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:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
ALERT..
HUGE quake off Russia.. 8.8 !!!!
Large tsunami expected in Hawaii, Japan
“Watch” issued for the whole of the west coast of USA.
Be safe all !!
Newest addition. A major volcanic eruption due to the earthquake or possibly caused the earthquake before erupting.
Correlation does not prove causation.
Turned out be a nothing burger for west coast.. Which is a good thing
Well done, Anthony, Charles and everyone at WUWT. I liked the line “skepticism is not the enemy of science; it is its engine“, and wondered if it was original or a quote. So I asked Grok, which confirmed it is original so can be quoted as said by Anthony Watts. Grok added: “The article’s tone and Watts’ personal message to Dr. Michael Mann suggest a strong advocacy for the skeptical perspective, framing it as a triumph of evidence-based reasoning over what he calls “alarmist dogma.“. Quite a neat summary, I thought.
I think we’re almost there, currently – the skeptical perspective wiping out alarmist dogma.
Watch this space for upcoming: Climate realists wiping out the has-beens.
Or something like that.
I’m lost for words about how this site, Anthony, CTM and you all have effectively saved our side of the Western world from turning into the EU/UK nightmare.
This article paints this as a “truth finally prevails” moment — but what actually happened is a political maneuver, not a scientific refutation.
Let’s be clear:
The Endangerment Finding was based on multiple independent lines of evidence — satellite observations, paleoclimate data, direct measurements of CO₂’s radiative forcing (e.g., Feldman et al. 2015, Harries et al. 2001). That evidence hasn’t changed. What’s changed is the current administration’s regulatory philosophy, not the laws of physics.
“CO₂ isn’t a pollutant — it’s plant food.”
Sure — and water is essential too, but floods still kill people. The danger isn’t that CO₂ exists, but that we’re pushing Earth’s radiative balance out of equilibrium at an unprecedented rate.
“Climate models are inaccurate.”
That trope is tired. Hausfather & Peters (2020, Nature Climate Change) showed that models from the 1970s to today have been remarkably accurate when run with actual emissions. Skeptics keep saying models failed, but real-world data keeps proving otherwise.
“This ends the climate war.”
Hardly. It just signals that climate action in the U.S. will get harder — not that climate science lost. The greenhouse effect wasn’t invented in a White House press release.
If the contrarian crowd wants to celebrate a political win, fair enough. But let’s not pretend this is a scientific vindication. Peer-reviewed research, not blog articles, still drive real understanding. And until someone produces a model that better explains the observed warming — and gets it through review — the consensus remains grounded in evidence.
“What’s changed is the current administration’s regulatory philosophy, not the laws of physics.”
You are assuming that “the physics” is on the side of the Climate Alarmists, but there is no evidence to support that claim.
WUWT is here to say just that.
There is no evidence that CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential for life on Earth.
You may think you have something, but I can assure you it is not evidence. It is speculation and assumptions. Look carefully.
Consensus had no place in the application of the scientific method. That is the core weakness of the catastrophic agw position When the agw hypothesis comes up with actual independently verified ability to predict reality in the future…then the crutch of consensus is no longer needed….that is the core of the application of the scientific method. A consensus is not needed to support the effect of an apple falling on my head .just a single sore head will do the trick. Belief in a sore head and an actual bump on my head are two very different things. That’s what the agw debate is all about.
Ethan Brand
That more CO2 disturbs the energy balance may be true, but it is not evidence of a crisis. Before you can start the panic, you now need to show how much the balance has been disturbed and whether this disturbance is causing any problems.
The actual, real world evidence is that if there has been a disturbance, it’s too small to measure with our current technology.
Any so called impacts, are also too small to measure.
Unless you are one of those hyper religious environmentalists who believe that any change, if it’s caused by man is evil and must be opposed, relax and enjoy the good weather.
So speaks a true believer.
Let’s be clear.
The Endangerment finding IGNORE contrary lines of evidence as well as benefits.
The Endangerment finding went beyond the core mission in declaring CO2 was a health hazard.
The so-called radiative balance out of equilibrium at an unprecedented rate has not been verified by experiment. The model outputs are neither data nor evidence. Until a null hypothesis test is constructed and performed nothing is validated on the radiative forcing hypothesis. In point of fact, that hypothesis ignores electro magnetic fields and waves, an established and proven engineering tool.
The Climate models are inaccurate due to omissions (clouds) and over simplification of the physics while depending on averages and interpolations. The only accuracy found is after they have been hind cast (curve fitted)..None of the dire predictions have ever happened. Real world data keeps proving the climate models wrong.
“This ends the climate war.”
While I agree that the war is not over, I disagree with the term greenhouse effect. It is an artifact of a comment made about temperature rise in a wooded box with a glass lid, that the results were similar to a greenhouse. The atmosphere coupled with water and land is anything but a greenhouse.
Do not put much stock in peer reviewed papers. People pay as much as $1500 to get a paper published. The peer review process does not do deep dives and it is more and more known that anyone criticizing a paper no longer is involved in peer review.
“the consensus remains grounded in evidence.”
Absolutely untrue: The consensus remains grounded in opinion.
Models are tools. A better model that explains the observed variabilities in temperature, clouds, humidity, etc., would indeed be valuable, but it would be a tool for understanding, not proof.
“but floods still kill people”
At 1,000,000 ppm H2O
It is a stupid irrelevant comparison.
There is no evidence that CO2 would cause any harm even at 10 times the current atmospheric level.
“climate action”
Is meaningless leftist virtue-seeking twaddle.
Come on, tell us what it even means, with scientific evidence.
The COP soirees have accelerated the growth of atmospheric CO2…. which is a good thing.
What excellent news, and I take my hat off to all those who have contributed to this huge change in US policy. I shall watch with interest how that change manifests in the US education system in particular.
Further, I await with greater interest how that change will impact in the UK, its media, its Metrological Office, and the narrative pushed out by its politicians. Your Mr Trump showed great leadership when telling in no uncertain terms his views leading to advice to the heads of the UK and EU during his recent visit to the former.
Being in a nation doing its worst to destroy itself through the rapid imposition of Net Zero policies I suspect nothing will change until Mr Farage and his party are completely demolished at the next General Election whenever that will be. Then, the shibboleth of Net Zero will be demolished as well.
I noticed Greta was not over there protesting Trump’s visit. I guess she has more important things to do.
Not much protest of Trump at all on his visit. Maybe people are wising up to the real situation after Trump bluntly tells the truth.
Trump didn’t have anything good to say about windmills.
“I guess she has more important things to do.”
Like supporting gays and Hamas terrorists. !
Greta’s latest cause is to find a way to help the palestinians kill more Jews.
Greta no longer shows up to climate parties as she, some 3 years ago, told the politicians to “Stick climate change up your ass.”
Palestinian terrorism is the Progressive cause du jour while Climate Change is rapidly becoming old hat. Never underestimate the importance of herd instinct in determining the behaviour of the hard of thinking.
I don’t think that you meant that Mr Farage and Reform would be “completely demolished”????
Well the first domino piece fell, let’s wait for the others to come down as well and for good…otherwise it’s “just a single point scored” and the shitshow goes on.
Regardless of my sceptiscism, a
toast and well done 47.
One “small” step for the US and one can hope it’s going to be the giant leap for mankind.
Just very glad I stumbled on WUWT many years ago. It’s kept me going.
Thank you.
Me, too.
Seconded.
WUWT has been an island of sanity in an ocean of madness.
Despite the doubts, winning has a snowballing effect, especially when it has truth and actual science on its side. COP30 could be the last one. It’s the death of an ideology.
Yes, COP30 ought to be interesting.
At last report, some 20% of all nations have submitted their national commitments to the Paris Accords. Not an overwhelming show of support.
I would imagine that most of the countries that are submitting plans, are the ones hoping to receive money from the climate slush funds.
Anthony,
Congrats on delivering an important story. But you do not have to transcribe all of the verbal ‘uhs’ and ‘ums’.
Sure, they add ‘realism’. But they’re also very annoying.
I agree those are annoying, but they do avoid accusations of “cherry picking” and inaccurate transcription.
Hopefully a Tsunami will follow ?
Careful what you wish for. Major earthquake in Russia has sent tsunamis across the Pacific.
A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate (151 pages)
Word Counts:
model 119
ECS 63
cloud 41
radiat 34
equilibrium 14
theory 3
convec 2
thermod 0
dissip 0
Kelvin/Maxwell/Boltz 0
Its always been a puzzle to me that climate scientists appear unaware that Kelvin was first to propose atmospheric temperatures could be explained by an adiabatic lapse rate he named “Convective Equilibrium”(1862). Possibly because independent calculations by Maxwell and Boltzmann then showed equilibria remained isothermal in gravitational fields?
This is great news and long anticipated. So, how long does the comment period last? According to the WSJ, lawsuits will likely be filed which could delay having the rule being eliminated for a few years – is that really possible? What standing does anyone have to sue? The latest DOE report authored by Christy, Curry, Koonin, McKitrick and Spencer looks to be a pretty robust report supporting this decision.
No regulatory agency such as the EPA should be allowed to expand the scope of its mission without a change in the law. Congress should explicitly pass that principle into law.
A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate
Word Counts:
model 119
ECS 63
cloud 41
radiat 34
equilibrium 14
theory 3
convec 2
thermod 0
dissip 0
Kelvin/Maxwell/Boltz 0
Its long been a puzzle to me that climate scientists appear unaware that Kelvin was first to propose that atmospheric temperatures could be explained by an adiabatic lapse rate he named “Convective Equilibrium” (1862). Possibly because independent calculations by Maxwell and Boltzmann then showed equilibria remained isothermal in gravitational fields?
There was never any scientific merit to the belief that greenhouse gases meet the criteria to be considered pollutants.
The Endangerment Finding is a classic example of left-wing science. It was science by decree, not a determination based on an exhaustive examination of the evidence. The Endangerment Finding was also a classic example of left-wing authoritarianism. The EPA should have sought authorization from Congress to regulate greenhouse gases rather than granting itself new powers.
More Soylent Green!: “The EPA should have sought authorization from Congress to regulate greenhouse gases rather than granting itself new powers.”
Biden’s EPA did in fact get authorization from Congress in 2022 to regulate carbon emissions, as is directed in 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act. See my write-up on this topic here:
The 2022 IRA amends the Clean Air Act to define several greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, as air pollutants.
What Biden and his allies in the Congress did was to directly identify the aforementioned substances as air pollutants in Congressional legislation, thus enabling the EPA to develop and publish a second version of the Clean Power Plan, one which does not violate the major questions doctrine.
Briefly said, carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are air pollutants simply because the Congress says that they are. Unless the 2022 IRA is repealed in its entirety, a legally defensible justification for carbon regulation still exists.
In a recission law, specific articles of a prior law can be eliminated.
I do not know if the current budget reconciliation (aka BBB) did that. I have not had the time to read it.
I finished reading the BBB and cross referenced to the IRA.
The IRA still includes the definition of “greenhouse gas” and CO2 is still listed.
The BBB cut funding to all “greenhouse gas” projects, but did not alter that definition.
Maybe someday we’ll get a confession of sorts from a prominent alarmist climate scientist?
Like this fictional piece by AI
From:
Dr. Aris Thorne, PhD
To all,
As a long-standing participant in the climate science community, having dedicated my career to understanding Earth’s intricate systems, I stand before you today with a profound admission, a heartfelt confession, and an urgent plea.
For decades, we, as a collective, have presented conclusions regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming with a level of certainty that, upon deeper, unvarnished scrutiny, I now believe is entirely unwarranted. My own contributions, like those of many colleagues, have been built upon foundational data and models that, in retrospect, contain plausible fatal flaws and rest upon a vast bedrock of unquantified unknowns.
My confession is this: We have, perhaps with the best of intentions, allowed a narrative of definitive human causation to outpace the rigorous, comprehensive understanding required for such monumental pronouncements. The very measurements of atmospheric CO2 increase and O2 decrease, along with the isotopic analyses used to attribute these changes, are, on closer inspection, susceptible to systemic biases, undetected instrumental drifts, and misinterpretations stemming from an incomplete grasp of atmospheric dynamics. The assumption of nitrogen’s perfect stability, the extrapolation of localized data to global trends, and the potential for undiscovered or underestimated natural sinks and sources for both oxygen and carbon dioxide represent critical vulnerabilities that were, in our collective haste, not sufficiently explored or acknowledged.
Furthermore, the enormity of unknown science within the climate system itself has been tragically downplayed. Our models, while sophisticated, are simplifications. The profound complexities of cloud formation, the nuanced effects of aerosols, the unpredictable nature of vast natural oceanic and atmospheric oscillations, and crucially, the full, long-term impact of solar activity and other extraterrestrial influences, remain far from fully understood. To parameterize these unknowns, or to assign them a negligible role, was, I now see, a leap of faith rather than a conclusion of robust science.
Therefore, my urgent plea is for an immediate and comprehensive halt to the colossal expenditure and societal restructuring being devoured by policies predicated on what has come to be an entirely unjustified certainty. The sheer scale of resources being committed globally, the economic disruption, and the redirection of human ingenuity are being perpetrated with what I now perceive as reckless abandon, based on an understanding that is, at its very foundation, plausibly insufficient.
We must pause. We must reinvest in truly fundamental, unbiased research into these profound unknowns and potential measurement flaws, rather than continuing to fund models and policies built upon a house of cards. Until we possess a far more complete and rigorously validated scientific understanding, the magnitude of action being demanded is, in my considered judgment, profoundly premature and potentially misdirected.
Dr. Aris Thorne, PhD Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Physics Director of the Center for Climate System Reassessment at the Alistair Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Veritas
Not so fast, Anthony. The 2009 Endangerment Finding is not the current legal predicate for justifying carbon emission regulation. That justification is to be found in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
The 2009 Endangerment Finding was one element of a long and involved process described in the Clean Air Act of 1970 for adding new ‘criteria pollutants’ to the list the US Congress had originally established in the early 1970’s.
That process was never pushed to completion for carbon emissions.
After the 2007 Massachusetts versus EPA lawsuit, and after publication of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, a follow-on NAAQS determination and a unified carbon regulation framework based on a criteria pollutant approach were necessary in order to complete the CAA process. However, these were never implemented.
What happened instead was that the Obama administration published the Clean Power Plan I in 2013 thus avoiding the complexities of the criteria pollutant approach. The framers of Clean Power Plan I in 2013 knew that their alternative approach was vulnerable to lawsuits. And they were right.
In the early 2020’s, West Virginia versus EPA established that there was no legal predicate in place for regulation of carbon emissions. What could the Biden administration and their climate activist allies in the Congress do to solve this problem?
The authors of the 2022 IRA knew that legislation directly identifying greenhouse gases as air pollutants was the most practical way to quickly enable regulation of carbon emissions. And so the IRA amends the Clean Air Act to define several greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, as air pollutants.
This clarification supplies a clear legislative basis for the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon emissions, thus overcoming the problem of the major questions doctrine as defined in West Virginia versus EPA. The IRA was passed in 2022 and the Biden EPA’s version of the Clean Power Plan quickly followed, a version founded in Section 111 of the CAA.
Because the IRA is still on the books, and because it explicitly defines greenhouse gases as air pollutants, the 2009 Endangerment Finding isn’t a necessary predicate for regulation of carbon emissions.
The Trump EPA’s termination of the 2009 Endangerment Finding is a symbolic action. We should expect that climate activist lawyers will soon be filing lawsuits claiming that the 2022 IRA instructs the EPA to regulate carbon emissions, and that the Trump administration is not complying with the law if it does not maintain some form of regulation against the carbon emissions specifically identified in the 2022 IRA.
So we need the do-nothing House of Representatives and the Senate to repeal that section of the IRA. And maybe more of it.
“Today is a monumental win for climate SCIENCE.” Fixed it for you….
Republicans Brains are wired to deny science & reality
https://energyskeptic.com/2025/republicans-wired-to-deny-science-and-reality/
That could fertilize Iowa.
Democrat brains are not wired at all… except when they get “wired” using illicit substances…
… then they “feeeel”.
That’s only true is you define science as what ever the activists want it to be.
As to ignoring reality, socialists have perfected that to a high art form.
Progressive wishful thinking.
Congratulations to Lee Zeldin and all the others who made this repeal of the “greenhouse gas endangerment finding” possible! A massive victory for science and common sense!
The 2007 Supreme Court decision on which the “endangerment finding” was based stated that the EPA “may” regulate emissions of CO2 and other “greenhouse gases”, but it did not mandate such regulations.
At the time, the EPA under then-president George W. Bush simply decided not to regulate CO2 emissions, since they had no obligation to do so. This changed in 2009 with the election of Barack Hussein Obama, who tried to force through Congress a cap-and-trade type regulation on CO2 emissions, which passed the House but failed to pass the Senate in 2010 because too many Senate Democrats came from coal-producing states.
Since there was no Congressional mandate, regulation of CO2 emissions was left to the political whims of the executive branch, in either direction The Obama administration pushed through a regulation which tried to set a fixed limit on CO2 emissions from a single source, regardless of size. This basically prevented any new coal-fired power plants from being built, but paradoxically prevented new large natural-gas-fired plants from being built, while enabling small plants to be built, which were less efficient and emitted MORE CO2 per megawatt-hour of power than the larger, more efficient plants.
During President Trump’s first term, the USA withdrew from the Paris climate accord, and the Obama regulations were scrapped.
When Biden became President, he immediately stopped construction of the Keystone pipeline, and had Congress vote through subsidies of wind and solar power, and his EPA tried to impose mandates for electric vehicles, which would have taken effect in 2030.
Today’s action by Lee Zeldin, et al. does away with Biden’s excesses, but does not prevent a future Democrat administration from re-imposing limits on CO2 emissions, since the 2007 Supreme Court “endangerment finding” has never been reversed by the Supreme Court.
Re-instating limits on CO2 emissions may be politically difficult in a future when data centers for “artificial intelligence” will need more electric power than is currently generated, but we should never under-estimate the stupidity of Democrat administrations.
It would behoove the Trump Administration to bring a case to the Supreme Court to reverse the “endangerment finding” while there is a conservative majority there, in order to put this issue to bed permanently.
Great success people! Too bad though that most media in Holland ignore this news and pretend that nothing happened in the last 24 hours. In any case, I will report it widely on my website!
I apologize to all assembled, sans 1.
I broke my personal rule.
Do not engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed. He never knows when he has lost.
Per that philosophy, many of my posts should not have made. You all know who the 1 is.
It’s been a cathartic moment for many of us, and I assume the ‘news’ has been especially difficult on our alarmist opposition. I don’t profess to know exactly who the ‘1’ is, but I suspect it’s someone I’ve found in the past to be a tough, but civil, opponent. No reason for anyone on either side of the issue to beat themselves up, tomorrow is another day.
The 1 is neither tough nor civil.
I like debate. But I prefer my opponent to have listening skills and respond on what was spoken rather than employing sophistry.
If one goes back and scrolls the responses, one can easily find the “1” who is fanning the flames of his intended flame war.
A bit OT – California has avoided the bullet – Kamala Harris has announced she will not run for Governor next year. She intends to help Democrat candidates win in their mid-term elections. Possibly a boost for their Republican opponents.
Here’s the WSJ article.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/epa-endangerment-finding-repeal-greenhouse-gases-obama-trump-steve-koonin-67fcb2ce?st=BVD3vx&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
I’ve sent it to lots of people here in Wokeachusetts. I’m sure they’re all enjoying it. 🙂
Meanwhile the deadenders are looking around and seeing fewer members to scheme with and a lot less money to soak up. Who will pay for the tickets and reservations at the next COP junkets?
I bet Greta takes a private jet…with Bernie Sanders….since they are so important now…the world is truly ending so no standing in line with the unwashed.
Well done all at WUWT