In a hostile interview with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross on Friday’s NBC Today, co-host Matt Lauer didn’t even bother to conceal his contempt for President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. In response, the cabinet official exposed the anchor’s liberal bias on the topic.

After Lauer demanded that his guest react to liberal CEO’s incensed by Trump’s decision and wondering if walking away from the agreement “damaged our national security,” Ross defended the President: “The country has actually reduced its emissions quite a little bit, largely due to the advent of natural gas as a replacement for higher pollutive fossil fuels....the President hasn’t changed any of that. He is an environmentalist, I’ve known him for a long time. He’s very pro-environment.”

Lauer completely lost it: “How can you say he’s an environmentalist when he’s rolled back many of the initiatives of the Obama administration and now he’s basically taken a 180 degree turn from what the Obama administration did in signing this Paris Accord?” Ross hit back: “Well, you’re taking as the given that the Obama administration was right and any other action was wrong. I don’t agree with that assumption.”

The morning show host whined: “What about 195 other countries around the world?” Ross accurately pointed out how the deal unfairly benefitted many nations at the expense of the U.S.:

Yeah, those other countries aren’t front-ending burdens the way that we were asked to do. This agreement, as I understand it, would have allowed China to keep increasing its emissions all the way out til 2030. That’s hardly climate control. We were giving money up front, they’re able to continue increasing their emissions through 2030. Is that a balanced deal? I don’t think so.

Lauer desperately tried to spin those lopsided terms: “There’s no question about it, it was weighted in different ways for different countries, but the Chinese had committed to reducing their emissions by about 60% after 2030.”

Earlier in the exchange Lauer ironically complained that the President’s opposition to the agreement was based on “a survey that was conducted back in 2005 that’s been roundly criticized because it basically took hypothetical numbers and plugged them in, in the worst-case scenario in just about every aspect of the Paris Accord and came up with kind of a doomsday scenario.”

It was completely lost on him that using “hypothetical numbers” to create a “worst-case” “doomsday scenario” was precisely the practice routinely employed by climate change activists and media.

Here is a full transcript of the June 2 report: