#1232 Michael Mann - Science Under Siege: The Five Most Powerful Forces that Threaten Our World

00:00 Ricardo Lopes: Hello everyone. Welcome to a new episode of The Dissenter. I'm your host, as always, Ricardo Lop, and today I'm joined by Dr. Michael Mann. He's presidential Distinguished Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, and today we're going to talk about his latest. Book which he co-wrote with Dr. Peter Hotez, Science Under Siege How to Fight the Five Most Powerful Forces that Threaten our World. So Dr. Mann, welcome to the show. It's an honor to everyone.

00:35 Michael Mann: Thank you, Ricardo. It's great to be with you.

00:38 Ricardo Lopes: So, uh, tell us first, what is the main argument of your book and particularly why did you feel the need to write it, I mean, uh, last year, 2025, but at this particular moment?

00:54 Michael Mann: Yeah, thanks. It's a great question because when uh Peter and I began writing this book, It was actually 2.5 years ago, so it was before this latest election, um, which brought Donald Trump back to power, and, uh, of course, we've seen him implement, uh, uh, you know, exactly the sort of agenda that we warn about. In the book, uh, which is this sort of anti-science agenda, ideologically driven, uh, anti-science agenda, um, in service of climate denial, uh, in service of the fossil fuel industry, um, and, uh, their effort to sort of double down on our reliance on fossil fuels, and of course, uh, Something that's really only emerged over the last half decade, which is this strong sort of strain of um of anti-vax sentiment. Uh, AND the rejection of the, um, you know, the, the findings of the public health community by conservatives, by, you know, so-called MAGA conservatives, and, uh, this has come together in sort of a perfect storm. That's really how the book came into being, because it was at the very beginning of the pandemic when I saw um my uh friend, my now good friend and colleague and co-author, uh, Peter Hotez being subject to the same sorts of attacks that we climate scientists had been subjected to for decades, and I reached out to him, um, because I felt we had some lessons to, to offer them as to how to deal with this, these sorts of assaults. And, um, and that grew to a friendship and a partnership, and we realized that we really had a book to write about sort of the commonality. Between the sort of anti-science sentiment in our two respective fields, and what we can learn from it, and, and how we can try to move ahead, and of course, it takes on a particular salience now in the era of Trump 2.0, although it's not actually a scenario that we Envisioned when we first wrote the book, but what's played out has really reinforced the warnings of the book and the urgency of fighting this increasingly dangerous and pervasive anti-science and disinformation in service of anti-science.

03:17 Ricardo Lopes: Yes, the timing of the release of the book was actually very interesting. So, but what do you mean in the book by anti-science? I mean, how can we identify something or label something as anti-science?

03:36 Michael Mann: Yeah, that's another. Great question, because, you know, there are areas of science that are disputed, um, and where scientists, uh, may differ in their interpretation of the data and come to different, uh, determinations, uh, different conclusions, and, and that's all part of the healthy sort of self-correcting machinery of science that uh the great Carl Sagan spoke so eloquently about. And so we have to distinguish between that sort of good faith, give and take, and debate. That not only exists in science, but must exist in science, and what I would call uh the bad faith rejection of uh mainstream scientific findings, where the overwhelming consensus of the world scientists is rejected, um, uh, based on arguments that don't hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. That's not skepticism, that's the opposite of skepticism, and those who sort of, again, Uh, dismissed the mainstream findings of science based on the flimsiest of evidence, are hardly skeptics, even though they'd like to call themselves that. Um, THEY'RE, they're science deniers, and typically, there's an ideological reason, it's motivated reasoning. It isn't that they've come to some different conclusion based on an honest look at the at the data and and the evidence, it's that they have come to certain politically expedient or ideologically motivated conclusions, and have worked back to what they believe has to be true. To support their positions. Um, AND, and that's what we see today, that's what we see, so, you know, again, so pervasively in the world of climate science, and certainly in the public health arena as well.

05:22 Ricardo Lopes: Yes. Uh, SO apart from, and of course I'm going to ask you more specifically about climate science, which is your field of expertise and also in recent years, uh, after and during the COVID-19 pandemic about the rise or real rise of anti-vaccine positions, uh, but are there other ways in Which anti-science has manifested itself in recent years. I mean, are there any other particular topics you see that it has manifested itself about in recent years, or are there specific ways it has manifested? Could you tell us a little bit more about that?

06:05 Michael Mann: Yeah, thanks. It's another great question, uh, because of course, Peter and I focus really. Primarily on our experiences in these two worlds, in the world of vaccines, public health, and, and, in the world of climate science. Um, BUT, uh, there are so many examples, uh, where the findings of science have found themselves on a collision course with, um, ideologically or motivated individuals or institutions, um. And it's true in climate change because the fossil fuel industry has a vested interest here, um, in our continued reliance on fossil fuels, even though that is creating this you know, this, this epistemic threat of, uh, you know, of, of catastrophic climate change. Um, THE same thing, uh. You know, the, um, there, there are, and we go through the book because you really have to understand the history of what unfolded during the pandemic to understand why right wing um interests have aligned themselves with with anti-science in the COVID arena. And it actually has to do with early on when, you know, public health uh leaders were calling for uh social distancing and, and lockdowns to stem the spread of the pandemic. Uh, THAT was leading to a decrease in transportation and fossil fuel usage, and that was hurting, the fossil fuel industry, and it was hurting um individuals like the Koch brothers, who are the owners of the largest petrochemical, uh, privately held petrochemical interest in the US. And so they decided to fund these efforts that were aimed at attacking the public health scientists, and discrediting the notion that we needed lockdowns, that we needed social distancing, that we needed stay at home orders, uh, it was hurting their bottom line. And so we have to understand, you know, some of the factors that sort of entered in that led, you know, so those are those two issues. I just spent a whole lot of time talking about them. But, you know, also, you know, there's the, the epidemic of guns in the US and, and, and, and, um. And, and the needless uh loss of lives, because um we're not listening to the science, to people actually study, uh, sort of this, um, you know, this epidemic, if you will, of, of, um, you know, of, of uh Uh, mass shootings that we see in the United States, um, on a regular basis. And, you know, and there's, there is an understanding, um, within, you know, the, the scholarly community about what sort of policies actually prevent that. And, and, and, and those very policies are opposed by a powerful interest group in the US, the National Rifle Association, which is aligned itself with the Republican Party. Um, THERE are examples, uh, uh, pollutants, um, you know, uh, air and water pollutants, uh, mercury pollution, for example, is associated with, um, fossil fuels, and, and there the fossil fuel industries, uh, the global plastic pollution problem, and again, the The beverage industry here in the petrochemical industry relies on the continued manufacturing of single-use plastics, even though these are harmful to us, they're harmful to the environment. Um, AND so the list goes on, and literally anytime, you know, I, I forgot the most important one of all. Um, IT, in fact, it, it was Where the very rulebook that is used now by bad actors to dispute science they find inconvenient, uh, the tobacco industry, and the fact that their own research showed that their product was killing people. In fact, um, doubt is our product, was a line from an internal tobacco industry memo. They understood that the only way they could continue to profit was to, uh, literally. Discredit the emerging science that their own scientists had secretly affirmed that their product was killing large numbers of people, and that the rule book that the tobacco industry basically wrote, which was to lavishly fund advocates, uh, to, um, uh, you know, to promote their position, um, to attack the science, to create front groups and organizations whose sole reason for Existence was to attack the science and to dispute the science and to call for, you know, debate that we need to debate whether or not this is a problem. The idea that there are two equal sides, um, when in fact the science was overwhelmingly telling us one thing, tobacco products were killing people, fossil fuels are killing people too, and the fossil fuel industry has run with the rulebook written by the tobacco industry.

11:00 Ricardo Lopes: Mhm. Yes, and I think that that rule book and the case of the tobacco industry was very well explored and in lots of detail in the book. I hope I'm remembering correctly the book Merchants of Doubt

11:15 Michael Mann: by my good friend

11:16 Ricardo Lopes: Naomi Oreskes, yeah, yeah, yeah,

11:19 Michael Mann: I met Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway, um, a definitive treatise really on. You know, on the, the mechanisms of anti-science and how dangerous they are to us.

11:32 Ricardo Lopes: Yes, I, I've met Doctor Oreskes on the show in 2023, so she's very, a very fascinating person.

11:38 Michael Mann: His name is great. Yes, good friend of mine, and I'm a big, big fan of hers.

11:42 Ricardo Lopes: So when it comes to climate change, of course climate change denial is not something that just appeared recently in the 2020s. I mean it's much older than that, but do you have the feeling that in more recent In recent years it has gotten worse in any way or that perhaps this kind of narrative has more support from powerful figures and powerful players in the media and other places.

12:16 Michael Mann: Yeah, what I would say it's, it's sort of morphed over the last 5 to 10 years and actually my, uh, two books ago, uh, not my most recent book, but the book before that, um. Uh, WAS, uh, uh, the, the, the, um, the new climate war, um, is the title of the book, and it was about that, about how the attack on climate science by the fossil fuel industry and those advocating for them has evolved from what historically was a Direct assault on the science itself. And what's happened is we can see what's happening with our own two eyes. It's very difficult for polluters and those promoting their agenda to deny that climate change is happening because we're, we're, we're literally experiencing it. So what they've done is they've moved to other tactics, um, rather than denial, outright denial itself, and there's been a bit of a resurgence, um, of, of, of, of sheer outright science denial over the past, uh, year or two, especially during the era of Trump, and, and the era during which powerful plutocrats like Elon Musk have, uh, bought out social media platforms like Twitter, and, uh, and, and, and, uh, tweak the algorithms to favor the promotion of anti-science on COVID, on climate. So there's been a bit of a resurgence on, you know, outright denial that it's happening, but by and large, uh, polluters, and again, those advocating for The, politicians and right wing media outlets and the hired talking heads, um, they have sort of evolved in their talking points away from, you know, for the most part, that climate change isn't happening to, well, maybe it's happening. So, stopping short of denial, but turning to other tactics that still lead to the same place, that still sort of favor this notion that we don't need to do anything, that we can continue to burn fossil fuels, we don't need renewable energy. So what are those tactics? And not so much denial, they're deflection. Deflecting attention away from the needed policies. They are division, getting climate advocates fighting with each other online, on social media. It's a divide and conquer strategy, and they do that with bot armies and troll farms. Uh, THERE is, um, doomism, in fact, uh, interestingly, you might think about doomism. Well, if you really believe that it's too late to do anything about the problem, that leads you. Down the same path of inaction as outright denial, and increasingly we see bad actors fanning the flames of climate doomism to convince erstwhile climate advocates, those who would otherwise be on the front lines demanding action, to convince them, hey, it's too late anyways, uh, to move them from the front lines to the sidelines, whereas what, where, that's where the bad actors want them to be. And so, There are all of these other uh tactics, um, and I've, I, I like to use alliteration, uh, they all start with D, um, that stop, stop short of denial, but still lead us to the same place. Um, THEY still favor. He, um, you know, the status quo, um, an agenda of business as usual, reliance on fossil fuels.

15:47 Ricardo Lopes: Do you think that uh these kinds of uh anti-science sort of manifestations, uh, like climate change denial, uh, being anti-vaccine and other uh positions related with, uh, medicine, healthcare, the tobacco industry, and so on. Do you look at them as being part of a long trend, a trend that's been occurring that we've been seeing in the United States and perhaps some other countries as well over the past few decades of anti-intellectual. ISM and anti-expert takes, particularly now amplified by the internet and social media, particularly, even though we also, of course, uh, listen to them and watch them on the, on mainstream media.

16:45 Michael Mann: Yeah, I mean, no, no question, um, it, it, it's impossible to separate anti-science. From the sort of larger problem that afflicts us in the United States in particular, but um elsewhere as well, um, this trend towards anti-intellectualism, the rejection of elites, uh, and in fact, that's where it's really important. To understand the tactics of some of the, the key bad actors here, like the Koch brothers. Um, THE Koch brothers, who again, the owners of the largest, uh, it's just one Koch brother now, David Koch, passed away a few years ago, but his legacy lives on, um, and it's a, it's, it's a horrible legacy. Um, THE, the Koch brothers, uh, funded all of these think tanks and front groups that, uh, don't just deny climate change, but they promote a libertarian agenda. Um, THIS idea that we don't need government, we don't need regulations, and It's impossible to extricate that sort of thinking from the idea that we don't need, if we don't need experts, then we don't need intellectuals, and we don't need to be listening to those talking heads who claim they know all the answers, because, hey, they're they're just taking away your freedom to do what you want to do, and so it's tied inextricably to this sort of libertarian philosophy that um You know, that that there are no experts uh that we need to take advice from, uh, that we don't need to be told what to do, and we should reject elites, and we should reject um experts, because in that free for all, in that environment, where there are no trusted voices, and no experts, and No way to distinguish what's right from what's wrong, that plays to the agenda of these bad actors who want uh unfettered access to the reins of our government, to our economy. Um, THEY want to make, you know, uh in, in, in a world that has no rules. Um, THESE bad actors prosper, and that's what we're seeing right now. And that's why we're seeing this, uh, effort right now, um, which is the realization of so-called Project 2025, which was basically this agenda that was written for a second Trump term by the Koch brothers, by these libertarian plutocrats, um, who, who fund, uh, these, you know, the attacks on, on science. Uh, THEY basically wrote a blueprint for what they wanted Trump to. You know, to do if he got a second term. It was basically an agreement they reached. We will support you, even though you're not actually our favorite candidate, if you do what we want you to do, if you appoint our people to run all your agencies, and that's exactly what he's done. And so we now have individuals at the EPA, at the, uh, you know, the uh at the, um, Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, uh, the Department of Interior, all staffed by sort of Koch brother approved candidates who are implementing their agenda of deregulation, literally tearing down all of the institutions that were built up under Republican and Democratic administrations over decades to protect the people and to protect the environment. All of that infrastructure is being torn down as we speak. Um, THEY'RE also attacking the scientific infrastructure. For obvious reasons, because they don't like the message of the science and the scientists. Um, IT sounds like really bad news. Uh, THERE'S hope that, um, in this next midterm election, uh, given the groundswell of opposition we're now seeing to Trump and the GOP and their policies, we could very well see a shift in the control of Congress. And that could sort of, um, That could alter the balance of power in a way that at the very least slows down this current agenda, the Trump 2.0 agenda, until a new president is elected.

20:59 Ricardo Lopes: So, tell us a little bit about I'll walk us through briefly, of course, because we don't have enough time to explore them in lots of detail here, but the five main forces that you identify in the book as being anti-science, and you talk about, namely the plutocrats, the authoritarian patrostats assisted by polluters and the politicians who advocate for them. The pros who use their professional and sometimes scholarly credentials to deceive or promote unsupported contrarian views, the propagandists who amplify these views on social media and other venues, I mean, what we, or sometimes people, sociologists and others call alternative media or new media on the. Internet and also the 5th force or the 5th element here is also the press, including the mainstream press. So tell us a little bit about each of them and the roles they play in this sort of anti-science movement.

22:13 Michael Mann: Yeah, thanks. It's, and as you can see again, I'm a sucker for alliteration and so. Each of these begins with, with a P, um, as you said, it's the, it's the, um, you know, the petrostates, the plutocrats, the pros, the propagandists, and the press, not, not the press uniformly, but many, um, media institutions, um, in today's world. And so they form this sort of ecosystem, um, where they're working together to advance this anti-science agenda, um. And so you have, for example, the plutocrats, we've talked about some of them already, uh, you know, uh, the, the Koch brothers, um, but we'd have to include Rupert Murdoch, um, in that group as well, and his global media empire, which he's weaponized to promote anti-science, climate denial, attack renewable energy, um, COVID-19, uh, conspiracy theories. Um, YOU'VE got Elon Musk. You know, who, who is sort of undergone this Bond villain-like arc from an erstwhile environmental hero to an environmental villain now, and he's weaponized, you know, we, with um help from Saudi Arabia and Russia, and that's important because that'll take us to the Petro states. Um, Trump, uh, I mean, uh, Musk purchased a Twitter and turned it into Uh, uh, again, a, um, a cesspool where anti-science, uh, flourishes now. I, it literally changed the algorithm to pump up the anti-science, and to suppress the voices of actual scientists in, in, in the actual scientific community.

23:52 Ricardo Lopes: And in that particular case, it's even further amplified by his own AI chatbot, Grok.

24:00 Michael Mann: Absolutely Grok, you know, that, um, can, you know, is often promoted that anti-science now under the, uh, you know, auspices of an ostensible, you know, uh, you know, AI, um, sort of, uh, You know, these chatbots, um, these, uh, like, um, like Grock and like, um, you know, uh, chat GPT and uh Claude and, uh. The, the rest of them, um, they're often seen by the public as authoritative figure. You ask them a question, you get a, you know, authoritative, comprehensive, and unbiased answer. And so it's particularly egregious when in fact, Grok has been programmed to give biased answers, um. But, but they're interpreted as somehow having the authoritative, uh, sort of underpinnings of this, this AI, um, so absolutely. So those are, you know, some of the chief plutocrats, these are extremely wealthy, you know, billionaires who have used their wealth and power to promote their own interests, which often align with an anti-science agenda. Now, on their own, Their influence might be limited, but one of the things that they've done is to fund all of these think tanks and front groups, and talking heads who appear on news programs, um, to create this sort of, and, and, uh. Troll armies and and bot farms on social media. Um, THEY funded a lot of the anti-science infrastructure that's so pervasive now in our media, and our, our social media. I mentioned, you know, petro states, uh, Russia and Saudi Arabia, leveraged, uh, you know, uh, Musk's buyout of Twitter. Why did They do that because they, you know, a Petrastate is, is a, is a nation state that derives its wealth and influence primarily from its fossil fuel reserves, it's natural resources, um, and its economy is based on the extraction of natural resources, um, and, uh. These, uh, you know, uh, petrostates tend to be authoritarian states, uh, as well. They tend to have, um, tremendous amounts of, uh, societal inequity, and so petrostate is sort of almost a catch-all for these authoritarian nations that have joined forces with these plutocrats to promote misinformation and disinformation, and a lot of those bot armies and troll farms are actually um Uh, they, they are, uh, state associated. They are black ops, you know, operations run by Russia and Saudi Arabia to pollute the public sphere with propaganda that favors them. Um, THEN you've got, you know, the pros, as you mentioned, uh, these are the talking heads who have seemingly impressive credentials, who go on Fox News, um, or who write op-eds in leading newspapers, um. Attacking the science of climate change, attacking renewable energy, attacking vaccinations, attacking the public health community, um, and they get paid, uh, by, you know, for, for that work that they're doing. Um, AND then the propagandists, the main distinguished. Distinguishing feature between the pros and the propagandists is the pros are actually getting paid or remunerated in some way for spreading misinformation. The propagandists, by and large, do it for free. They're just part of this army of uh bad actors who are out there um promoting the misinformation and disinformation on social media, um, for example. But,

28:06 Ricardo Lopes: but some of them are paid.

28:09 Michael Mann: And some of them are paid, and so the, the, the sort of distinction between prose and propagandists is a little loose, um, because many of them are both, uh, uh, and, uh, the, the primary distinction is simply if they're being paid for it, or if they're doing it for free, uh, they're doing it for ideological reasons or what have you. Right. Then finally the press, and of course we're talking about Fox News and the Murdoch media empire, which is uh which Rupert Murdoch and um his family now have have wielded as this, uh, you know. As this um weapon uh to attack, you know, the science of climate change, to attack um uh vaccines. Uh, OBVIOUSLY, the right wing media, the News Corp, and the, the Murdoch media are part of that, um, but we also, uh, Take to task, uh, many of the, you know, ostensible mainstream media outlets, increasingly, what was once mainstream is no longer, uh, because we're seeing in the United States right now, literally plutocrats buying out our media outlets like CBS, like the Washington Post, and, and. And weaponizing them for, you know, as Jeff Bezos of the, you know, who now owns the Washington Post, even said that he was going to, you know, change the editorial outlook of the Washington Post to promote free markets and sort of a libertarian philosophy. And so what counts as The mainstream press is a little fluid right now, because uh once mainstream outlets are now being bought out by plutocrats and turned into right-wing outlets, CBS News being another example, um, there are many others. Um, BUT we, you know, point out, uh, instances where the New York Times, The Washington Post, other presumably, you know, uh, mainstream outlets have promoted. Some of the same anti-science that we see on on these right wing outlets like Fox News, and in many cases they do it out of what we call a performative neutrality, to show that they're being unbiased because they've been attacked by the right for so long. Uh, THE, the right in this country has cried liberal media for decades, when the media was never liberal, it was quite centrist overall, and in fact, you know, we have a term for that in sports, we call it working the refs. The right wing, the right has been making this accusation over and over again in the hope that the refs, the media outlets, will move in the direction. They want them to move, and, and that's happened. And uh one of the ways that's happened is uh this idea that to be balanced, uh, media outlets have to platform both sides. What does both sides mean when we're talking about matters of science? Um, DOES both sides mean that if you've got a NASA scientist talking about, um, You know, uh, the search for other planets, you need a member from the, uh, a member of the Flat Earth Society, uh, debating them on, on television. Uh, ESSENTIALLY, that's what we see, where, you know, anti-vaxxers are, are held up on a pedestal, given an equal platform with, um, public health experts. The same thing with climate change, where leading climate scientists are sort of, um, You know, uh, put on uh uh. You find themselves um competing with industry funded climate deniers, um, for space in mainstream media outlets, uh. That, you know, that performative neutrality has been particularly uh pernicious, precisely because these outlets are perceived as being unbiased and objective, and when they are promoting, you know, the uh the the the the lab leak theory of COVID-19, which the New York Times and The Washington Post have both platformed. Um, OR, uh, you know, uh, when they platform, you know, someone like Bjorn Lundberg, who, you know, a climate denier who's given, been given space on the pages of the New York Times to promote anti-science nonsense about climate change. Um, WHEN these outlets promote these contrarian views, unlike the right wing media, there are a lot of people in the political middle, or even on the political left who are seeing that and saying, hey, well, if the New York Times is saying it, hey, if the Washington Post is saying it, hey, if CBS News is saying it, there must be something there. Um, THAT, that is especially pernicious, and that's a big part of the problem.

33:05 Ricardo Lopes: Right, so, uh, you wrote this book with Doctor Peter Hotez, you present those five main anti-science forces, but at the same time, uh, I, I mean I want to ask you this because It's not only something that particularly on the right of the political spectrum would be presented or even is presented as an alternative view of a threat to science, an alternative to the view you present in your book, not only that, but also because it usually targets specific. Vulnerable groups of people because there's this common narrative or popular, particularly on the right narrative that the real threats to science are the wokes or wokeism and forces on the left, the radical left, and so on that supposedly infiltrate. Of academia and that oppose science and objective truth and even outside of academia sometimes they claim that these woke radical left forces have infiltrated other social and political institutions as well. Is there any evidence at all to support this kind of claim, or is it part Of the same kind of anti-science narrative just to uh promote prejudice against certain groups of people and distract the general public from these uh real anti-science forces.

34:49 Michael Mann: Yeah, it's a great question. You know, it's sometimes said that uh truth has a liberal bias or science has a liberal bias in the sense that if you simply follow what the science has to say, um. You know, it, it, it, it, it implies. Certain policies, right? Um, IF the science, and, and, and this is betrayed by, you know, the statements by leading climate deniers in the world of politics like James Inhofe, the late James Inhofe, who's senator, um, from Oklahoma, who led the attack on climate science in the US Senate, uh, for, for years, and he once said something that's very telling. He said, you know, I You know, I, I used to believe the science until I realized how much it was going to cost. Now that's, that's misleading because the, the cost of inaction on climate is far greater than the, I wouldn't even call the cost, than the investments necessary to address the problem. So that's already a uh a very problematic framing, but it does tell you something, right, that he started out with his political views and worked backwards. To determine what science, quote unquote, he needed to believe. Um, AND in today's world, uh, of alternative facts and fake news, you can always find, you know, a whole television network that's promoting. Views that are inconsistent with the laws of physics. The laws of physics tells us the planet warms up when you increase the concentration of carbon dioxide, which is happening from fossil fuel burning. That's physics, and if you deny that, you're, you're denying physics. And so, part of the problem, as I said, is that, you know, the science in a sense, has a liberal bias, if you will. Only in the sense that On issues like climate, um, the policy views have fallen along now, uh, uh, uh, a political spectrum where the political right is closely tied to the fossil fuel industry and is opposed to any actions to curtail fossil fuel burning, um, and so they're forced into denying the science. If they are to um justify their policy uh views. And so it's motivated reasoning, um, I would say, and also it's the art of projection, which has been perfected by the political right back to the days of Roy Cohn, um, the infamous Roy Cohn. Uh, WHO, uh, was sort of an advisor, uh, to Republicans during the McCarthy era, um, and Donald Trump has said that he idolizes Roy Cohn. He has been searching for his own Roy Cohn, and Roy Cohn, uh, sort of was the architect of uh projection as a political tool. What is projection? You accuse your opponent of the very thing you are guilty of. Because it tars them with that accusation, and it immunizes you against it. It's like, what, it's not me, it's them. Um, AND so we have seen Donald Trump, um, is a classic, uh, sort of, uh, user of deflection, where he literally says the opposite of what is true, and all too often a willing media. Act, you know, in the United States right now act simply as a stenographer. They don't even fact check, they don't even assess, they just said, well, Donald Trump said that the sky is actually green. You know, some scientists say it's blue. I don't know. Donald Trump says it's green, you decide. We're not going to tell you. Um. And so, uh, so it's deflection, right? So the accusation that academia has been, you know, in the world of science has been populated by all these woke people who are promoting an agenda. They are literally accusing the scientific community and the academic community. Of implementing their agenda. Their agenda has been the effort, and we're seeing it right now, to infiltrate academia, to use the power of the White House, um, and the, the reins of government, which are currently in the hands of Republicans, to put pressure on academic institutions, uh, to, um, to do away with academic freedom. Which is an essential principle, um, in, you know, uh, that goes back to the very beginnings, the foundations of, of, of, of academia. Thomas Jefferson spoke eloquently, uh, when he founded the University of Virginia of the importance of academic freedom, that academia is this, um, Academia is this, uh, environment where, you know, experts, uh, and intellects are encouraged to speak plainly and to speak truth to power, and speaking truth to power. IS a threat to these bad actors, and that's why they've gone after academia for so long. They're going after it right now, and everything they accuse academia and science of is simply What they're guilty of, um, but they're hoping that people won't figure it out. Hey, they're saying academia, you know, the science is a bunch of woke, uh, individuals who are, uh, implementing a scientist. No, scientists, there's a whole scientific method, it's sometimes called, but there's a, there's a whole sort of structure, um, and, and, and, uh, a self-correcting machinery as Carl Sagan described it. Um, IN the world of science, um, there are rules of, uh, uh, you know, uh, rules of engagement, um, and how science, uh, should be done, um. Uh, AND, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, again, machinery that, that, that leads us to a better understanding of the world. If something's wrong, Um, there are incentives in the world of science to prove it wrong. Um, YOU get your name on a science or Nature article if you can prove that the conventional wisdom is wrong. So the incentives actually are to move us in the direction of reality, the, the, the, the, uh, the direction of, uh, you know, um, objective truth. Uh, AND again, to the bad actors that we're talking about, to the political right who are attacking science, that's a problem for them. They don't want academic freedom. They don't want academics to be able to speak plainly. They don't want scientists to be able to speak plainly, to publish. Results that might conflict with their ideological policy views, and that's why they're accusing academia and the world of science of the very tactics and the very motives that it turns out they themselves are perennially guilty of.

42:02 Ricardo Lopes: So we have 5 more minutes. Let me just ask you one last question. Apart from, of course, reading your fantastic book with Dr. THAT you wrote with Dr. Peter Hotez and reading all other books like the one I mentioned by Dr. Oreskes, how can we deal, I mean, what can we do to deal with these threats and anti-science forces?

42:32 Michael Mann: Yeah, you know, um, there, there's a lot that we can do, and, and we try to sort of lay out a prescription, um, in the book, and each of the chapters, and, and especially in the final chapter for how we go about fighting this anti-science beast, and, um, you know, one of them, one of the things we talk about is the importance of scientists stepping up. Um, NOT all of us, but some of us need to be out there speaking to the public, speaking to policymakers, um, getting the truth out because the other side is extremely mobilized and getting Untruths out and promoting the myths and conspiracy theories that support their agenda. Um, SO it's absolutely important that scientists be out there, that the scientific community, uh, the scientific institutions provide resources, especially for young scientists who are interested in engaging in communication and outreach. We have to make sure that they have the tools and support to do that. Um, CAUSE part of the, part of the problem is the invisible scientist, um, to the extent that scientists aren't out there in the public sphere promoting the science, that creates a vacuum, and that vacuum is going to be filled by the voices of these bad actors who have, you know, a vested interest and an agenda. Um, WE talked about, uh, quite a bit about, um, you know, the importance of, uh, you know, collective action, particularly when it comes to politics. Um, EVERYTHING that we're seeing right now, the attacks on science in the public health arena, in the climate and renewable energy arena that we're seeing right now with the current administration, and with the GOP that's supporting their agenda, um, that's all a result of the fact that Not enough people who care about these things, who care about scientific truth, who care about the future of our planet, um, care about our children and grandchildren. Not enough of those people turned out in this last election. SOMETIMES said you, you know, uh, elections have consequences, and this last election had unimaginable consequences. It led us down this extremely dangerous road where not only science and reason, but democracy itself is very much under threat um today, and that's all because not enough people who cared or should care about these things turned out in the last election. So, the single most important thing, and, you know, there are things we can do at the edges, but as long as the policy apparatus is in the hands of the bad actors, um, as long as the fox is guarding the hen house, as it's sometimes said, um, it's extremely difficult. For us to make any forward progress on any of the great challenges we face, whether it's climate or pandemics or anything else. In fact, we're making negative progress. We're seeing scientific institutions, um, and we're seeing, you know, uh, the infrastructure for environmental and public health, um, protection, uh, literally dissolved, destroyed before our eyes. Um, SO the elections have huge consequences. The single most important thing that an individual can do. Um, IN the United States is, is not just vote, uh, but make sure everybody that they know votes as well. Um, AND support, you know, be out there speaking out, um, uh, speaking to your friends and colleagues, figure out what role you can play. Uh, WE all have different platforms, we all have access to, to, to different platforms. Each of us in our own way can influence others, can influence them to vote, can influence them to care about these things. Um, AND we can provide support for organizations that, um, you know, environmental organizations, public health organizations that are, are, are fighting, you know, the fight, um, on the front lines, um, uh, even in the presence of these, um, oppressive. Forces of anti-science that we face right now. Um, SO there's no shortage of things that that people can do, but the single most important thing that people can do. Is to use their vote and their voice to influence policy because we can't make the needed changes as individuals alone. We need to act together so that we elect policymakers who can support the needed systemic changes to confront these challenges.

47:10 Ricardo Lopes: OK, so Dr. Mann, let's end on that note. The book is again Science Under Siege How to Fight the Five Most Powerful Forces that Threaten our World. I'm of course leaving a link to it in the description of the interview, and thank you so much for taking the time to come on the show. As I said at the beginning, it's been an honor to talk to you.

47:33 Michael Mann: It's been an honor for me as well, Ricardo. Thanks so much.

47:36 Ricardo Lopes: Hi guys, thank you for watching this interview until the end. If you liked it, please share it, leave a like and hit the subscription button. The show is brought to you by Enlights, Learning and Development done differently. Check their website at lights.com and also please consider supporting the show on Patreon or PayPal. I would also like to give a huge thank you to my main patrons and PayPal supporters, Perergo Larsson, Jerry Mulleran, Frederick Sundo, Bernard Seaz Olaf, Alex, Adam Cassel, Matthew Whittingbird, Arnaud Wolf, Tim Hollis, Eric Elena, John Connors, Philip Forrest Connolly. Then Dmitri Robert Windegerru Inai Zu Mark Nevs, Colin Holbrookfield, Governor, Michel Stormir, Samuel Andre, Francis Forti Agnun, Svergoo, and Hal Herzognon, Michel Jonathan Labrarith, John Yardston, and Samuel Cerri, Hines, Mark Smith, John Ware, Tom Hammel, Sardusran, David Sloan Wilson, Yasilla Dezara Romain Roach, Diego Londono Correa. Yannik Puntervan Ruzmani, Charlotte Blis, Nicole Barbaro, Adam Hunt, Pavlostazevski, Alec Baka Madison, Gary G. Alman, Semov, Zal Adrian Yei Poltontin, John Barboza, Julian Price, Edward Hall, Edin Bronner, Douglas Fry, Franco Bartolotti, Gabriel P Scortez or Suliliski, Scott Zachary Fish, Tim Duffyani Smith, and Wisman. Daniel Friedman, William Buckner, Paul Georg Jarno, Luke Lovai, Georgios Theophannus, Chris Williamson, Peter Wolozin, David Williams, Dio Costa, Anton Ericsson, Charles Murray, Alex Shaw, Marie Martinez, Coralli Chevalier, Bangalore atheists, Larry D. Lee Junior. Old Eringbon. Esterri, Michael Bailey, then Spurber, Robert Grassy, Zigoren, Jeff McMahon, Jake Zul, Barnabas Raddix, Mark Kempel, Thomas Dovner, Luke Neeson, Chris Story, Kimberly Johnson, Benjamin Galbert, Jessica Nowicki, Linda Brendan, Nicholas Carlson, Ismael Bensleyman. George Ekoriati, Valentine Steinmann, Per Crawley, Kate Van Goler, Alexander Ebert, Liam Dunaway, BR, Massoud Ali Mohammadi, Perpendicular, Jannes Hetner, Ursula Guinov, Gregory Hastings, David Pinsov, Sean Nelson, Mike Levin. And Josnecht. A special thanks to my producers Iar Webb, Jim Frank Lucas Stink, Tom Venneden, Bernard Curtis Dixon, Benedict Mueller, Thomas Trumbull, Catherine and Patrick Tobin, John Carlo Montenegro, Al Nick Cortiz, and Nick Golden, and to my executive producers, Matthew Lavender, Sergio Quadrian, Bogdan Kanis, and Rosie. Thank you for all.