No rules now. Eat your smog, enjoy disasters. Trump killing American climate rules and science. Voices outside the bubble of U.S. corporate media: Germany, Canada, UK, France – and Democracy Now. Ths includes mini-interviews with Bob Ward from Grantham Institute and science historian Robert Proctor. First, super scientist Ben Santer tells Carbon Brief why he had to leave America.
Listen to or download this Radio Ecoshock show in CD Quality (57 MB) or Lo-Fi (14 MB)
It’s official. The President has declared American climate science dead. It was all just a green con job according to Trump. We get reaction outside the dome of America’s captured big media – how Germany, the UK, France, and Canada covered fossil fuel’s nightmare last stand plus real reporting from Democracy Now! But first, the inside story of Trump’s war against climate science as told by Dr. Ben Santer – after he fled America for the UK.
Dr. Santer is an internationally recognized atmospheric scientist. He played a pivotal role in the 1995 IPCC finding of “discernible human influence on global climate.” Santer worked decades at the federally-funded Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, publishing a long list of highly cited papers. He helped build the field and then showed proof climate change increased the number and severity of disasters, droughts, abnormal waves of heat. The fingerprints of climate was all over these extreme events.
Santer was interviewed by Carbon Brief senior science editor, Robert McSweeney, at Carbon Brief’s offices in London in January 2026. The conversation begins:
MCSWEENEY: Thank you very much for joining us. So after a long career in the US you’re now relocating to the UK where you studied for your degrees. What has prompted your return?
SANTER: It’s really difficult for me to continue doing work in attribution science in the United States in 2026. I’m a scientist. Working on identification of human fingerprints on climate is in my lifeblood. It’s part of who I am. It’s part of what I’ve done for the last 40 years. The notion of not being able to do that work anymore in the United States is unacceptable to me. So that’s one of the reasons why I’m moving to the UK to continue to do work in trying to disentangle human and natural effects on climate. I’m also coming to the UK because my partner lives here and I want to be with her.
Listen to or download my key selections in this 26 minute Radio Ecoshock version.
See the posting with full audio (about 1 hour) of this interview at Carbon Brief, or watch it on YouTube.
Prof Ben Santer: Trump administration is ‘embracing ignorance’ on climate science
You can hear my own interview with Ben Santer on Radio Ecoshock in January 2021 as he was defunded by Trump. (Climate Science Dismissed! Ben Santer – Posted on January 6, 2021)
SEE: Trump team’s new rule could make firing government scientists easier – 11 February 2026 By Dan Garisto (partial paywall) in the scientific journal Nature.
National Science Foundation awards have dropped off a cliff since Trump took office.
==============================
“CO2 was never a pollutant. When we breathe, we emit CO2. Plants need CO2 to survive and grow. They thrive with more CO2. So the whole endangerment thing opens up an opportunity for the revival of clean, beautiful, American coal.”
– Fox News Feb 11 2026 Doug Burgum, Trumps Secretary of the Interior
INDEPENDENT MEDIA IN OTHER COUNTRIES REPORTING
The Trump climate massacre and “denial revival” is brazen. But his donors and cronies silence corporate media. We need to hear independent voices. Here you go, reaction from five countries. Let’s start though, with this brief clip of Donald Trump at the United Nations explaining his climate views.
DONALD TRUMP AT THE UNITED NATIONS
“In 1982, the executive director of the United Nations Environmental Program predicted that by the year 2000, climate change would cause a global catastrophe. He said that it will be irreversible as any nuclear holocaust would be. This is what they said at the United Nations.
What happened? Here we are. Another UN official stated in 1989 that within a decade entire nations could be wiped off the map by global warming. Not happening.
You know, it used to be global cooling. If you look back years ago in the 1920s and the 1930s, they said global cooling will kill the world. We have to do something. Then they said global warming will kill the world. But then it started getting cooler. So now they could just call it climate change because that way they can’t miss.
It’s climate change because if it goes higher or lower, whatever the hell happens, there’s climate change. It’s the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, in my opinion. Climate change, no matter what happens, you’re involved in that.
No more global warming, no more global cooling. All of these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons, were wrong. They were made by stupid people that have cost their country’s fortunes and given those same countries no chance for success. If you don’t get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail. And I’m really good at predicting things. You know, they actually said during the campaign they had a hat, the best selling hat.
Trump was right about everything. And I don’t say that in a braggadocious way, but it’s true. I’ve been right about everything. And I’m telling you that if you don’t get away from the green energy scam, your country is going to fail.”
That was President Trump at the United Nations, September 23, 2025.
WHAT ARE PEOPLE IN OTHER COUNTRIES SAYING ?
THE VIEW FROM GERMANY
We start with Deutsche Welle, the German national broadcaster in December, 2025.
“In the off chance you’ve been living under a rock, this is what’s been coming out of the White House lately. [Trump] ’I terminated the ridiculous green news scam. I withdrew from the unfair Paris climate accord. It’s called drill, baby, drill. We’re going back to plastic straws.’
Since taking office in late January, Trump has unleashed a torrent of policy initiatives that roll back climate progress. Like, seriously. Trump 2.0 is doubling down on its belief that climate change is overblown. So how far is Trump rolling back climate protection? And how much does this hurt global progress?
It all started on his first day in office. First, Trump freezes the Inflation Reduction Act, the U.S.’s largest climate action fund, with $369 billion earmarked for clean energy. Then he suspends offshore wind projects. Same day, he quits Paris. Again. And that was just for starters. Let’s speed walk here, because there’s just so much to cover.
Day 26, Trump turbocharges the country’s oil and gas production.
Day 37, he claws back the country’s founding environmental protection laws.
Day 45, he withdraws the U.S. from an agreement that helps fund the energy transition in countries like South Africa, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Senegal. He also bails from a fund helping other countries weather climate disasters.
Day 76, Trump rolls back protection of national forests.
Day 81, he ends environmental checks for thousands of federal oil and gas leases.
Day 103, Trump’s budget proposal cancels more than $15 billion in carbon capture and renewable energy funding. As we went to press, Columbia University has logged more than 100 efforts of Trump to scale back federal climate measures. And that number just keeps climbing.
American resistance might not completely stop the build-out of clean energy around the world. The U.S. was never the leader in climate change. There’s loads of money coming in. Global investment in the energy transition surpassed $2 trillion for the first time in 2024. That’s twice the amount going to fossil fuels. A recent Bloomberg report shows investors are snatching up green deals.
Prices are low for wind, solar, and battery projects. Investors are in it for the long haul. And it doesn’t look like Trump will be able to stop them.”
That was from DW News Germany.
—————
FROM CANADA
Now the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation CBC February 12, 2026 – “Trump guts EPA’s ability to regulate climate pollution”.
“[Trump] ’We are officially terminating the so-called endangerment finding a disastrous Obama era policy’ – a bedrock finding in 2009 based on science that polluting emissions are dangerous for people. But it could revitalize climate change deniers and offer impunity for polluters stripping away regulations to cut back greenhouse gases or curb tailpipe emissions Trump claims it will save a trillion dollars in regulatory costs
The Union of Concerned Scientists say failing to tackle fossil fuel emissions will cost much more. Ramming through this unlawful destructive action at the behest of polluters is an obvious example of what happens when a corrupt Administration and fossil fuel interests are allowed to run amok This in the same week that Donald Trump was rewarded by coal producers for resuscitating aging coal plants in the U.S. ’Clean beautiful coal clean beautiful’.
Likely this appeal will be challenged possibly up to the U.S. Supreme Court .To date courts have rejected overturning that landmark endangerment finding.”
Reporting by Susan Ormiston, CBC News, Toronto.
———————
THE UK VIEW
WITH BOB WARD INTERVIEW
Let’s hear from Channel 4, the public broadcaster in the United Kingdom.
“Donald Trump has already pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement not once, but twice, and now he’s gone full anti-science with this latest earth-changing announcement. [Trump] ’Under the process just completed by the EPA, we are officially terminating the so-called endangerment finding, a disastrous Obama-era policy.’ The endangerment finding of 2009 saw the Environmental Protection Agency declare that greenhouse gases threaten the public’s health and welfare, and therefore the government had a legal basis to regulate those gases.
That has underpinned US climate policy ever since, impacting cars, factories and oil refineries. But for President Trump, who this week was handed a statue for being the, quote,’ undisputed champion of beautiful clean coal’, he has long called climate change a ’hoax’, and his EPA head claimed that the endangerment finding had damaged US industry and pushed prices up for consumers.
The endangerment finding and the regulations that were based on it didn’t just regulate emissions. It regulated and targeted the American dream. And now the endangerment finding is hereby eliminated. As well as all greenhouse gas emission standards that followed, the red tape has been cut.
Team Trump has therefore dismissed both the scientific consensus and the reality of climate change. Fresh off 2025 being one of the three hottest years on record, this past week storms have struck France, Spain and Portugal, with the latter witnessing collapsed roads and flooded towns. Scientists have been clear that while such storms are not unusual, their intensity and frequency has been exacerbated by climate change.
The rest of the world is aggressively trying to lower emissions and for the US to be going in exactly the opposite direction at this moment in time could not be worse. And the bad news from America comes after some more positive developments. Deforestation of Brazil’s Amazon rainforest has fallen by 35% and 2026 could see the lowest annual deforestation rate since records began.
And China, the world’s biggest polluter, has seen its carbon emissions flat or falling for the past 21 months. Beijing is now a solar and wind superpower. And that comes in the face of an America that is not just rolling back greenhouse gas regulations but has a president firmly against renewable energy.
[Trump] ’We’ve basically stopped all windmills in this country. It’s the most expensive energy you can get.’ If Trump’s policies have no scientific grounding, his administration does feel more confident with its economic argument, claiming that by ending regulations on greenhouse gases from cars, consumers will make huge savings.
And anyway, they say that Americans don’t want to be forced to drive expensive electric vehicles. They also said that car manufacturers and other businesses will now save around $1 trillion thanks to the end of climate change red tape. And the economic arguments around climate change and the push for net zero are not just consigned to Trump’s America.
This week, the think tank run by former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair came out and criticized the current Labour administration in the UK, saying that their drive for clean power by 2030 have pushed energy prices up and that they should rethink their strategy. President Trump’s announcement yet again points to an America far too inconsistent on such a pivotal issue for the planet.
It was the Republican Richard Nixon who set up the EPA and first warned of climate change in the 1970s. But President George W. Bush 30 years later rejected the Kyoto Agreement that sought to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And it was the EPA under Barack Obama that introduced the endangerment finding, and he signed up to the 2015 Paris Climate Accords, both are now history. The former president responded to the latest developments by saying that Americans will now be less safe and less healthy, all so that the fossil fuel industry can make even more money.
BOB WARD INTERVIEW
[CH4] And joining me now from the state of Oregon in the United States is Bob Ward from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. Now, in the announcement, you know, Lee Zeldin, the head of the EPA, said that the endangerment finding from 2009 was based on the most pessimistic views of the science and that most of what was predicted in 2009 has not panned out. Is he right at all in any of that?
[BW] No, he’s completely wrong. And indeed, the United States National Academy of Sciences published a report in September 2025 pointing out that the original reasons for introducing the endangerment finding had actually been fulfilled and were even stronger now than before. So he has ignored the science of climate change. And that’s not surprising.
We saw Donald Trump at the announcement describe climate change as a scam. So it’s clear that the administration just doesn’t take climate change seriously, pretend it doesn’t exist. I mean, greenhouse gas emissions from the United States have been falling for the past two decades.
[CH4] How much of an impact will this have and how soon do you think there could be an impact?
[BW] It would be difficult to reverse the trend because I think that it’s very difficult. For instance, if you’re a car manufacturer at the moment, you’re going to be thinking, well, am I going to now be in a situation where I have to build cars that are different for each state? For instance, if each state has their own regulation, it’s also going to be difficult to start building cars that are fundamentally different if you’re an exporter because other countries around the world, particularly Europe, have introduced regulations that prevent you from having the most polluting cars on the road. So it’s going to be rather difficult if you’re a car manufacturer to make a decision about what’s going to happen.
And I think that we’re talking about long term investments here. I’m not sure many states such as Texas, which has a huge amount of wind energy, for instance, are suddenly going to change direction on this simply because the economics don’t work.
[CH4] So why do you think Donald Trump is sort of tying himself to coal, to the fossil fuel industry if the economics aren’t there?
[BW] Well, the president was blatant during his election campaign that he wanted to open the door to more fossil fuel production. In fact, he describes this as American energy dominance. He wants the whole world to be more dependent on American fossil fuels. And of course, he received rather large donations from many of the companies that are now benefiting from the changes in regulations.
So I think it’s fairly clear what the incentive is. Donald Trump has done a deal with the fossil fuel industry about removing any regulations on their operations because he’s received great financial donations from them to help him win the election. Are you concerned at all about a resistance towards net zero, resistance towards renewables, arguments that, you know, consumers and customers are seeing the energy prices go up because of all of this and therefore this doesn’t make sense? The science is very clear.
It is going to be a challenge making the transition away from fossil fuels because it becomes so embedded in our economy. However, the evidence is also very clear that if you want an electricity system, for instance, that is insulated from changes in the global price of fossil fuels, which is very volatile, as we saw during, particularly after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, you will need to move to clean domestic sources of energy.
[CH4] So I guess finally, how worried are you by this announcement?
[BW] This is going to make it more difficult for the world to get to net zero globally. And let’s be clear, you need to get to net zero globally if you want to stop the impacts of climate change in the United Kingdom and around the world. If the United States slows down, it’s going to make that longer and more difficult to do. And it’s going to be more impacts around the world which will have devastating impact for lives and livelihoods.
Bob Ward, chair of the London Climate Change Partnership, thank you very much for talking to me.”
Find the full story here on YouTube.
Dr. Bob Ward is Policy and Communications Director at Grantham Research Institute and Chair of the London Climate Change Partnership. He spoke on Channel 4, February 13, 2026. In February 2026 Ward teamed up with America’s Michael Mann for this article in the San Francisco Chronicle: “Trump’s EPA can’t simply erase climate change — and we’ll all pay the price”. Ward appeared on Radio Ecoshock in 2013.
Check out this article from London School of Economics and Grantham Research Institute
researcher Pallavi Sethi: “Inside Trump’s campaign to censor climate science”.
———————-
COVERAGE FROM FRANCE-
ROBERT PROCTOR INTERVIEW
Here is France24 February 18th.
“To discuss I’m pleased to be joined now on the program by Robert Proctor. He is a science historian at Stanford University. Hello to you and thanks for joining us.
Thank you, Nadia.
[NADIA] Look, back in 2016, when Trump first won the US presidency, you wrote that about climate change in the age of ignorance. I wonder then, with Trump back imposing all of these sweeping changes, how do you view that age of ignorance today?
[RP] Well, I think it’s much more insidious, much more powerful. We’re in the age much more of social media and global strongmen. And so you’ve got a kind of ignorance from above through these strongmen, people like Trump, and you got ignorance from below, from social media. And Trump in particular on climate, he loves oil, he loves what he calls clean coal, even has declared his love for plastics.
And America is already the leading producer of petrochemicals. And it’s going to get worse. He’s curbing many of our legal agreements.
He’s punishing universities by increasing their costs. And he’s firing. He’s been firing thousands of scientists in a kind of blitzkrieg against everything we know about climate up to this point.
Look, though, back when he was first in power, Trump was pretty aggressive then on climate as well, wasn’t he? Pulled the US out of the Paris 2015 climate deal the first time around as well. So is he more aggressive this time? More efficient, more dangerous? How would you characterize it? All of those things?
[RP] Yeah, he now has all branches of government. He has the Congress, he has the Senate, he essentially has the Supreme Court. And he’s got a bunch of compliant Republicans in the majority. So he also has much more experience. And he’s much more lawyered up.
And he’s got project 2025 behind him. And so he is moving at a much faster pace with much less resistance. And look, you mentioned Donald Trump’s love apparently for plastic and one of his more headline grabbing announcements is that the United States will bring back plastic straws.
PLASTIC STRAW DISASTER…
Let’s just perhaps listen to what it is that Trump had to say about that.
[TRUMP] ’These things don’t work. I’ve had a many times and on occasion they break, they explode. If something’s hot, they don’t last very long, like a matter of minutes, sometimes a matter of seconds. It’s a ridiculous situation. So we’re going back to plastic straws. And I don’t think that plastic is going to affect a shark very much as they’re eating as they’re munching their way through the ocean.
[NADIA] And look, Mr. Proctor, you know, you can hear the kind of chuckles in the room there when he’s making that announcement. It’s not the most coherently explained idea by the US president. But I wonder, sort of behind the way that he talks about it, is there something I don’t know, thought out, even sort of malicious in the way that Donald Trump uses this kind of simple language to get to something that is actually quite dark and quite dangerous?
[RP] Of course, that’s his appeal. He’s always talking about common sense. He knows, he says he knows better than anyone.
He talks, people credit him with telling it how it is. He’s a very calculatedly, uncalculated political figure. And so he is, he has this appeal, which has done an end run, really, around the scientific establishment.
And let’s talk about maybe global warming, specifically, because look, whether Donald Trump believes that global warming is real or not remains an open question. But what we do know is that there are more and more Americans who are deeply sceptical, or perhaps who even outright deny that climate change is a reality. And look, you mentioned social media a bit earlier on.
So I wonder, how much of this sort of distrust when it comes to the climate crisis, can we attribute to Donald Trump himself? And how much can we attribute to these kind of wider factors?
[RP] You touched on a few of them earlier, social media, being one of them, a declining trust in institutions, not just in the United States, but in other countries as well. Well, remember, he has allies now in social media. And so in a sense, he is powering a lot of the social media from below through his Truth Social, through his alliance with Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, the owner of X, now Twitter.
And so he’s able to marshal these forces more effectively. And look, he’s also able to exploit some poverty of communication, you might say, among scientists when scientists talk about one and a half or two degrees centigrade warming. Trump will point out, well, it’s two degrees warmer in my living room than my bathroom, so what’s the big deal? So he’s a master of trivialization, and a master of exploiting the poverty of the communication skills of many scientists.
And as you say, then, it’s not simply that Trump is implementing these policies that are bad for the planet. He’s using his language to sow disinformation about climate change. And I suppose the big question for an individual like you for the scientific community more broadly is, look, how do you fight that? Yeah, well, it’s going to be hard.
The resistance is taking shape, but it’s going to be slow. We’re likely to see some of the most powerful resistance coming from the courts, because we’re moving toward what many people consider a constitutional crisis when Trump is firing thousands of scientists from the Department of Energy, from the Environmental Protection Agency, from the National Institutes of Health. He’s essentially usurping the role, the power of the purse that’s supposed to be allocated to Congress.
Congress has allocated these funds for research, and if he cuts them off, that could provoke a constitutional crisis, and the courts may have to decide whether he’s allowed to do what he’s doing. But then if Trump violates the court’s rulings, that’ll put us in an entirely new constitutional realm.”
———————-
BACK IN AMERICA
MICHAEL MANN, CLIMATE CHAMPION
Getting back to America, climate champion Michael Mann explains the importance of “the Endangerment finding” on the Katie Phang show.
Michael Mann:
“The endangerment finding recognizes that CO2 is a pollutant, it does damage to our health, it’s impacting human health, it’s impacting our economy, it’s impacting every facet of modern life, and it’s doing real damage to our health. The extreme weather events, the floods, the heat waves, the wildfires, the water and air pollution from fossil fuel burning, extraction and burning, by some estimates, that alone, the water and air pollution that results from our dependence on fossil fuels is responsible for as much as 25% of all premature deaths. So it’s a major killer.
The endangerment finding recognized that formally and allowed the federal government to make laws that recognize that damage, that allowed the Obama administration, for example, to oppose tougher fuel efficiency standards to decrease the carbon emissions from automobiles, and it laid the groundwork for the Clean Power Plan, which recognized the right of the federal government to regulate carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants, from fossil fuel producers. And so whether it’s our energy and power sector, or our transportation sector, those two are more than 50% of our carbon emissions in the U.S. The endangerment finding essentially provided lever arms for the federal government in regulating carbon emissions. With that gone, there is no way for the federal government now to do that.”
MANN ON DEMOCRACY NOW!
Here is the backstory to the latest Trump climate attack, as heard on Democracy Now with the one and only Amy Goodman.
“This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman in Colorado. Hundreds of protesters gathered in Boulder Saturday to condemn the Trump administration’s plan to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research, NCAR, a federally funded climate and weather research institute based in Boulder. Last week, White House Budget Director Russell Vought called NCAR ’one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country’.
Democratic lawmakers have suggested Trump targeted the climate facility in retaliation for Colorado’s refusal to release Tina Peters, a former county clerk convicted of tampering with voting machines during the 2020 presidential election. She was sentenced to nine years. Trump recently pardoned her, but he doesn’t have the legal authority to overturn a state court conviction.
We’re joined now by climate scientist Michael Mann, professor at the University of Pennsylvania. His new book with Dr. Peter Hotez is titled ’Science Under Siege’. He has a new piece out today in The Guardian on Trump’s shuttering of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Can you talk about the significance, Michael, Professor Mann, of the closing? Are they closing this facility? What it means? I mean, even right now, as Colorado is under a wildfire alert, because there has been so little rain and the winds are so intense.
[MANN] Yeah, it’s good to be with you, Amy. Unfortunately, this does sort of underscore just how absurd this latest action by the Trump administration is.
We’re literally seeing the devastating consequences of climate change play out in this state. You’re not supposed to get wildfires in the middle of the winter in Colorado, but that’s the world we live in now because of the warming of the planet and the more extreme weather that we’re seeing as a result. And, you know, I think there are a lot of things that Donald Trump could have tried to do to hurt the state of Colorado.
I think the reason that he chose NCAR is that it is the crown jewel of climate science for more than a half century. It has been a leader when it comes to American advancement in the science of climate modeling. And he is executing the playbook of Project 2025 the Heritage Foundation, of course, playing a major part in this dismantling of climate infrastructure, the infrastructure for doing climate science, the infrastructure for doing something about the climate crisis.
[AG] So it isn’t a coincidence that he’s going after this, you know, iconic climate institution. So talk about overall the Trump administration now when it comes to climate change and what does it mean to take NCAR basically offline and what happens to this facility in Boulder right now?
[MANN] Yeah, it’s unclear at this point. And this will play out in the courts almost certainly. So we don’t know the full consequences of this yet. But the models that NCAR creates are used around the world. They are among the leading models of Earth’s climate system.
I have benefited tremendously in my own research from the work that NCAR does when it comes to climate modeling, when it comes to observational climate data sets that allow us to document the changes that are taking place. So this will hurt climate science certainly writ large, but it will also ensure that the United States fall to the back of the line essentially. We used to lead in all areas of science and certainly in climate science.
And now these sorts of actions are going to mean that the rest of the world moves ahead of us. Scientists are going to leave the United States for opportunities in other countries. And we are going to essentially fall behind in terms of our scientific leadership and our scientific stature in the world.
But the actual practical consequences are that we will not have the sorts of observational data and climate models that we need to inform climate policy, to help us understand what sorts of adaptive measures will need to be changed to protect people from the devastating consequences of climate change as it continues on. The Trump administration recently denied Colorado Governor Jared Polis’ disaster declaration requests for major wildfires and flooding across Colorado. The Boulder area experienced hurricane-force winds of nearly 100 miles per hour over the weekend and increased fire danger, prompting NCAR to close for safety reasons.
The significance of this? Yeah, I mean, it’s ironic, isn’t it? Not only are they trying as Trump and, you know, the Koch brothers and the other sort of plutocrats behind these actions, not only are they trying to dismantle climate science, they’re trying to dismantle our ability to protect people from the devastating consequences of climate change. So it’s cruel. It is, you know, it’s going to cost lives.
I mean, these actions are, you know, it may be a little bit more subtle than the lives cost because of their anti-science actions when it comes to vaccines and COVID-19 and protecting, you know, protecting public health in that arena. But millions of people ultimately will die from the consequences of extreme weather events, coastal inundation, all of these impacts that are made worse by the warming of the planet that’s due to the burning of fossil fuels, the burning of fossil fuels by the very companies and plutocrats and petrostates that are behind the policies of this administration.
[AG] It’s been said not since the ransacking of the Library of Alexandria have we witnessed such a wanton, intentional assault on scientific knowledge. We have 30 seconds, Professor Mann.
[MANN] Yeah, it’s a line from my commentary. And, you know, there’s some question as to the veracity of that story. But I think it captures sort of the insanity of what we’re doing. We’re literally destroying knowledge. And we have to look back to ancient times to see, you know, eras similar, you know, when barbarians tried to destroy knowledge. That’s what this administration is doing. They’re trying to destroy knowledge.
[AG] Michael Mann, professor at the University of Pennsylvania, co-author of the book ‘Science Under Siege’ with Dr. Peter Hotez.”
Get real news – without the oligarchs – from democracynow.org.
=====================
Twilight of science in America. This is the most painful program I ever made, a story I never expected to report. The search for verified truth goes on in other places. We continue the journey next week.
I’m Alex Smith. Thank you for listening, and caring about this world.