I think that he’s commenting on the political correctness bias of what is considered accepted science. The bulk of the funding goes to studies attempting to find the desired outcome, while studies showing that the desired narrative may not be entirely correct are shot down as weak science. Less than 5% of our energy is produced from wind and solar. Both methods are too costly and inefficient to provide enough power to meet our massive energy needs. Electric cars are great, but the manufacturing and disposal of the batteries, and burning tons of coal to produce the vast majority of our electricity isn’t. The windmills sound like a good idea, but the amount of power that they produce over time compared to their cost make them inefficient as well. The huge carbon fiber blades are also time limited parts that are difficult to recycle or dispose of. The one truly green option, nuclear, is safe and the most efficient option given our current level of technology. The problem is that it isn’t politically correct. It has an extremely low carbon and environmental footprint, it is more efficient than coal, and unlike wind or solar, it can run 24/7 and provide plentiful power without depending on adequate wind or sunshine. France is almost completely nuclear and has an ample supply of clean energy. Germany is highly dependent on nuclear as well, but they have decided to move away due to political reasons and public perceptions lacking any hard evidence. We won’t even admit that it is an option, or that wind and solar energy can’t even come close to meeting our needs. Instead we put up a few wind and solar farms to feel good about ourselves and fire up that fossil fuel generator.