On this small planet we call home, humanity has developed a remarkable ability: to understand the world through observation, reason and relentless curiosity. We call this process science. And yet, here we are, in the third decade of the 21st century, in a nation that once prided itself on scientific achievement, we find ourselves witnessing a troubling regression towards wilful ignorance that threatens the very progress we once fought to achieve.
The dismissal of hundreds of scientists from NOAA. A proposed 65% budget cut to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The quiet but deliberate erasure of the word "climate" from government discourse. These are not isolated bureaucratic events. They are part of a broader shift—a governance style that treats expertise as expendable and scientific knowledge as a threat to political authority.
Science isn’t under attack because it’s wrong. It’s under attack because it refuses to flatter ideology.
Take the Environmental Protection Agency, founded by President Richard Nixon in 1970. Since then, U.S. air pollution has dropped by over 70%, while the economy has nearly tripled. A win-win, by any rational measure. And yet, the agency now faces deep budget cuts—originally spun as “staff reductions,” later unmasked as a staggering 65% slash. Call it what you will, the result is the same: an agency stripped of its ability to protect public health.
Meanwhile, science denial doesn’t just shape policy —it costs lives. When an unvaccinated child in Texas died of measles—the first such death in the U.S. since 2015—while nearly 140 others fell ill, across Texas and New Mexico, it wasn’t just a medical crisis. It’s the price of treating ignorance as a virtue. The choice to present vaccine scepticism as a form of freedom rather than a public health hazard is more than misguided—it’s dangerous.
And let’s be clear: This isn’t just about bad policy. It’s political theatre. The rejection of climate science, the dismissal of vaccines, the sidelining of experts—these are not just policy decisions, but performances, loyalty tests to a worldview that prioritises ideology over evidence.
But here’s the thing: Reality does not negotiate. The climate system of our planet will not adjust its behaviour to accommodate our political preferences. Reality, as it has always been, remains stubbornly indifferent to our wishes. The melting ice caps do not care about executive orders; rising sea levels remain unimpressed by budget cuts. The natural world does not care about our politics.
When we reject evidence-based thinking, we do not create an alternative reality where wishful thinking prevails. we simply stumble blindly into the same reality, but are deprived of the understanding that science provides. If we cannot distinguish between comfort and truth, we risk retreating into the shadows of superstition and ignorance, forfeiting the hard-won insights that generations of scientists have gifted to humanity.
A society that treats knowledge as a political inconvenience does not remain strong for long. When truth itself becomes subject to censorship—when we are told what to think rather than taught how to think—we enter a dangerous territory. The consequences extend far beyond immediate political advantage – they lead towards foolish and incompetent decision-making and ultimately civilisational decline.
The question is not whether science can survive political attack. It always has. The real question is whether we, as a society, can survive without it.
This article is free to read, but if you found it useful, please consider subscribing or making a small donation at my Buy Me A Coffee page below. The Climate Historian is an independent publication, entirely supported by readers like you.
Music: Sweaty Linen - Surf Ninja 3 (YouTube Audio Library)
Share this post