Hey everyone, many of you are aware of
my distaste for Bobby Kennedy, the
maniac who Trump named head of HHS.
Well, he's not the only Trump appointee
who's a science denying monster. If you
thought someone who denies the germ
theory of disease being in charge of
public health was bad, how about a
climate change denier in charge of the
EPA? That's good old Lee Zeldon. Let's
talk about him. As we've discussed
before, every single member of Trump's
cabinet is a [\h__\h] nightmare. It truly
is a horror show that is unrivaled in
American history. As a science
communicator, I tend to focus on those
who deny science, especially science
that is critical to their specific
function. So, apart from public health,
we can obviously turn to the
environment. The Environmental
Protection Agency or EPA was created by
President Richard Nixon in 1970 to
consolidate federal pollution control
responsibilities. This was in response
to specific incidents in the 1960s, like
a massive 3 milliongal oil spill off the
coast of Santa Barbara and the highly
polluted Kyhoga River in Ohio bursting
into flames. It's true, the government
once cared about curbing pollution. Kind
of funny how the formerly disgraced
Richard Nixon looks like a godamn night
in shining armor compared to modern
standards, don't you think? Anyway, it's
quite logical to conclude that private
corporations shouldn't be able to just
dump toxic sludge in the water and
poison the air and what have you. So,
the EPA was formed to create and enforce
laws that prevent them from doing that.
I know, I know. Big government is at it
again, always doing a communism and
stopping the poor billionaires from
having all their fun. Now, sketchy
corporate shills heading large
departments in the US government is not
brand new. Numerous secretaries have
come directly from positions lobbying
for defense contractors or Wall Street
or pharma or big energy. But the
wholesale denial of central pillars of
science that define the role of a
position is pretty [\h__\h]
unprecedented. Only two climate change
deniers have ever been head of EPA.
Scott Puit appointed by Trump in 2017
and Lee Zeldon appointed by Trump in
2025. Go Donald. Two for two. While
Scott rejected the firm and irrefutable
fact that carbon dioxide emissions are
the primary driver of climate change,
which is objectively happening, Lee has
already enacted major efforts towards
rolling back environmental protections
of all varieties. He headlined the
fringe conservative project 2025
adjacent Heartland conference, which
promotes climate change denial of the
most cartoonish variety. The first EPA
head to ever do such a thing. and he was
treated like a [\h__\h] rock star by all
the fossil fuel execs who have been
waiting for a guy like this for decades.
If you'd like to think that this is
coming from a place of scientific
expertise, think again. He's a lawyer
and politician. He knows nothing about
climate science or any science at all.
He's a puppet for deregulation, nothing
more. And dismantling the EPA is indeed
one of the day one priorities of Project
2025. So, that should put his
appointment in the proper context. The
purpose of this video is not to convince
anyone that climate change is real. It
is. Anthropogenic climate change is
objectively real. There is no arguing
this. If you need help understanding why
this is the case, watch my exceptionally
thorough video debunking the script of
lies pedled by Matt Ridley, the coal
baron. It goes through a mountain of
primary literature demonstrating the
precise amount of warming that has
occurred since a pre-industrial
baseline, the catastrophes that await us
should certain levels of warming be
reached, and the timeline we're on for
that to happen. It's about 20 years, by
the way. The science is not vague or
inconclusive in the slightest, and I'm
going to operate according to that firm
knowledge in this video. The goal today
is to look at Lee's policies and
demonstrate that he is a gigantic bag of
dicks whose only purpose is to do
everything he can to assist the private
sector in destroying the environment and
severely endangering the entire global
human population. Sound good? Great.
First things first, under Lee, the EPA
repealed the 2009 Endangerment Finding,
which stated that greenhouse gas
emissions threaten public health and
welfare, since they [\h__\h] do, and
which is the underpinning of nearly all
climate regulations under the Clean Air
Act for all major pollution sources.
This repeal eliminates all greenhouse
gas emission standards and may very well
lead to a broader undoing of more
regulations. So, basically, the head of
the EPA said, "Hey, everyone, pollute
the air as much as you want." Stunning.
No. Plenty of experts have made
appropriately critical statements citing
the fact that there is zero basis for
arbitrarily overturning the firm results
of decades of research. But Lee and
Trump shot back with blah blah libtards
blah blah Obama something something.
Next, not directly pertaining to Lee,
but Trump has also decided to halt a
research initiative involving over 900
deep sea ocean sensors distributed
around the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
These monitor temperature, salinity,
change in ocean currents and more. One
of the ramifications of climate change
beyond simply higher average global
temperatures is increased melting of the
polar ice caps which introduces massive
amounts of fresh water to salty oceans.
Fresh water is less dense than salt
water. So this disrupts natural density
driven circulation which we call ocean
currents. These currents are essentially
huge conveyor belts of water that
regulate climate and weather patterns
bringing warmer water to the poles and
cooler water to the equator. As this
disruption continues with increased
warming, apart from the enormous problem
of sea level rise, there are issues
regarding ocean acidification, fishing,
hurricanes, rainfall, droughts, and
therefore agriculture. We are talking
about widespread crop failures which
could lead to mass starvation. It's a
complete catastrophe. So, not only did
Trump decide we're going to do
absolutely [\h__\h] all to prevent it, he
wants to make sure we can't even monitor
how close we are to all this [\h__\h]
happening. If we're blind to the damage,
nobody can be held accountable, right?
And why limit your careless destruction
to America when you can [\h__\h] over the
whole world, right? Moving right along.
As much as I would love to not have to
talk about Bobby Kennedy for a single
day in my life, Lee's crusade of science
denial overlaps tremendously with
Bobby's Maha movement. These two figures
are not just about denying pillars of
science but also loosening regulations
for harmful substances. First up, poly
floroalkkal substances or PAS. These are
so-called forever chemicals, meaning
they do not readily degrade like most
other compounds. Their accumulation in
soil and water, which leads to human
exposure, is linked to cancer and other
health issues. Remember, Bobby wouldn't
shut up about these things during his
2024 presidential campaign. the
potential harm they cause was one of his
favorite talking points for seeming like
a champion of the people. Keep that in
the back of your head as we get some
background information on these
substances. The environmental
persistence of PAS stems from the
fundamental properties of florine as the
most electrogative element on the
periodic table. The introduction of
florine into organic molecules
significantly alters their
physicochemical properties. The strength
of the carbon florine bond gives these
substances high thermal and chemical
stability and polymers filled with these
bonds exhibit a surface tension that is
much lower than that of conventional
polymers. The definition of PAS is
continuously evolving. Generally we are
talking about chemicals with at least
one per florinated methyl group CF3 or a
perllorinated methylene group CF2.
Commercially PAS are produced via two
main pathways electrochemical
florination and fueltric methods. These
different industrial manufacturing
processes allow for millions of
potential structural variations and
there are indeed thousands of such
compounds that are widely used. PFOA or
perflloroctinoic acid and PFOS or
perflloroctane sulfonate are the two
most prevalent contaminants often
referred to as legacy PAS. These are
used in the manufacturing of Teflon for
non-stick cookware, waterproof clothing,
stain resistant carpeting, packaging,
surfactants, all kinds of stuff. They're
are very neat and useful compounds with
many applications, but they do not
belong inside the human body. Good so
far. Now, unfortunately, this enormous
diversity of PAS variants presents a
major challenge due to the severe data
gaps in their toxicity. Shorter chain
alternatives often called emerging PAS
are not necessarily safer than the
legacy compounds and the smaller
compounds can also be volatile enough to
be detected in the atmosphere. In
aquatic models, these newer variants
trigger tissue specific disruptions
including enzyme modulation and
inhibited antioxidant pathways in the
digestive system. These are findings
that highlight the need for new
comprehensive biomarker assessments to
monitor the effects of emerging PAS.
Having no data on most of these
compounds makes it a stupid gamble not
to regulate them given the toxic
properties observed in the few PAS we
actually have a good amount of data on.
The toxicological profile of PAS was
first brought to light in the 1950s.
Early academic research demonstrated
that these compounds bind to proteins in
human blood. Researchers at DuPont, one
of the largest manufacturers at the
time, received preliminary reports which
revealed that PFOA exposure led to
hepidomegali or enlarged liver in rats.
These findings were largely withheld
from regulatory bodies allowing
unmititigated environmental disposal to
continue near manufacturing sites.
Unlike classic persistent organic
pollutants which are often stored in
fatty tissues, PAS mimics the properties
of surfactants and fatty acids. This
tendency biomagnifies PAS up the food
chain by binding to serum proteins and
liver tissue. Modern epidemiological and
toxicological consensus confirms that
PAS exposure is detrimental to human
health. While the bioaccumulation
mechanism is not well understood,
computational simulations reveal that
short-chain variants spontaneously
aggregate into submicels whereas
longchain compounds must absorb onto the
cell membrane surface before
transllocating across it.
Bioaccumulation of these compounds has
been linked to liver and kidney disease,
thyroid and reproductive dysfunction,
elevated serum cholesterol, and
testicular cancer. The legacy compounds
PFOA and PFOS are routinely detected at
higher concentrations in human serum
than any other PAS variants. This high
systemic prevalence is concerning given
their recent carcinogenic
classifications by the International
Agency for Research on Cancer, which
designated PFOA as a group one
carcinogen, meaning carcinogenic to
humans, and PFOS as a group 2B
carcinogen, meaning possibly
carcinogenic to humans. Various PAS
remediation strategies have been
developed, but the vast scale and
complex matrix of contaminated media
present challenges. While contaminated
water can be actively routed through
localized treatment infrastructure, soil
contamination remains more difficult due
to the immobilization of PAS within the
soil slowly entering the groundwater
over time. Longer chain PAS can also
degrade into shorter chain PAS which are
generally more difficult to remove. To
address this contamination, engineers
utilize both destructive and
non-destructive treatment methods. This
2022 paper outlines a field
demonstration towards remediation of PAS
in groundwater via a coupling ion
exchange resin. This 2025 paper outlines
a broad overview of the status of these
treatment efforts and barriers to
large-scale implementation and will be
linked below. Deploying these methods
past the laboratory scale remains a
large challenge due to high energy costs
and new infrastructure requirements.
Non-destructive methods primarily rely
on absorption using activated carbon or
polymers. They generate secondary waste
that requires further destructive
treatment or high temperature
incineration which can emit volatile PAS
into the atmosphere. Destructive methods
like electrochemical oxidation and
supercritical water oxidation offer
rapid and permanent destruction, but
they suffer from high electrode costs
and significant energy demands.
Photocatalysis and the use of plasma
tend to give incomplete degradation
which leads to shorter chain PAS and
toxic H hallogen byproducts. The
efficiency of these systems is also
severely compromised in real world
matrices due to competing organic
material that lowers oxidation
efficiency. We do not yet have the
technology to effectively remove PAS
from aquous solutions, rendering
immediate policy interventions the most
viable strategy to mitigate this
environmental crisis. In other words,
since we don't yet know how to get rid
of the stuff, we should try to figure
out how to stop introducing it to the
environment in high quantities. Okay,
that may have been slightly more science
than you were looking for. But even if
not all of that stuck, the general
conclusion everyone can confidently
reach is that these substances are
damaging to the human body. Therefore,
their ingestion should be avoided as
much as possible, which requires that
their production and usage be strictly
regulated by oh, I don't know, perhaps a
government agency whose entire purpose
is to do exactly that. Lee is the head
of such an agency, the only one, in
fact. What did he decide to do about
this problem? He proposed to rescend
federal limits on PAS and drinking water
which were established by the Biden
administration. That's right. While
establishment Democrats tend to do the
absolute bare minimum to abide by
something resembling environmental
protection, Republicans characterize
even that as ludicrous government
overreach and race to demolish the tiny
effort put forward to maintain the
safety of the citizenry, denigrating
them while doing so. In conjunction with
this, water suppliers that were given
until 2029 to comply with basic
standards will now be given until 2031.
So that's two more years of doing
nothing about harmful compounds in
drinking water nationwide. With
worthless frauds like Bobby and Lee,
it's nothing but say one thing and do
another. They'll build up a big platform
talking about the nasty chemicals from
the evil corporations because that's how
you garner support from the public
whether you're telling the truth or not.
And then they use the political power
they amass to make sure we are at
greater risk than ever from these very
same chemicals. It's like an abusive
boyfriend saying, "Baby, I would never
hurt you." Right before unleashing a
fury of drunken rage on your face,
demonstrating that traditional media
still occasionally has a spine. The New
Yorker ran a seven-page piece in April
called, "Can the EPA survive Lee
Zeldon?" written by Pulitzer
Prizewinning top staff writer Elizabeth
Colbert. The subtitle reads, "The
agency, which was founded to protect the
environment and human health, has
canceled safety regulations, supported
coal, and stopped caring about climate
change." A summary paragraph notes the
following. In a little more than a year,
Zeldon has transformed the EPA from an
agency devoted to protecting human
health and the environment into one
that, more or less openly, sides with
polluters. He has packed the EPA's upper
echelons with former industry lobbyists,
scrubbed entire databases of information
from its website, and dissolved whole
departments. Under his leadership, the
agency has ditched a long list of rules
that industries had objected to,
including regulations aimed at cutting
Americans exposure to arsenic, a known
carcinogen, mercury, a potential
neurotoxin, and PM25, a form of very
fine soot that has been shown to cause
asthma and lung disease. The EPA has not
only abandoned its own efforts to reign
in greenhouse gas emissions, it has
stepped in to prevent states from taking
action. Amidst these concerns, Trump has
recently moved to slash EPA's budget by
55%. A move that has generated
bipartisan outrage, an already
underfunded agency will be rendered
essentially impotent. clean water
infrastructure, ability to respond to
emergencies, important research. All of
this will essentially vanish because
Trump can't spare less than his own
personal net worth to ensure a modocum
of safety for the public. It is
difficult to convey what an enormous
betrayal this is. It is also difficult
to find a better example to exemplify
the ethos of the Trump administration.
This is a government for billionaires
only. This is a government that steals
tax dollars from its citizens and gives
them nothing in return except for
elevated cancer risk. Virtually every
social service has been eradicated,
every consideration, every protection.
The Trump administration is quite
legitimately a criminal organization. A
literal felon hiring other criminals to
steal our health and wealth from us. The
effects of figures like Lee and Bobby
and Russ Vote and everyone else in
Trump's cabinet will linger for decades.
Even the most progressive administration
imaginable over eight full years in
office could not even begin to scratch
the surface on the damage currently
being done to every sector of
government. Forget gerrymandering.
Forget the assault on civil rights. We
are talking about the very water we
drink and the air we breathe. These are
the things that most fundamentally shape
our ability to exist in good health and
seek happiness. No more fundamental
constitutional violation could be
conceivable. And while the public
suffers, all we get is non-stop
gaslighting from the Trump
administration. Much like childish
communications from whitehouse.gov, such
as this embarrassing one about the
mythical trans mice, official statements
from department websites like EPA.gov,
are now nothing but propaganda. EPA
advances comprehensive PAS strategy with
legally defensible, practical,
scientifically sound drinking water
protections. My favorite part is that
legally defensible is listed first,
meaning that it's dressed up with legal
jargon that a crooked lawyer could push
through court, even though it's actually
all [\h__\h] But don't worry, this is a
holistic approach that tackles PAS
across its full life cycle to make
America healthy again. Yes, that's
right. Bobby has his hands in this, too.
So, you know it's good. They are
correcting failures from those stupid
jerks Biden and Harris. They're
advancing gold standard science on PAS.
Of course, once Russ Votto MB ruling
goes through, that will just be code for
research that confirms the state
sanctioned narrative. They're taking on
PAS the right way across the full life
cycle and built to last. That's code for
instead of preventing it from getting
into the water, we will make up
solutions to get it out after the fact
that definitely won't work. And of
course, a little bit justifying the
2-year extension, saying that everyone
who complies with their agenda will get
the extension and those who don't will
not. It's just completely detestable
that this is now the output of the
American government across every single
department. Not a little lie here and
there, not a little redressing of the
truth. We are talking about full-scale
gaslighting and reality reversal. The
announcement that they are going to do
the precise opposite of what they are
doing. To get some additional
perspective, let's speak with a few
experts in the field. Those of you who
watched my video on Matt Ridley that I
mentioned earlier will remember Andrew
Destler, a professor of atmospheric
sciences at Texas A&M, the director of
the Texas Center for Extreme Weather and
co-author of the science and politics of
global climate change. Perhaps he can
weigh in on some of these issues.
Andrew, thanks so much for joining us.
Uh so I want to talk about uh these two
things in particular here. Uh one thing
that I mentioned to my viewers was this
repealing of the 2009 endangerment
finding. I was hoping you could tell us
a little bit about what this finding
was, how it relates to the Clean Air
Act, and what kinds of things we can
expect now that it's been repealed.
>> Right. So, uh, the Clean Air Act has
written into it, and let me just say I'm
not a lawyer and I'm not quoting
directly from the law, but this is
essentially what it says is it says that
any pollutant, something that you
release into the atmosphere that is
shown to endanger human health or
welfare, must be regulated by the EPA.
So, there there is no there is no choice
on that. And we reached that point um,
in the early 2000s. Some environmental
organizations petitioned the EPA. They
said carbon dioxide, it endangers
people's health and welfare. You should
regulate it. And the that was the George
W. Bush EPA. It basically said no, we're
not going to do it. So they sued them.
It actually went up to the Supreme
Court. Supreme Court in 2007, Mass.
Massachusetts versus EPA
um uh basically confirmed that the Clean
Air Act said you had to do it. And so
then it just determines
is carbon dioxide uh a danger to human
health and welfare. And that is made by
the EPA.
And so in in uh Obama took over in 2009
and his EPA issued a statement which
said yes, carbon dioxide is a threat to
human health and welfare. And I should
add, this is actually sort of amusing,
um, that Bush actually asked his EPA the
same thing. And his EPA, they got
together, they said, "Of course, this is
dangerous." And so they sent an email to
the White House saying, "Yes, it's
dangerous." And the White House refused
to open the email. They just said,
"We're not going to open this email and
send us another opinion." And basically,
this was about 6 months before the
election, and they just decided they
were going to run the clock out. They
knew they'd get sued, but they were
gonna leave it for the next president.
So, the next president was Obama. His
EPA looked at it. They reached, "Of
course, this is a danger to human health
and welfare." So, they pass the
endangerment finding. Now, the
endangerment finding really works as the
bedrock to a lot of US climate
regulations because they kind of rely on
this for the justification to do it. And
so this has been sort of the white whale
of of fossil fuel interests to get rid
of
>> the endangerment finding that would
allow them to try to sort of undercut
the foundation of US climate policy. And
so they've been trying for a very long
time in in um uh you know they in
February I think it's February of of
this year the EPA just said we're we're
rejecting it. just the the the all of
the decades of of of research in this
field that have arrived at this uh at
this conclusion. Nuh-uh. That's
basically what happened. Okay.
>> Well, I mean, so to be to be fair to the
EPA, uh they didn't argue the science.
In fact, if you go back to last summer,
summer of 2025, they they did a draft of
their order and there they said, "Oh,
the science is uncertain and blah blah
blah." And actually they got so much
push back from that that they actually
dropped all of that. So now they're
making a purely legal argument that the
Clean Air Act is written in a way that
it doesn't cover CO2. I'm not a lawyer.
I'm not going to try to explain what it
is because I probably couldn't, but just
they're actually not making a scientific
argument here. They're making a legal.
>> Okay. So the science remains sound.
they, you know, uh, admit, I suppose, in
not pushing back on that, but it's, we
can't allow for this to be the basis of
all of this regulation. That's what
they're saying,
>> right? That, you know, that they, you
know, I think what they would argue,
what a lot of people who want to sound
like they care about the world would say
is, well, you know, Congress should pass
a law without understanding that
Congress is sort of hopelessly
deadlocked on this. um the only way to
make progress on the problem is really
through executive actions. So things
like Obama had his clean power plan. Um
uh and you know things like that that
that is really the only way I think at
least right now we're going to be able
to make progress on this because
I'm sure everybody out there understands
that you know fossil fuel interests are
incredibly powerful and they've spent
decades
um you know paying off politicians
so that the politicians no longer
legislate on behalf of us the citizens.
they legislate on behalf of them, the
fossil fuel companies. And so it's very
hard to get get policy through when
fossil fuel interests can pay
essentially infinite amounts of money to
politicians to not get the laws through.
>> Right. So with the repealing of this
finding, I mean, obviously this
administration is arguably the most
friendly to these interests that that
we've seen in a very long time, if not
ever. So is it really as bad as, hey,
everyone, pollute as much as you want
now? Is it is is that where we're at?
>> Um,
you know, I I hate to say it, but I
think that's basically Yes. I don't know
if you saw he um uh Trump just pardoned
a bunch of people who had been, you
know, convicted and [clears throat]
penalized for air basically air quality
violations. They've also reduced, again,
I'm not a lawyer, um but um you know, if
you violate the Clean Air Act, it's no
longer a criminal
uh a criminal uh violation. It's now a
civil violation. So, they can sue you,
but nobody's going to go to jail. I
mean, they're really they they really
don't uh you know, again, I don't know
what goes on in anybody's heads, but it
seems like they really don't care about
pollution.
>> Yeah. Why should they?
>> Well, no, that's right. Because the
billionaires who give them money,
>> uh, they live in clean places and they
can have, you know, whereas a lot of the
people who live in the most polluted
areas are minority, they're poor,
they're the people who have no political
power and they're certainly not giving
money to super PACs.
>> It all it all goes back to the money.
>> It's it's just it's just another form of
class warfare essentially. I mean what
what is the what is your impression of
uh what what is the global scientific
community how do they react to this
decision? What are they thinking just
looking at America? Like what how is
this happening? What what are they
saying?
>> Yeah. Well, I mean I think at this point
nobody is surprised. It's like well of
course this is what they would do. Um
you know I think they think it's very
sad. I mean the US
has been since World War II, we've been
a leader in the of the scientific
community. I mean so many Nobel Prize
winners from the US. We you know a US
PhD is the gold standard. Everybody want
everybody in the world wants a US PhD.
>> Um that's you can go anywhere with a US
PhD. I mean it's our research, our
economy, all of the discoveries in AI,
medicine. I mean research and science
have been so good for the US and so good
for the world and I think people just
see our scientific system is imploding.
I mean that's if there's one thing I
think your viewers need to understand
nothing else, it's this. The policies
that are being implemented now will make
the US a nonscientific country, a
country that doesn't have scientists in
it, doesn't lead the world in research.
And you know, it's it's our our economy
and and the country is going to suffer
because of that,
>> right? The ROI on what we've done
scientifically. Yeah. We're sacrificing
all that. It's economically makes no
sense.
>> It does. I mean, we're we're fighting
this war for the battle of the 21st
century with countries like China who
understand the value of science,
>> right?
>> And you know, we're just laying down,
you know, we've we're just laying down
our weapons and turning and walking
away. We're not even going to we're not
even going to battle them. They're going
to be the scientific
supreme leader of this century. The same
is true with renewable energy. I won't
go into that. But, you know, we're also
giving away the energy source of the
21st century, which is, you know,
electricity electric the what they call
the electricity stack of electric motors
and batteries and uh green energy.
Anyway, that's for another another
>> discussion. Yeah. I know I all for the
short-term payoff for for the oligarchy,
but uh I I did a whole video on Russ
votes uh OM ruling, so they're aware of
the the extent of the horror that is
occurring. Uh okay, so let's just talk
about the other thing. So I I talked uh
a little bit uh in my in my video here
about Trump removing the ocean sensors,
but I'd love to get into some more
detail. Can you tell us about the
processes that are affecting ocean
currents? How close are we to slowing or
even completely halting these currents
and what kinds of devastating impact
will that have globally?
>> Right? That's a really good question. Uh
I think people don't think enough about
the oceans in in the climate system as
they should. So the oceans uh transport
an enormous amount of heat around the
planet. So if you look at the tropics,
so the equator to 30° in both
hemispheres about um uh a lot more
sunlight comes in than heat goes out to
space. And so because the tropics aren't
heating up, that means that it has to be
exporting energy. And and the oceans are
one of the big ways that you get heat
from the from the tropics to the high
latitudes uh where it can be the heat
can escape to space from high latitudes.
And so people are probably familiar with
the Gulf Stream. That's this current of
really hot water that comes from um you
know the Caribbean and moves up through
the Atlantic um and then it warms the
you know warms the the high latitudes.
It's why England has I won't say a nice
climate but a not a not a super cold
climate like Moscow, right?
>> Uh it's because of the heating from the
ocean. And so uh we we know that the uh
the what they call the Atlantic meridian
meridional overturning circulation they
call the AOCH I'll call the AOCH is sort
of the big circulation the Gulf Stream
is part of it and they know that the AO
um
this this overturning circulation that
brings warm water north has shut down in
the past probably about 12,000 years ago
during a period called the younger dus
it stopped and we kind We understand why
that was from fresh water from melting
glaciers at the end of the ice age
dumping into the North Atlantic and
changing the buoyancy of the of the
surface water. So, it wasn't hot. It
wasn't dense enough to sink,
>> right? Because of the the discrepancy in
salinity because you have heavy atoms
and salt. So, that that makes a
difference,
>> right? That's right. So, fresh water is
less dense than seawater. And so if you
dump a lot of fresh water on, you
essentially put a cap on the ocean and
it doesn't the water doesn't sink and
the this meridional overturning
circulation is is density driven. It's a
density driven circulation. So um so so
you have this over so we know it's shut
down in the past. So that should concern
everybody because you know things that
have happened in the past can happen
again. And um now the the reason won't
be the same. We don't have big ice
sheets on North America melting but uh
you can put you know people have run
very detailed ocean models and uh the
heating is also the heating of the high
latitudes which is where a lot of the
global warming is occurring will also
change the density of the ocean and that
could also slow down the circulation.
Now is it going to stop is actively
debated not something I actually worry
about that much. Um uh the models don't
predict it'll stop. The models show the
the circulation slowing down but the
models tend not to get the models are
very linear. They tend not to get super
nonlinear behavior. So
>> but but still we we don't a lot of
people are working on the problem.
Anyway getting back to your question one
of the key things that scientists need
in order to understand any complex
system is you need to have lots of
observations. If you don't have
observations, the climate system is just
a black box with some knobs that you're
twiddling and you need to have
observations to understand it. And so we
need to instrument the globe. So we have
satellites that are measuring things in
the atmosphere. We've got um you know
stations on land and we have things in
the ocean because we need to be able to
measure these very slight currents. We
want to measure how much CO2 is in the
water because a lot of the CO2 goes into
the oceans. You know, these are all
things that we need to measure. And what
you also understand is that if you want
to stop science, if you want science to
stop, you want to kill the observations.
And again, I don't know what goes on in
anybody's heads in this administration,
but I can say what they're doing is
indistinguishable from what someone
would do if they wanted to kill science,
kill Earth science.
>> You know, they're, you know, they're
going after the satellite missions.
They're terminating them. They are um
you know stuff that doesn't make any
sense. They're they're cutting the
number of balloon launches the weather
service is doing. You know the things
that we
>> it's not even expensive in the grand
scheme of things. It's it's the perfect
symbolic act of of just hiding under a
pile of coats and saying well we climate
change won't be a problem if we're not
actively gathering the data that tells
us what a problem it is. So there's not
won't be anybody to blame. Uh except
it's still happening. Right. I mean it's
all
>> right. And and I think as you pointed
out, it's it's it's there's a symbolism
that, you know, if you're if you're
talking to your supporters, you say,
"Look, we hate these guys. We hate these
PhDs. We hate these scientists. They're
not like us.
>> Uh let's let's defund all their research
and let's fire them on mass from federal
agencies and do stuff like this." So, it
also is, you know, owning the libs, as
they say. Sure. despite the fact that
what it means is, you know, it's like
taking off the the mirrors on your car
or something or blocking out your
windows. You're going to get you're
going to be rolling through an
intersection, you're going to get
t-boned by a F-150 that you never saw
because we're not going to see these
disasters coming. You know, this is one
example, the ozone hole. You know, we we
only discovered the ozone hole because
we were monitoring the atmosphere.
Nobody predicted the ozone hole. And
it's so if you shut down all the
monitors, you know, you really wonder
what would have happened, you know,
would we have phased out fluorocarbons?
>> Yeah. And and and fortunately that
occurred in an era where we still were
somewhat proactive about taking care of
this stuff. So we did implement
legislation. We did curb CFC's and the
and the ozone is correct me if I'm wrong
largely regenerated or is that the case
or
>> not quite yet. It's coming back. I mean
we can see recovery occurring but the
lifetimes of these fluorocarbons are
basically like a century. So we're about
30 years into into really the the worst
fluorocarbons. So we have a couple more
decades before things
>> so if this administration had been in
power then we would have just canceled
all of that research pumped twice the
amount of CFCs into the atmosphere just
for fun and uh said oh well screw you
guys we do what we want.
>> Yeah. No it's you know I often think
about that what would have happened if
we discovered the ozone hole today and I
think the answer is we would not have
taken action. fake news
>> exactly
>> from the woke Marxists. That's it.
>> So, uh just the last part of my question
was so you're you're saying fortunately
it doesn't seem to be the case that the
currents will flat out stop uh even
though they've happened before, but but
slowing is still has the potential to be
catastrophic, right? So, what what are
some of the things the effects that we
can that we can expect to see? So,
remember what I said before, the the
circulation is what carries heat. And
so, if the oceans don't carry heat, the
heat's got to be carried in the
atmosphere or you don't carry it at all,
in which case tropics heat up um uh and
the the polar region cools down. Um and
so that could also happen. And that, by
the way, is why when you shut this off,
you get the I don't know if you've seen
the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but
you know, the whole idea of The Day
After Tomorrow is based on the idea of
the of the sort of this amox shutting
down where you get this massive cooling
in sort of Western Europe hot polar
regions. So, um you know, things change
and it's important to for everybody to
realize that that neither warming nor
cooling is good for us. We are
sensitively adapted to our present
climate. Temperature goes up five
degrees or goes down five degrees. Those
are both bad
>> options. So it's it's it's uh so yeah,
we don't want the climate to change
because we have invested trillions of
dollars in infrastructure into the
climate as it is now.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Of course, inevitably they
will just point to uh declining
temperatures in like the UK and say,
"See, there's no global warming." Uh,
and then of course don't look at the
tropics where it's rapidly heating and
hurricanes are happening three times as
often and stuff like that. So yeah.
Well, I think that's that's all I wanted
to ask you about. I I guess just to
close. Any other comments about the
current status of Earth's climate in
general? Anything listeners can do in
reacting to this news?
>> Sure. So, you know, I I talk to students
all the time and you know, sometimes the
students come up to me and they're
depressed and I say, "Don't get
depressed. Do not get depressed." Uh,
you know, climate change is not a
scientific problem. Uh, we understand
the science pretty well. There's
uncertainties, but not first order or
zero or first order uncertainties. Uh,
we understand the technology. We can
largely stop using fossil fuels today.
Um I mean we not today it would take a
few decades but we have renewable energy
that's that's clean and is cheap. So we
can we can solve the problem. Uh the
reason we can't solve the problem is
because of the politics. Fossil fuel
fossil fuel interests are the most
powerful special interest in the history
of humanity. I say that all the time. It
remains true. And so really climate
change is a democracy problem. It is not
a scientific problem. It's not a
technical problem. It's a problem of
reclaiming the ballot box. And that's
why if you read the news, you can see
there are these concerted efforts by
some people to try to to to essentially
shred democracy and stop people from
voting and things like that. So what I
tell students is vote. Get involved and
and not just vote. Voting is great.
That's the minimum, but get involved.
Talk to people about it.
>> Um you know, find politicians who share
your concern and work with them. You
know, phone bank for them.
do you know canvas whatever the kids are
doing these days. Um uh you know that
that's that's the most important thing
to do. Make it a political movement
because uh you know people doing
individually virtuous things like eating
less meat or eating local or walking
instead driving. That's great. You
should do that. It'll save you money.
It'll make you healthier. Uh and if you
can afford to put solar panels in your
house. A lot of people can't do that
though. But the one thing everybody
should be able to do is vote in the U.
This is a US- ccentric description, by
the way. Other countries have different
issues. But if you're in the US,
>> vote and vote for people who share your
concern if you care about climate. And
you should care about climate because
you're going to live through this
century. You've got skin in the game.
That Mitch McConnell,
>> who probably isn't going to live through
this century. Yeah. He doesn't have skin
in the game.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, and luckily I do think
that this administration is so
unbelievably detestable that it's it's
spurred a bit of uh some some grassroots
political activity es especially among
younger people uh for reasons of climate
and you know geopolitics and all kinds
of other stuff. So we'll see what uh
what they and we all together can can
get done. So yeah, thanks again for uh
for explaining that. Appreciate the
clarity and uh yeah, thanks as always.
>> No problem. Thank you.
>> Thanks Andrew. Now, let's speak with one
more expert to get even more clarity.
Michael Man is presidential
distinguished professor of earth and
environmental science and director of
the Penn Center for Science,
Sustainability, and the Media at the
University of Pennsylvania. He is also a
co-author of Science Under Siege. So, he
is no stranger to the anti-science
forces shaping the current political
landscape. If you've seen the famous
hockey stick climate graph from the late
'9s, that's his. Let's chat with Mike
now. Mike, thanks so much for joining us
here. So, uh, I wanted to talk to you a
little bit about Lee Zeldon's EPA, as
you know. Uh, the first thing I want to
ask you about, I'd like to get your
perspective on the recent repealing of
the 2009 endangerment finding. What does
it mean? Did you see it coming? What are
going to be the main consequences for
everybody?
>> Yeah, thanks, Danny. It was great to be
with you. Um and uh there's no question
that the uh you know the revocation by
Donald Trump of the uh endangerment
finding uh via Lee Zeldon um was
something that was uh planned well in
advance. Uh it was spelled out quite
clearly in project 2025
which was this blueprint by uh various
uh organizations, conservative
organizations like the Heritage
Foundation uh funded by uh the Koch
brothers and other bureaucrats, other
fossil fuel bureaucrats. Uh for a long
time uh they have wanted to uh eradicate
the endangerment finding and this was
their opportunity to do so. if they won
back uh the presidency and Congress,
they knew that they would have a uh a
clear path to doing so. And so it hardly
came as a surprise to us. Um, those of
us who've been following this issue for
some time, uh, the endangerment finding,
which originally was actually supported
by, I would point out, a Republican EPA
administrator, uh, Christine Todd
Wittmann, uh, supported the, uh,
regulation of, uh, carbon emissions from
coal fired power plants, but was
essentially overruled by others within
the administration. It finally became
law when, uh, when Barack Obama was
elected president. that they were able
to implement the endangerment finding,
but it was actually uh oddly enough uh
almost a a brainchild of uh even
Republican EPA administrators who once
actually cared about the environment,
who once actually believed in in doing
what they were tasked to do. Um and so
this is the primary and was the primary
uh really uh lever arm that the federal
government has for regulating carbon
emissions from coal fired power plants
for uh implementing fuel efficiency
standards on automobiles. And so it was
really the primary lever arm for
regulating carbon emissions by the
federal government. And indeed it is
what allowed Barack Obama to make enough
progress um through the clean power plan
and and other uh policies that they
implemented uh uh you know tighter
restrictions on uh fuel emissions uh
from automobiles.
It was really um through those executive
actions because remember uh Obama was
unable to pass climate legislation
through the Congress um which was
controlled by uh Republicans or at least
uh uh was uh filibusterable uh by
Republicans. And so um instead he
elected to uh act on climate through
executive uh measures like the clean
power plan. uh it's what gave him
authority when uh he came to the you
know uh face tof face with the uh
Chinese president um and they achieved a
bilateral agreement back in uh 2015 that
laid the groundwork for the Paris uh
agreement um and so for a long time uh
you know fossil fuel bureaucrats um and
uh the you know uh fossil fuel companies
um have been looking to eradicate the
endangerment finding and they finally
had the opportunity to do so here.
>> Wow. Yeah, it's it does seem very
heavily premeditated. Um, in terms of
the the consequences, is it really
genuinely just kind of now everybody
pollute as much as you want? Is it that
simple?
>> Uh, it is. It It's the, you know, the
the the fox guarding the hen house, uh,
uh, if you will. Um, and Fox is
appropriate because Fox News, of course,
has been spreading much of the climate
denial propaganda. The conservative
media have been spreading uh uh
propaganda, attacking the clean power
plan, attacking uh the endangerment
finding for years. Um, and so maybe the
analogy is even more uh appropriate than
uh it appears at first blush. Uh, but it
really is the fox guarding the hen
house. Now, the people who are in
control of energy policy, of
environmental policy in this
administration are literally fossil fuel
lobbyists um who are tied uh often to
conservative uh you know or uh
foundations like uh the CO uh CO
industries. Um and so yeah, they now uh
are in control of the policy apparatus
um and have weaponized that uh apparatus
to allow essentially unrestrained
um a actions on the part of polluters uh
including fossil fuel interests. And it
isn't just climate policy that they have
been eradicating. It's really 50 years
of environmental progress. The clean uh
clean air acts, uh the clean water acts.
Um
these are
policy um interventions that uh some of
which were actually implemented again by
past Republican administrations. And so
it's almost unprecedented to see 50
years of not entirely but somewhat
bipartisan support for common sense
environmental regulation. to see 50
years of that infrastructure that policy
inf go down the drain in a matter of a
year and a half.
>> It is astounding. Um to speak to to
pivot a little bit because you're you're
right. We're talking not just about
polluting the air but um uh I want to
get your perspective on the recent
deregulation of PAS because Zeldon but
also to a greater extent Bobby Kennedy
really you know was a big part of his
campaign was saying I want to regulate
these toxic whatever and he mentioned
PAS many many times. Now this move, this
joint move between Maha and Zeldon uh to
to deregulate PAS. Yeah. What's your
perspective on that? And especially I'd
love to hear your take on their on their
stated justification for for doing this.
>> Yeah, I mean you know their their
justification it's always the same. It's
um you know it's it's Pablum. It's a
boilerplate uh sort of propaganda um
Orwellian almost, you know, because
they'll talk about freedom uh and
they'll talk about preserving, you know,
the the freedom of people to do what
they want when what they really mean is
the the freedom of polluting companies
to infringe upon the rights and freedom
of the people themselves who are harmed
by these activities. Um if they really
believed in, you know, um uh small
government, then they wouldn't be
weaponizing the government to allow big
polluters to basically have have free
reign in in a way that that hurts the
the individual freedoms of people
themselves, of the people who are
subject to the health consequences of
these decisions. Now, uh one of the
ironies, as you note, is that um RFK Jr.
was a champion of you know um policies
to regulate toxic uh chemicals. Um uh he
was uh very much uh anti- glyphosate um
the uh the the basic ingredient Roundup
that is
>> regulated that too.
>> Yeah. Um and so all of these things that
he nominally should be in support of
somehow
uh under, you know, the sort of Trump um
during the uh the Trump presidency,
uh he's allowing uh you know, the the
opposite. Um he's allowing uh
regulations to protect people against
toxic toxic chemicals to be eliminated.
And he's been relatively silent about
that. he should be outraged uh by these
actions. Instead, he is focusing his
energy on anti-science
about vaccines
um that play to sort of the ideological
views now of the MAGA world. Um and he
strayed far from the path that he was
originally on. He he was once an
environmental lawyer for the National
Resources Defense Council. um he was,
you know, one of the primary proponents
of a lot of these environmental
regulations that were put in place to
protect the health of people. And now in
the name of Maha, he's actually
supporting an agenda that does the
opposite.
>> The opposite. Yeah. To me, it's always
been a facade, a transparent facade,
just campaigning on the basis of I'm
going to protect you from the nasty
chemicals and then once you attain
power, do literally the opposite. Right.
Decomp completely. bait and switch. It's
really a remarkable bait and switch.
Yeah.
>> And then they and then they justified
with uh Biden and Harris did a liberal
Marxism woke thing, so we have to undo
that and then we'll do a better thing
later. It's just like,
>> right, which somehow never materializes,
does it? [clears throat] It's always
going to happen later. Yes.
>> We're going to get rid of the Affordable
Care Act and we'll give you something
better later. Except no, we absolutely
will not.
>> Exactly. Well, because it because it's a
cynical uh understanding of the way the
the news cycle works and the shortterm
memory of the electorate. Yeah.
>> Absolutely. Yeah. Um so you're you know
you're you're not new at all obviously
to battling climate change deniers. You
have a book hockey stick and the climate
wars. So you've been you've been
battling this propaganda for quite some
time. I'm curious from your perspective,
can you say anything about the evolution
of climate change denial over the
decades? Is it the exact same thing?
just they have more power or do they
have new narratives and rhetoric like
what's been going on?
>> Yeah. And and that in fact was in part
the topic of my more recent book with
Peter Hotes who's a vaccine scientist,
Science Under Siege. And it's sort of an
update um of where we now stand when it
comes to the assault on science at
large. It isn't just climate change.
It's the science of vaccines and public
health. anything, you know, any area
where the findings of science uh
represent a threat to powerful vested
interests um like the fossil fuel
industry, we've seen u an effort uh on
the right, almost exclusively on the
right to try to discredit that science.
And as you allude to it, it's sort of,
you know, it's shifted somewhat, say,
from the time when I wrote the hockey
stick in the climate wars back in 2012
when it was the primary tactic of
polluters. um and the bad actors who are
trying to keep us addicted to fossil
fuels and are are are doing everything
they can to slow down the clean energy
transition. Uh one of their primary
tactics was to deny that climate change
is happening. But that just isn't
credible anymore because people can see
with their own eyes um uh the the the
dire consequences of climate in action
now unfolding in the form of the record
heat waves we've seen in Europe and and
North America just within the past
couple weeks. And so and hurricanes and
just
>> absolutely
>> it's now happening.
>> It's now the the predictions are, you
know, unfortunately coming true and and
people are witnessing that. They're
experiencing that. They're experiencing
the the harm from that. Uh people losing
uh their their homes, some people losing
their lives uh from extreme weather
disasters that have been amped up by the
warming of the planet. And so the bad
actors that we're talking about can't
with a straight face deny that climate
change is happening anymore. So they've
shifted to sort of a kinder, gentler
form of denialism, as I like to say,
away from like the outright denial of
like the physics of climate change
itself or a denial of the the clear
trends that we can see in the data to
other tactics um that also start with D,
not denial but deflection. Oh, we don't
need uh government action. We it's all
about individuals, you know, decreasing
Yeah. their own.
>> Exactly. Yeah.
Exactly. Classic deflection campaign.
>> Probably Matt Ridley's lukewarmism falls
into this camp as well. AB:
>> Absolutely. Um and and there's uh sort
of a delay, you know, and and and a lot
of the lukewarmism is well, you know, we
have other ways of dealing with the
problem like massive carbon capture and
sequestration. And so, uh we we'll
figure it or geoengineering. We'll shoot
particles into the stratosphere to block
out the sun. What could possibly go
wrong?
>> Maybe we will too, but let's also stop
polluting.
>> Well, there's a there's a worthy
conversation to be had about whether
ultimately we might need to, you know,
intervene um to prevent catastrophic
warming. But right now it's being used
as a tactic to um you know to delay the
obvious solution to the problem which is
I like to say when you're in a climate
hole stop digging and burning fossil
fuels. And that's that's the solution.
>> Yeah. So the tactics the gentler version
would be oh they're just trying to
squeeze a few trillion more dollars out
of it before they give up and let the
shift happen. But you know the that
movie uh Don't Look Up if that taught us
anything. Well, you know, it'll go wrong
at the last second and the asteroid will
kill us all anyway. So,
>> yeah. Well, no, that's right. And in
fact, um, unbeknownst to most people,
there was a very clear, um, metaphor in
the film for geoengineering.
>> The the geo, you know, the the the Peter
Isherell, the technocrat, sort of Elon
Musk, Jeff Bezos, uh, sort of type
[clears throat] character. um and and
and those people right now are actually
putting massive funding into
geoengineering. And so that was um in
fact Adam McCay's commentary on the
dangers of of these sorts of promises of
future technixes as an excuse for
business as usual today. Exactly. And
[clears throat]
>> I thought that Yeah, I thought the movie
did a great job in conveying that.
>> I just I can't believe how how how much
he nailed it in such a good way.
>> Yeah. underappreciated and and and it it
didn't really get the um
>> you know the critical reception it
deserved and and and and part of me
wonders if if that was because he was
taking the fight to the fossil fuel
industry
>> a little too ser yeah yeah I think it'll
be a cult classic 10 20 years from now
people will be like wow that was really
that's uh
>> along with idiocracy the other one that
I [laughter]
>> 100% I love m judge uh so I I learned
this about you just from looking around
you've you've stirred up some
controversy you had some conservative
commentators that that sued you for
academic fraud. C can you give us like
the the just the brief uh story there?
What happened?
>> You know, actually it was the opposite.
Um they accused me of uh academic fraud
and we took them to court. Uh got it.
Two writers for the National Review uh
and the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, which is a fossil fuel front
group, um uh uh made accusations,
actionable accusations, completely false
accusations of fraud against me. And so
we we took them to court. It took more
than 12 years to finally uh go to trial,
which we did. And we won a unanimous uh
decision awarding us a million dollars
in uh punitive damages. A Republican
judge, the presiding judge is a
Republican judge um on the DC um uh
superior court uh and basically um
cut that down, cut that back to uh a
minimal damages. um that is currently
being appealed and we feel pretty uh
confident that we will win on appeal.
And so in the end it was um you know uh
we we were successful in sort of making
sure that there were consequences for
these sorts of false accusations despite
the fact that you know there's still
court challenges. I think a million
dollar a unanimous a million dollar
award of damages says something. It says
something to the public that um
>> you know, you can't just lie about
scientists when you don't like the
implications of their findings.
>> You can't just accuse someone of fraud
for for for
delivering facts that are inconvenient
to you.
>> Exactly.
>> I mean, with with the win, this is
something that I think about a lot
because I I'm not I'm not well verssed
with the legal system. Do you think that
the legal system is equipped to uphold
the veracity of scientific facts or is
there just so much bureaucracy? It seems
like in your case, even though it took
12 years, uh it did in the end, but um
is that something that is reliable or
did you get lucky?
>> Yeah, you know, probably a little bit of
both. Um where we got lucky is that
there is a trend towards politicization
of the court that we're all aware of.
You know, all all you have to do is take
one look at the Supreme Court right now
to understand that, you know, precedent
no longer means anything. you know, at
the highest level of juror prudence in
in the US, uh, among, you know, six
essentially six, uh, now conservative
Supreme Court justices. Um, and we're
even seeing that, you know, in lower
courts now as judges are being appointed
by Trump, uh, you know, who's, you know,
Trump appointees are replacing, um, you
know, previous uh, more uh, objective
judges. And so to some extent, I would
argue we encountered that in our case
with a Republican judge who did
everything he could to beat back a
unanimous uh jury decision on our part.
Uh even though it was a jury trial, the
judge still has some discretion. In this
case, the judge used that discretion to
try to minimize the damages and and make
trouble for us. And so I would say that
that was a consequence of this trend
that we're seeing towards the
politicization of the court. Um, and we
can no longer, in my view, trust the
courts to objectively litigate these
sorts of issues.
>> Right. Yeah, that's that's the sense I
get. I just want
>> But it comes back to the the voters,
right? Because that what that means is
we got to turn out in numbers that allow
Democrats uh enough uh power to expand
the court. Um because that's what's
going to be necessary. you expand the
Supreme Court to redress the imbalance
that right now is putting a rubber stamp
on the uh you know on on on the uh the
the the the poller uh sort of um
friendly policies that the Trump
administration has uh you know has
engaged in. Uh right now the Supreme
Court for example there's the so-called
Chevron doctrine by this Supreme Court
that basically said that uh you know the
EPA government agencies don't have the
right to interpret uh federal statutes.
Um really pretty pretty remarkable um
and that was basically a gift to the
fossil fuel industry to make it more
difficult for courts to actually
implement the laws that do exist. So,
it's all under attack and the only way
it's going to change is if voters turn
out in in in big enough numbers, send a
big enough message. Um, and I'm hoping
that we will see that in the midterm
elections this fall.
>> Yeah. If if they if they are allowed to
>> if they're fair. [laughter] Yeah. If
they're allowed to occur.
>> Yeah. Um, I mean, speaking towards this
administration, you know, I I I'm I'm
not too old, not too young. I've seen a
few administrations, but I haven't seen
them all. Do you think that this
particular administration is the most
outwardly hostile towards science and
the most uh subservient to oligarchy in
modern times or American history in
general? Or is it a little bit more
typical? Am I exaggerating when I when I
talk that way or what do you think?
>> Yeah. If anything, I don't think you are
harsh enough. Um it not only uh are we
seeing an unprecedented assault on
science and reason under this
administration that's what Peter and I
talk about in the book and science under
siege. It is unprecedented. You've got
to go back to Lysenkoism, the era of
Lysenko in uh Soviet uh you know under
Stalinist uh Russia to find anything
comparable and and in that case
scientists who whose findings disagreed
with the the you know government dogma
were literally imprisoned and and died
in prison and or killed and um and there
were massive droughts that uh sorry
massive
>> famine
>> blightes famines that uh that happened.
You're familiar with this that happened
because of the implementation of those
policies
Kennedy all the time.
>> Yeah. Yeah. This the closest thing that
we have seen in American history in my
view to something like that.
>> Yeah. 100%.
>> And it isn't just Trump. It's it's it's
a Republican Congress and Republican
Supreme Court that have put a rubber
stamp on those policies.
>> Yeah. That's that was my thinking. I
just wanted some corroboration there.
>> Well, we we we're in concurrence on on
that. Yeah. Uh, so just wrapping up
here, I mean bringing it back to climate
change, I was curious, do do you see the
sentiment of the public changing the
cultural landscape? Do you think people
are more concerned about climate change?
Um, and if so, do you think that there's
been any activity whether among the
media or science communicators or
anything that has been more or less
effective in persuading the public to be
more politically active about this?
>> Yeah, it's a great question. And I think
we are seeing the pendulum swing back
right now um politically right now
against Trump, against the GOP. I think
that will have implications for climate.
I think it will create an environment
where we will be able to try to pick up
the pieces. Now so much damage has been
done. It's so much more difficult to
build infrastructure than to deconstruct
it, which is what this the latter is
what this administration has done. So
it'll take some time for us to build up
the sort of policy infrastructure to to
actually make forward progress on
climate. But I think there will be an
opportunity for us to do that. And it's
also important for us to realize that
the US no longer dictates the terms to
the rest of the world. Right? Maybe that
was once true. Um maybe we saw in the
World Cup yesterday that that's no
longer true. Um seemed like it was a
metaphor for the fact that uh that the
US no longer is in control of what
happens on on this planet. And you see
other countries like China seeing an
opportunity here. China recognizing that
this opens up the sort of the economic
race of this uh century where China is
now so much out in front because of the
efforts of the Trump administration on
clean energy, renewable energy,
electrification that they are going to
be the dominant superpower when it comes
to the defining challenge defining
revolution of this era, the the clean
energy revolution. all we don't get to
determine you know uh whether you know
where the train goes right
>> we just get to determine uh whether we
get on board or whether we get left
behind at the station.
>> Yeah. Yeah. We only control what goes on
here and unfortunately are currently
dismantling the American scientific uh
community.
>> So we will see what the ramifications
are culturally, economically etc.
>> Yeah. Well, let's again, you know, if
people turn out and vote, um it it
really does make a difference. Uh
elections have consequences, and I hope
that anybody who cares about the issues
that we've discussed here will will
think about that this this fall. Um and
and and think about everything that they
can do to make sure that the folks that
they know who also care about this turn
out um in every election. You can't stay
home in the midterm elections. You can't
stay home in the offterm elections
because if you do, they're going to make
uh all that progress that we made is
undone. And we've seen that happen.
>> They will make gains on the lower level
and then climb it up the ladder.
>> Yep.
>> Well, that's all the questions I had.
Definitely really really appreciate your
perspective here. I think that uh my
viewers obviously appreciate the
perspective. I do my best to convey
what's going on, but it's absolutely
crucial to hear from from uh scientific
experts and policy experts such as
yourself. So, thanks so much for joining
me today.
>> Thank you, Dave. It was great talking
with you and happy to come back anytime.
>> Thanks, Mike. While it's important to
dabble in optimism in order to remain
passionately politically active and
hopefully these guests have offered some
assistance in that endeavor, we also
have to remain honest about how royally
screwed we are. Truly, this is the
darkest timeline. Absolutely everyone in
Trump's clown car of a cabinet is
specifically antithetical to the job
they have. We have a head of EPA who
sides with polluters over people. We
have a head of HHS who wants children
dead from vaccinereventable diseases. We
have a head of DoD who bombs first and
asks questions later while racking up
security blunders like they're going out
of style. We have a head of OM who is
actively dismantling the entire
scientific community to create a
trillion dollar slush fund. This is
without a doubt the worst presidential
cabinet in history. No other cabinet
even comes close. And the damage they
are causing will be generational in
scope. These people are worse than
serial killers. They knowingly cause
devastating harm to the public for
money. They belong in prison or worse.
How will the rest of this term play out
and what fresh hell could possibly
follow? There's no way to know, but I
don't have a great feeling about it.
So, that's it for Lee Zeldon. Yet
another [\h__\h] stain fueling the nightmare
that is Trump 2.0. I will continue to
comment on the activities of this
administration as it pertains to science
to the best of my limited ability. And
trust me, there are many more figures to
cover. Who will be next? We'll just have
to wait and see.