Circle, as well as social events for the lawmakers and their families. No one publicized the visit, and some scientists told BuzzFeed News they were instructed not to talk about it.

In this part of the world, the realities of climate change are hard to ignore. On an aerial tour of Greenland, for example, the lawmakers saw the retreating “sugar top” ice cap and connecting glaciers. Scientists told them about how warmer temperatures had even changed the local insect populations.

“They were pretty clear that 10 years ago they didn’t have mosquitoes in the summer and now they do,” said Rep. Jerry McNerney, a Democrat who joined the committee because he wanted to take action on climate, and who accompanied Smith to the Arctic. “There was some real direct, you know, concrete evidence that things are changing.”

...Smith wasn’t the only one who has voiced doubts about climate change or responding to the threat: Lucas, for example, has questioned whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and Babin applauded President Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement. [Mark] Sanford, though, was one of 17 Republicans who introduced a resolution in March to come up with "economically viable" climate change solutions.

...The first stop was the northernmost US city, Alaska’s Utqiagvik (formerly called Barrow). The people who live there face multiple climate threats, such as flooding from rising seas and infrastructure failures linked to the thawing of frozen ground.

At the Barrow Arctic Research Center, the group learned about microbial life in extreme conditions such as sea ice. And at the tribal community college Ilisagvik College, the lawmakers heard presentations on NSF-funded studies of indigenous languages and the effects of a warming climate on Arctic microbes.

“I was less than a month into my job role (Executive Director of Institutional Advancement) and a bit nervous,” Justina Wilhelm from Ilisagvik College wrote in an email. “Overall the visit was positive and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to provide a tour to the NSF congressional delegation.”

The next day, at the Barrow Atmospheric Baseline Observatory, the group learned about how scientists monitor the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the air, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration spokesperson confirmed.

The second half of the trip was spent hopping between US-run facilities in Greenland. The group arrived at the Thule Air Base, in western Greenland, on May 11. That evening they dined in semiformal wear with researchers at the base’s “Top of the World” officers’ club, according to two researchers who were in attendance.

Nimesh Patel, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said he got a heads-up about the visit a week before. He was already going to Greenland for a conference, and scrambled to coordinate flights to get to the remote base after. In Thule, he gave the delegation a tour of a massive telescope under construction.

“I was left with the feeling that they were really interested in the science,” Patel said. This confused him a bit, he added, given the committee’s history of being “not genuinely very supportive, it seems, of science, particularly Lamar Smith.”

Derrick Crowe is the progressive alternative to Smith in the central Texas district stretching from the UT campus in Austin through the Hill Country, San Marcos and New Braunfels and as far south as the South Texas Medical Center and Government Hill in San Antonio. Crowe hopes to build on the progress Tom Wakely made in his heroic challenge to Smith last cycle. Wakely announced today that he's running for governor. ("Today," he said in a statement, "I enter the Texas Governor’s race on the heels of Gov. Abbott’s attacks on labor, on women, on refugees and immigrants, on Hispanics and other minorities, on the LBGTQ community, on the poor in our state, on our environment and on our great cities. His attacks on our fellow Texans need to be responded to with the most forceful weapon we have at our disposal - the ballot box." Meanwhile Crowe is a quick learner when it comes to all things Lamar. "Unfortunately any trip Lamar Smith takes to a site to discuss federal climate research is likely a pretext for an effort to cut federal efforts to mitigate climate disaster. Smith has led the charge to deceive the public about the oncoming climate crisis and his political donors' culpability for it. He has a lot to answer for, and no publicity stunt can change that."