Skeptics Win, Endangerment Finding Axed – Truth Finally Prevails in The Climate Wars

Today is a monumental win for climate skeptics

Today’s decision by the Environmental Protection Agency to remove the Carbon Dioxide Endangerment Finding represents a pivotal shift in America’s approach to climate policy—one rooted in evidence, not ideology. For years, this “finding” has served as the legal justification for an array of costly, far-reaching regulations targeting everything from our nation’s power plants to the cars we drive and the energy bills we pay. Its removal is a direct response to mounting evidence that the basis for this rule was always more about speculative modeling and political maneuvering than sound science. Watch the announcement here:

The Carbon Dioxide Endangerment Finding, first enacted in 2009, rested on claims that rising levels of CO2 posed a dire threat to public health and welfare. These claims, trumpeted by alarmist voices in the media and bureaucracy, relied heavily on computer models that have since proven to be chronically inaccurate, consistently forecasting more warming than actually observed. In the years since, we’ve witnessed a remarkable gap between dire projections and reality: global temperatures have not followed the “runaway” path predicted, and extreme weather events—despite breathless coverage—remain well within the range of historical variability.

Yet while the U.S. was tying itself in regulatory knots, China and other major emitters continued to expand their coal-fired power generation, wiping out any hypothetical benefit of America’s self-imposed restrictions. According to multiple independent sources, China has increased its annual CO2 emissions by over 70% since 2005 and now burns more coal than the rest of the world combined. The idea that the U.S. could “lead by example” and coax the rest of the world into similar sacrifices has been thoroughly debunked by the facts on the ground.

The real-world effects of the Endangerment Finding were felt not in the climate, but in American households and businesses. Energy prices rose, manufacturing jobs fled overseas, and everyday citizens bore the burden of expensive, symbolic gestures that did nothing to alter the climate trajectory. The American people deserve policies that produce measurable results, not more of the same costly theater.

By removing the Endangerment Finding, the EPA is signaling a long-overdue return to rational, evidence-based policy. This action acknowledges that CO2 is not a pollutant in any meaningful scientific sense but a fundamental component of life on Earth—one that, at current atmospheric concentrations, has proven benefits for plant growth and agriculture. The change is not about neglecting environmental stewardship; rather, it’s about discarding unproductive policies and focusing on real solutions grounded in evidence, innovation, and economic reality.

The Role of WUWT and Climate Skeptics Over the Past 25 Years to Reach This Point

Today’s announcement did not happen in a vacuum. It is, in many respects, a testament to the perseverance and integrity of climate skeptics who have spent decades challenging the so-called “consensus.” For over 25 years, voices from outside the mainstream—scientists, meteorologists, engineers, and informed citizens—have raised legitimate questions about the certainty and direction of climate science and the wisdom of policies derived from it.

Watts Up With That (WUWT), which I founded in 2006, has played a key role in this effort. WUWT has provided a public platform for data-driven scrutiny, extended quotes from source material, and open debate on climate claims that were often presented as “settled science.” Over the years, millions of readers have turned to WUWT as a resource for honest analysis and transparent discussion, rather than alarmist dogma and political posturing. Through its detailed posts and vigorous comment sections, WUWT has empowered a generation of climate realists to ask tough questions, demand accountability, and resist the intimidation tactics of those invested in the status quo.

Perhaps nothing better illustrates the necessity of this skepticism than the Climategate scandal of 2009, where a trove of emails from prominent climate scientists exposed a charade disguised as science. The communications revealed attempts to manipulate data, suppress dissenting views, and stonewall requests for transparency—all in the service of defending a narrative rather than advancing understanding. Climategate confirmed what many skeptics had long suspected: that the so-called consensus was enforced through politics, not evidence, and that open inquiry was often treated as a threat rather than a requirement of science.

From the outset, climate skeptics were dismissed as “deniers” and painted as outliers, even as they brought forth data and analysis that contradicted the doomsday narratives dominating headlines. They questioned the overreliance on models with poor track records, the manipulation and cherry-picking of temperature datasets, the politicization of research funding, and the relentless conflation of weather with climate. These challenges were often met not with scientific debate but with ad hominem attacks and attempts to silence dissent.

Yet it is precisely this skepticism—this refusal to bow to groupthink—that has preserved scientific integrity and prevented far worse policy mistakes. The tireless work of independent analysts, bloggers, and organizations like The Heartland Institute has revealed errors in climate data handling, exposed conflicts of interest, and demanded transparency in the review and publication of climate research. Skeptics have consistently pointed out that climate is an immensely complex, poorly understood system, not a simple machine governed by one trace gas.

Over time, many of the arguments made by skeptics have proven prescient. The failure of climate models to accurately predict temperature trends, the non-materialization of the “hockey stick” catastrophe, the persistent downward adjustments to estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2—these have all vindicated a more cautious, critical approach to climate science. Importantly, the skeptical community’s insistence on open data and reproducibility has forced a grudging shift toward greater transparency in mainstream climate research.

Today, as the EPA walks back one of the foundational rules of American climate policy, the importance of these skeptical voices can no longer be ignored. Policymakers are beginning to realize that real progress requires confronting inconvenient facts, not suppressing them. The narrative has shifted from unquestioning acceptance of alarmist predictions to a more mature, data-driven conversation about climate and energy. The very arguments once ridiculed as “fringe” are now being echoed in the halls of government and public policy.

None of this would have been possible without those who dared to speak up and challenge the narrative, often at great personal and professional cost. I am proud to be one of the many who stood up and actively worked against it. I am thankful for the words of encouragement and the pledges of support to WUWT through donations and subscriptions, plus the support of generous private donors (you know who you are) that allowed us to continue the fight. The removal of the Endangerment Finding is, in many ways, a victory for those who believe in scientific rigor, open debate, and policies that serve the public interest—not just political expediency.

As we move forward, it’s crucial to remember that skepticism is not the enemy of science; it is its engine. Only through open inquiry, constant questioning, and a willingness to confront dogma can we ensure that climate policy remains grounded in reality and truly serves the nation’s needs.

I will have a follow-up post for tomorrow. For now, Charles and I are taking the rest of the day off. We’ve earned it – Anthony

Oh, one last thing; a personal message to Dr. Michael Mann: