Charles Rotter
Breaking: Climate Consensus Crusaders Sue to Save the Endangerment Finding From… Skeptics With Opinions
Yesterday, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) stormed into federal court, clutching their pearls and a 40-page complaint, to demand that the EPA and Department of Energy be stopped from—brace yourself—listening to people who don’t think “climate change” is the meteorological equivalent of Armageddon.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, reads like a mashup of Chicken Little’s autobiography and a high-school debate club’s “Appeal to Consensus” handbook. According to the plaintiffs, the great crime here is that Secretary of Energy Christopher Wright dared to assemble five well-known climate skeptics—John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer—to review the evidence and produce a report questioning the EPA’s 2009 “Endangerment Finding”. That’s the sacred ruling declaring greenhouse gases an official public health menace, without which the climate policy priesthood fears their altar might crumble.
The complaint is a parade of consensus incantations—“overwhelming scientific consensus,” “ocean of evidence,” “confirmed time and again”—interrupted only by ad hominem swipes at the Working Group’s résumés and reading lists. Curry, they note with horror, has criticized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for “corruption.” Koonin once worked for BP. Spencer testified on behalf of a coal company. In other words, these people are contaminated by thoughtcrime.
EDF and UCS accuse Wright’s Climate Working Group of operating in secret, holding no public meetings, stacking the deck entirely with “contrarians,” and failing to genuflect before the holy consensus. They demand the court erase the group’s report, bar EPA from using it to justify repealing the Endangerment Finding, and—naturally—extend public comment periods until the paperwork gods are appeased.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, for his part, has called the reconsideration “the largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States” and a “dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion”—a metaphor that, judging from the plaintiffs’ reaction, hit the bullseye.
In sum, the lawsuit boils down to this: the wrong people were asked the wrong questions and gave the wrong answers. In the plaintiffs’ worldview, “science” is not a method of inquiry but a franchise with exclusive licensing rights. Any unauthorized competition must be shut down, preferably by federal injunction.
One thing’s for sure—this case will test not just the legal durability of the Endangerment Finding, but whether “consensus” has officially replaced “evidence” as the highest standard in American science. And if the complaint’s tone is any clue, the consensus crowd isn’t feeling particularly confident.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Those filing frivolous lawsuits, of all kinds, have to be severely punished so this crap stops.
Minus-oned on freedom of speech basis.
Freedom of speech is not unlimited. Go yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater and see how far your freedom of speech extends.
With all rights come responsibilities. Nowdays (looking at you, Beto) people think that they can say anything they want under color of freedom of speech and not have to take the responsibility for any of the violence or consequences of their speech.
“Go yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater and see how far your freedom of speech extends.”
That was debunked long ago.
You have the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater.
You do not have the right to avoid the consequences of such speech.
I always thought that having a “right” and exercising it carried no consequences. It is when you trample on someone else’s rights that a problem arises.
Filing in Mass. is just as good as Washington DC – it will not be treated as frivolous.
Yes. The EDF is based in NY City and yet the plaintiffs certify in the USDC filing they all reside in the Eastern Division ( Boston) of the Federal District court for Massachusetts .
The Lawyers filing are based in Washington DC
And let’s not accuse anyone of “judge-shopping.”
Why would the Environmental Defense Fund and The Union of Concerned Scientists have any standing to stop the EPA from revising its own findings?
They are privately run clubs no different than the Elks or Lions.
If by “severely punished” you mean loser pays all expenses resulting from fighting their lawsuit, I’m fine with that. If you mean jail time or fines, no thanks. The problem already is too much government partisan meddling. Adding more partisan meddling won’t make it better.
No, not government, the damaged parties. Once the judge drops the gavel declaring it frivolous hold them financially accountable to all damaged parties listed. And yes, ALL costs. And no, nothing partisan, all filers of frivolous lawsuits. This crap has been damaging this country as a whole for far too long. Majority of it comes from environmental groups, so it is at their feet if this is deemed “partisan”.
Uhhh … I’m not sure what you are arguing about with “No, not government, the damaged parties”.
Don’t let the judge pick and choose which lawsuits were frivolous. Keep government entirely out of it. Make ALL losers pay. You bring a lawsuit and lose, you pay all the winner’s costs. You defend a lawsuit and lose, you pay all the winner’s costs.
That would pretty much prevent anyone not rich from filing suit.
It is our Judicial System, one of the legs of the table of Government, the structure on which we all stand.
Now, if you mean blocking EPA from siding with the environistas’ frivolous lawsuits, yeah, keep them out entirely.
I have a variation that I like.
If the defending party offers to settle, and the filing party refuses the settlement.
If the filing party wins, and the jury award is less than or equal to the offered settlement, then the filing party has to pay both parties costs, even though they won.
The logic is that in such a situation, the filing party forced an unnecessary trial.
This will encourage the offering and accepting of reasonable settlements.
What about damage to reputations?
Where were these lawsuits when the EPA secret science was going on with “Richard Windsor”?
It is called “Sue and Settle”, been going on since the early ’90s. Do please try and keep up.
I love the phrase “secretly devised a plan”. In March 2025. Not much of a secret I guess.
As if Trumps early EO’s were not already crystal clear before Chris Wright was confirmed as Secretary of the DOE!
If the facts are on your side, pound the facts into the table. If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.
Nikita Khrushchev
It won’t be a facts thing. They can spout “facts” all they want. It will be whether the Secretary of Energy, and by extension the Executive branch has the authority to commission studies, which they do because that’s what they have always done.
The Supremes recently ruled that federal judges do not have the purview to shape policy. Only one on the Court thinks they do and she was scolded by her colleagues.
The lawyers they hired to bring this suit know this. This is not about legal anything. It’s about the appearance of pushing back so that they can find raise. (IMHO).
It’s for the headlines. It will take a long time to adjudicate, but they are probably asking for a TRO.
Sue, Grabbit and Runne.
Are available…
Dewey, Cheathem and Howe?
Bluster, Badger and Cajole?
This is to be expected, but I don’t see how the court can find that the EPA and DOE are not empowered to reconsider their findings. It seems to me that, as long as they follow legal processes for an open comment period and provide substantive responses to the technical comments using peer reviewed literature, they should be on solid ground. The five authors are highly qualified, but luke warm, sceptics who have invited comments who have committed to providing good faith responses to serious responses to technical criticisms. They pledge to revise their conclusions and recommendations as required to address any issues.
I do worry that the concerns expressed in last week’s Climate Realism Show are a concern due to the time it takes to follow this process.
Mann “won” his lawsuit.
It was a libel case. Nothing to do with the endangerment finding.
“luke warm, sceptics”
You’ve hit the nail on the head for me. I’ve always thought they were treading lightly, as if not wanting to upset the climate crisis fanatics. To me, that is a potential weakness, I can see a court ruling in favour of the fanatics and enforcing status quo.
If that happens, then ‘stupid net-zero’ like the phoenix will rise from the ashes even stronger.
I sincerely hope I’m totally wrong.
So you are saying a US court could give an injunction to a government authority who is simply following it’s process because you don’t like how they started the process and you haven’t got thru the comment period yet?
If that is possible you probably need to change US law.
Mr. de Boer: I don’t need to read the Complaint to conclude that it can’t conceivably support an injunction, that’s the law IMHO. But our federal courts have a few judges who might sign on (remember Obama and Biden took “all hands on deck” approach, all gov’t agents had to join in the cause, they included nominated judges). We’ll know soon, if fed judge signs injunction it will hit a fan.
The splatter will be remarkable…
‘The five authors are highly qualified, but luke warm, sceptics who have invited comments who have committed to providing good faith responses to serious responses to technical criticisms.’
They are highly qualified and I have no doubt they’ll respond in good faith to a tsunami of criticism from the alarmist camp. The problem, as you allude to, is that they have already conceded that any increase in CO2 emissions will result in some amount of warming, which means their only path to success lies with showing that cost of the mitigations demanded by the alarmists will far exceed any damage caused by the ‘projected’ warming. This will be a political / economic battle, not a science debate.
But in reality, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on our global climate system. The AGW conjecture hasbeen falsified by science.
I think you are correct. The fact that these qualified experts believe that CO2 may result in some (unmeasured) amount of warming at some time in the future is not evidence of harmful warming due to CO2 emissions. The Clean Air Act is based on measurable harm from emissions and pollutants in ambient air. The Supreme Court said that if the EPA finds harm, they can set emissions standards.
We have the advantage at this point in time that ambient CO2 levels have increased measurably at Mauna Loa, with no documented harmful effects. Even the IPCC agrees.
Those lawyers made a tidy sum regardless of how this plays out.
Yup. These are just the first two of what is bound to be a parade of environmental scammers that focus on massive fund raising used for lobbying, law sits, campaign donations and generous executive compensation. Expect more of the same from Greenpeace, NRDC, Sierra Club, WWF and many more organizations with no actual scientists and lots of lawyers. None will provide a scintilla of objective evidence that supports the EF because CO2 emissions does not endanger health.
You left out Soros funded NGOs/activists in general.
Don’t forget Steyer and Bloomberg.
I wish I could.
Where is Spock to help me forget?
“kill all the Lawyers” HenriVI..Willie shakespeare was ahead of his time…
You can imagine that he’d had a rough time with a lawyer before writing that one …
What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean?
A good start.
Pollution?
….. and they seem pretty lame too. A Judge or a jury are known as the finders of fact, and these guys use the phrase “prevailing narrative”. Prevailing narratives are not facts and, if I might paraphrase little Greta herself, “you can shove your prevailing narrative up your …… etc.”
That’s saying the quiet part out loud, isn’t it? Wright didn’t assemble a team world-class scientific experts, he purposefully hand-picked people (regardless of their domain specific expertise) who he knew would hand him the result he wanted, and they dutifully delivered. This is what we all know happened, but I’m surprised to see WUWT saying so plainly. This was not a scientific exercise, it was a purely ideologically drive attempt to justify policy despite the science.
Bravo to the EDF and UCS.
According to you, only the true believers get a place at the trough.
If the science is settled, why do you still want billions in more funding? I’ll tell you why: because if it’s settled, it ain’t science; and if it’s science, it ain’t settled. You’re a propagandist whoring for more propaganda because your current propaganda isn’t up to the task of fooling all of the people all of the time.
Don’t sugar coat it like that.
Tell us how you really feel.
/sarc
According to WUWT: All of climate science is a scam. Politicians have bought off all the world’s scientists to tell them what they want to hear.
Also according to WUWT: The DOE report is perfect beautiful science because they bought 5 scientists to tell them what we want to hear.
I would find the irony amusing if the people spouting this idiocy weren’t running the literal EPA.
If evolution is settled, why are there still evolutionary biologists?
Trying to find out where you might fit in-veggie or drain bramaged monkey.
Nobody here, as far as I know, has said all climate science is a scam. It certainly is advantageous for such a “climate scientist” to go along to get along and to get their funding.
There are evolutionary biologists to fill in the details. The essential fact of evolution is settled – the details are not because it’s a multi billion year story. The story is in fact being filled in more every year.
It’s different with climate science. Of course there is a need to fill in details, develop theories, etc. But it’s gone beyond that to high level politics- with claims of impending catastrophe, with a need for more funding. I suspect all the evolutionary biologists on the whole planet don’t get as much funding as one good size wind farm.
Climate science doesn’t really seem to be filling in many details. Instead, it builds many models. Evolution theory doesn’t need dozens of models- because it’s a very solid science.
Your comparison shows weak thinking. 🙂
You’re just conflating the work that scientists do with the work of policymakers and industry. Climate scientists are not profiting from the revenue from wind energy.
Evolutionary biologists make extensive use of computational models.
Your comparison shows weak thinking. Have another go at it, see if you can come up with something more compelling.
“Climate scientists are not profiting from the revenue from wind energy.”
They’re allies.
“Evolutionary biologists make extensive use of computational models.”
Sure, but it’s not essential. The analysis of fossils and their timing is, along with advances in genetics and many other associated sciences.
The weatherman told me it was going to rain tomorrow so I bought an umbrella. The weatherman and the umbrella industry are allies, yet the weatherman did not profit from my umbrella purchase.
It is essential if you want to do the valuable research that requires computational modeling. The same goes for climate models. We would have much less knowledge of evolutionary processes without them.
“It is essential if you want to do the valuable research that requires computational modeling.”
Got any examples of evolutionary biologists doing computational modeling?
Of course. Evolutionary biologists use computational models all the time; from BEAST for reconstructing evolutionary histories, to SLiM and Wright-Fisher simulations for modeling genetic change, to digital evolution systems like Avida. They use these models to test hypotheses, validate them against real-world data, and explore scenarios that can’t be run as experiments in nature, exactly the way that climate scientists use climate models.
Is there anything AJ knows that is actually true? Do you really believe that scientific progress is impossible without computational models? Or is that just the thought that first bubbled up to the surface of your fetid mind?
“Climate scientists” are profiting from having a pet “crisis” that governments endlessly throw massive sums of money at. It’s their golden goose and they don’t want it slaughtered.
So-called “climate science” has provided not a scrap of evidence that CO2 “drives the Earth’s climate.” In fact, empirical evidence says EXACTLY THE REVERSE.
The Earth’s climate history is ignored because it doesn’t tell the right “story” to keep the fraudulent “crisis” claims alive.
All they have is hypothetical bullshit from the 1800s. Which was shown a long time ago to at best be overblown. And oh, models that ASSUME the hypothetical bullshit = “fact,” while ignoring its foundational assumption, “all other things held equal,” and then pile on completely imaginary positive, amplifying feedbacks which have never been empirically demonstrated.
And if they COULD present empirical evidence to support the notion that atmospheric CO2 has a significant effect on the Earth’s temperature, all it would confirm is the very thing your “grandfather of global warming” (Arrhenius) said when he first suggested it.
He said that IF (because HE recognized it was PURELY HYPOTHETICAL) humans could warm the climate by adding CO2 to the atmosphere, THAT WE WOULD IMPROVE THE CLIMATE. And that’s the most correct thing he said!
Evolutionary models are used when they are verified and dumped when they are not.
Climate models are used when they produce the output those who pay for then want , and dumped when they fail to support the narrative.
Whether or not they use models is just your pathetic strawman.
The so called scientists are paid by the policy makers, it’s an incestuous relationship.
In either the first or second summary report, the research papers concluded there was no human signature in the climate studies.
A high level official from the Clinton-Gore administration rewrote that statement, declaring there was a clear human signature.
The scientists were outraged. The IPCC changed the rules such that if a science report does not match the political summary, the science report underwent the required revision.
The link is gone.
This is quite an imaginary revision of the events. Early language in the SAR reflected the state of current attribution studies, which said that natural variability could not yet be ruled out. By the time of the final lead author meeting in 1995, new attribution studies had been published or were in press that robustly showed that natural variability alone failed to explain observed changes. The reports were then revised to reflect this latest evidence, after extensive deliberation and consultation with the scientists who authored both the actual research and the IPCC reports. The final wording was actually weaker than justified by the evidence. Rather than stating a “clear human signature,” the IPCC settled on saying, “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate.”
“By the time of the final lead author meeting in 1995, new attribution studies had been published or were in press that robustly showed that natural variability alone failed to explain observed changes.”
Now THAT, is funny.
I still think they give out grants for e=mc^2
They do because e=mc^2 is easily shown false for anything moving fast
The corrected relativistic form was derived in 1925
E = mc² + ½mv²,
Even then we knew that was incomplete and with the discovery of the higgs particle and field in 2012 we still can’t complete the equations because the higgs particle does not confer mass the mathematics doesn’t work
https://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/23/does-the-higgs-field-give-the-higgs-particle-its-mass-or-not/
What you have actually highlighted is the danger in consensus science and yes there are big grants open around that equation.
Yup.
That’s their position. The actual DOE report has a very different tone. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that those that file lawsuits of this nature apply their own context. Our goal is to not be so easy when reading this and do our own homework.
Mr. J: Nice strawman u got there! There was never a “quiet part”, the five scientists and others have been proclaiming the sceptic position for decades, even as your “scientists” shut them out of your process. Your attempt to frame this as some cabal is noted.
I urge moderators to let Mr. J’s comments through, he hoists his own petard quite regularly. His comments actually harm his movement by demonstrating the false foundations of CliSci. Give him a bit of rope, he does the rest.
AlanJ, would you support a report from Wright that was done by a “grand jury” style panel whose members all had the equivalent ‘acknowledged expert’ status, but whose names were not to appear on the report?
In all other respects, the open handling, review & response mechanisms of the report to be just as Wright has now installed.
Then we could gauge whether you really do accept proper scientific findings, or you’re just a fashionable popular “approved” names groupie.
I would support a report from the USGCRP following the existing framework in place for the National Climate Assessment reports. Of course, everyone involved has been fired by the Trump admin and the science is being actively censored and hidden.
Alan, you often mention “the” science.
Science in all its disciplines has many facets, and ever open to new observations, hypotheses, experimentation, information, and challenges from any / all quarters.
All who respect the disciplines of pure science know these things.
Others who bang on about “the science” or “settled science” really are a “Disgrace To The Profession”, as a proper scientist once labeled M. Mann.
That;s because he has a fundamental misunderstanding of what “science” is and and unquestioning belief in science as religious dogma that can only be practiced by the Priests of the Almighty Climate.
Censored and hidden? It’s in journals and the mainstream media.
All of the National Climate Assessments have been removed from government websites and are being revised by political appointees to realign them with Trump’s policies.
All the National Climate Assessment were originally written by rabid paid climate alarmists.
Its about time they were brought back to some sort of reality.
To the left, the middle is now the ultra right.
That’s how it’s been for decades.
In Europe the political spectrum goes like this.
Communist -> Socialist -> Far Right
You loose me here is why
We have your good scientists who others would call renewable and grant money influencers vs the bad scientists who you call fossil fuel stooges and contrarians
Science doesn’t work like that you don’t get to discard thing just because you don’t like the person saying it.
As to National Climate Assessments well they are about a lot more than just science they are about NATIONAL INTEREST which is political so I don’t find that very surprising.
Those people are wrong, so you can find your way by adressing this misconception. The “good” scientists are just scientists – they are the people actively doing research and publishing papers within their realm of expertise. The “bad” scientists (your word) are, in this case, people who have been hired to author sweeping scientific assessments touching nearly every single area of a vast field who are writing well outside their domain of expertise. The people who have agreed to do this are either blind to their own limitations, so conceited that they think they know everything better than the experts who actually spend their lives studying this stuff, or simply cretins who don’t care because their motivation is ideological and not scientific.
Obviously you did not bother to read the report.
Yes, they were moved from the front page to archive.
No, they were not revised.
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-08-07/trumps-energy-secretary-says-administration-may-tamper-with-past-national-climate-reports
Political documents are being rewritten by the new administration.
As usual, that’s only wrong when people you hate do it.
Trump firing rabid paid alarmist shills…
.. Oh, so sad… what a pity !!
The real science has ALWAYS been censored and hidden and adjusted…
… by the climate alarmists.
“The (climate) science” has been “actively censored and hidden” since they kicked off the propaganda in 1988.
Data manipulation, refuse to openly share data and methods, pushing scientists and journal editors out of jobs for having “impure thoughts” all vividly illustrate what you tout as “the science” to be a politically contrived construct that has little to do with, and in fact is antithetical to, *actual* scientific inquiry.
They most certainly are “world-class scientific experts”, all of whose research has had a major impact on climate science. Steven Koonin, for example, was Undersecretary for Science in Obama’s first term, leading more than $100 million of basic climate science research annually.
Easy to whine about- now challenge what they actually say.
Bull, you idiot.
No, he chose real scientists that aren’t in the pay of the climate alarmism industry.
Get over it. !
It is a trying to get to the REALITY, not the propaganda that you constantly regurgitate.
How come that seems so familiar?
Because it’s been the Trump administration’s modus operandi since day one? Trump fills government with loyalists, not competent experts.
You laud EDF and UCS as groups of expert scientists, yet anyone can join UCS for the right price. Anthony’s dog was (maybe sill is) a registered member of UCS. FAIL!
I did not laud them as groups of expert scientists, I lauded them for taking legal action against the EPA. It is well warranted.
How dare someone do anything that goes against your religion.
Just curious how Anthony’s dog was able to take legal action against the EPA.
My pet goldfish is.
I don’t care who you are, that’s funny right there! 🙂
Maybe I need to register my cat.
You describe the climate alarm cadre and all of their activities very well, accusing the opposition of what your priesthood has been doing all along.
The Endangerment Finding and the entire climate alarm edifice have nothing to do with science. It is purely political and opportunistic in every way. No evidence exists at all that emissions of CO2 constitute a present or future threat of harm.
All the faithful have as detailed in this complaint is appeal to emotion and false authority, and all of it, including the “consensus”, is purely imaginary.
This is not the end, nor is it the beginning of the end.
Hopefully it is the end of the beginning.
— Apologies to Winnie
Thought I’d missed a reference… Churchill as a basis for Pooh.
“The association between Winnie-the-Pooh and Winston Churchill stems from the fact that A.A. Milne, the author of Winnie-the-Pooh, and Winston Churchill were contemporaries and their works are sometimes contrasted. Milne’s stories, particularly Winnie-the-Pooh, are known for their gentle, idyllic portrayal of childhood and nature, while Churchill was a prominent wartime leader known for his powerful speeches and decisive actions.”
If Milne were using WC as a prototype my world would have been upsidedownerized.
The other Winnie is more interesting and relevant to climate alarmists.
Winnie is one of the commonplace nicknames for Churchill, according to the sources I checked.
Upvote just for “upsidedownerized.”
You’re apologizing to Xi???? Pooh!
It seems these plaintiffs are mostly concerned with the process of putting the CWG together and not their actual work. I clearly remember many well founded similar complaints leveled against the endangerment finding process but it was the basis for far reaching and costly policy whereas this report is about reviewing the underlying science. All those admonitions by the likes of Alan Carlin and other process experts fell on deaf ears in that rush to regulate.
Those five authors of the DOE report deserve a lot of respect, but none of them, to my knowledge, has challenged the core physical claim of the climate movement: that a sensible heat gain result on land, in the oceans, and in the lower atmosphere must be expected from the computed static radiative effect of incremental CO2, CH4, N2O. Once that framing is conceded, the debate continues on the sign and strength of feedbacks, the rear-view performance assessment of the models vs. observations, and other confusing technical matters.
But EPA does not need the DOE report to rescind the Endangerment Finding. The rejection of the core claim is more straightforward, in my view, as I summarized in my comment to EPA on the related repeal of GHG emission regulations for power plants. I have not decided yet exactly how I will comment on the newer NPRM for the action to rescind the Endangerment Finding. One option is to simply update my earlier comment with specific reference to the new proposed actions. More to come.
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124-0141
(In short, this comment demonstrates from the widely accepted ERA5 reanalysis model, that the dynamic operation of the atmosphere, through energy conversion within the general circulation, massively overwhelms the vanishingly weak incremental radiative effect (i.e. IR absorbing power) of rising concentrations of CO2.)
David, your first paragraph says it all.
Mr. Dibbell: I agree with you, and further state that there are other ways to skin this cat. The Endangerment Finding is a fine example of a political process, not a scientific process, where the “finding” was announced by Obama during his campaign- the rest (EPA “process”) was pure backfill. IMHO the current EPA can throw it out with just as much process as Obama used in the adoption!
WUWT has a Failed Prediction Timeline (click tab labeled PREDICTIONS – white letters on red). The last page (12) has a last entry from 1966 claiming United States’ oil supply might be gone in 10 years. Then there is a graph of supply up to Nov. 2015 (update ?). It is instructive to work through these 12 pages.
Doing so ought to convince any court that “Climate Consensus Crusaders” are whistling in the dark.
From the lawsuit:” None of the members represents the overwhelming consensus view among climate scientists that human activities, “principally through emissions of greenhouse gases,” have “unequivocally” caused global warming, that widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere have occurred that are already affecting weather and climate extremes throughout the globe, that climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health, and that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would lead to a discernible slowdown in global warming that would reduce projected losses and damages for humans and ecosystems.26″ This is foot noted as ” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers, https://perma.cc/J7HH-9JD5.”
None of this quote is substantiated by data and it is a self contradictory assertion as proved by the report authors who are obviously not “overwhelmed”.
The ridiculous thing about this, and about the endangerment finding, is this.
Suppose global human emissions are a threat to the world as a whole, because they cause rising temperatures.
It does not follow that US emissions are a threat to the world, and even less that they are a threat to US citizens. And they are clearly not. Reducing US emissions will not lower global emissions. In round numbers the US is doing about 12% of global emissions, and falling as a percentage.
Meanwhile the rest of the world, and particularly China and India, is increasing. We can expect global emissions to be north of 45 billion tons a year by 2040, maybe sooner, because of this.
Suppose the US reduces its emissions by 3 or 4 billion tons a year by 2040. The global total would then be 40 or 41 billion tons a year. And there would be no indirect effects, because no-one is following the US example in trying to make reductions.
The endangerment finding would have to show that a global total of 45 billion tons a year instead of 41 billion tons a year is going to threaten US citizens with all the bad things mentioned, and that reducing it to 41 billion is going to avert all these bad things.
Its obvious nonsense. Cannot be shown. The obvious refutation is just to ask the backers of this action how much difference the endangerment finding makes to global emissions, one way or the other, and then to global temperatures, one way or the other.
The remedy to this silliness, which is happening all over the English speaking world, is to keep on demand that people who advocate emission reduction measures to just spell out how much effect they will have. On both local and global emissions and global temperatures, and also, when they are justified in terms of local weather, on that.
I have yet to see one of these local proposals which would have any material effect on local emissions, let alone global ones. And the proof really is how countries generally are behaving about the COP targets.
Cough, look away, and change the subject.
It goes further than that; the alarmist idiots should first be required to show today’s warmer climate to be “worse” than their “baseline” which is The Little Ice Age.
Comparing The Little Ice age climate and ITS impact on humanity with today’s climate will make it abundantly clear that the warming to date has been 100% beneficial.
What is interesting is that USA has reduced CO2 emissions and that has had zero affect on USA weather patterns.
EPA does not regulate the globe, only USA.
CO2 inhaled does not cause immediate health issues like any of the very real pollutants do.
Some of the pollutants need long term exposure to create health issues.
Inhale 420 ppm. Exhale 20,000 ppm. Any health issues? Only if you stop breathing (in or out or both).
Exhale 40,000 ppm .
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8627286/
It is a range, yes.
They will fail because the court’s role is not to decide who is or is not qualified to write policy statements.
Now, the Massachusetts court might see it differently but so what. The Supremes will squash this, which they have done on other attempts to shape policy by using the courts.
However, what these two institutions will achieve is more fund raising, the ability to get into the media that a court stopped Trump, and provide politicians talking points going into a mid-term.
It’s all quite silly but that’s what silly people do. The overturning of this will get little mention.
The only way to be recognized as a “climate scientist”, is to be recognized as such by those who are already “climate scientists”.
They refuse to allow anyone who disagrees with them to join their little club.
Thus when anyone proclaims that all “climate scientists” believe something, that is a circular argument.
Or when somebody disagrees or debunks their theories they are just dismissed as not being “climate scientists.”
Of course the quote comes from the thoroughly politicized “Summary for Policymakers” whose message will never waver from the “climate crisis” political agenda.
They should counter that fecal matter with information from the underlying scientific reports. Then listen to the crickets from those who pontificate about what “The Science(TM)” supposedly says.
Good. Let’s see it find its way to the Supremes again. And maybe they’ll rethink their 2007 ruling inserting CO2 into the Clean Air Act. 2007 was a very different court than today’s. And they better hope Sotomayor doesn’t retire in the next (3) years for health issues, which she has said she might.
‘Let’s see it find its way to the Supremes again.’
Careful – the path of constitutional case law is littered with awful opinions. If you’d consider a metaphor from time series analysis, it looks very much like a simple random walk, but with a heavy bias towards concentrating power in the Federal bureaucracy.
And the Federal bureaucracy that would be strengthened is the EPA, which wants to reverse The Endangerment Finding.
How does the EPA, reversing it’s own ruling, strengthen the EPA?
This part of the relief asked for has me wondering what planet the EDF are on.
“Climate Change” has amassed a huge number of followers worldwide over the past twenty years, who are effectively on the payroll… i.e., they make a living by supporting the “cause.” Of course, they are upset that this is past a turning point and the study / document by “the five” is just indicative of that fact. The Climate Change herd (literally millions) have made a nice living on the faux Climate Change cause. ‘Bout time this is now turning around. And, you bet they are quite upset about it … taking away their primary raison d’etre and source of income. Well deserved kick in the bullocks. Dems, especially under Obama were at fault for this happening, and sneaking across legislation in 2006. Here is a history of the legislative actions rightly and wrongly taken… with noticeable Dem destructive bias
1992 President George H.W. Bush signs and U.S. Senate ratifies the UNFCC treaty.
1997 Senate passes resolution that U.S. should not enter into any climate agreement that fails to limit emissions from developing countries.
1998 U.S. signs (but never ratifies) Kyoto Agreement.
2005 Congress passes first tax credit for solar.
2007 Supreme Court decides Massachusetts v. EPA.
EPA approves California mandate for zero emission vehicles.
Bush EPA denies waiver to allow California to regulate CO2 emissions from new cars.
2009 EPA formally finds that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare.
House of Representatives passes major climate legislation, the Waxman-Markey climate bill, which dies in the Senate.
Obama helps negotiate Copenhagen Accord.
Obama stimulus bill provides $90 billion for renewables.
EPA approves waiver for California to regulate CO2 from new cars.
2011 Supreme Court decides AEP case, barring lawsuits against carbon emitters using the federal common law of nuisance.
2012 EPA adopts regulation limiting carbon emissions for new cars.
2014 Supreme Court decides UARG v. EPA, striking one part of an EPA permitting program covering carbon emissions from new pollution source, but upholding most of the program.
2015 Paris Agreement adopted with strong U.S. advocacy.
Clean Power Plan issued, then stayed by Supreme Court.
2017 Trump announces U.S. withdrawal from Paris Agreement.
2019 Trump EPA revokes California’s waiver for regulating CO2 from new cars.
Trump EPA issues Affordable Clean Energy rule, repeals Clean Power Plan.
2020 U.S. withdraws from Paris Agreement (Trump).
Trump EPA blocks scheduled tightening of CO2 emissions standards for new cars
2021 Biden signs infrastructure bill with approximately $100 billion for electrical grid buildout,
public transportation, and clean energy.
U.S. rejoins Paris Agreement (Biden).
D.C. Circuit vacates Affordable Clean Energy rule.
2022 EPA issues tough new standards for carbon emissions from new vehicles.
Supreme Court decides West Virginia v. EPA, striking down Clean Power Plan.
EPA restores California waiver to regulate new cars.
Congress enacts Inflation Reduction Act, providing more than $300 billion in funding to clean energy.
2024-5 Trump administration opts out of most all climate related agreements
As I say its ’bout time we cleaned the climate change house.
Here’s one possible edit:
2020 U.S. withdraws from Paris Agreement (Trump).
2020 Democrats work with Federal bureaucracy, media and swing-state executive branches to elect Biden.
2021 Biden signs infrastructure bill with approximately $100 billion for electrical grid…
Biden won because the voters went for him by a substantial margin , just as 4 yrs later the voters went for Trump.
What you call ‘media’ is what is called an election campaign.
The critical states that Trump lost in 2024 were republican controlled.
Look at Georgia, it was Trump calling the Governor and local secretary of state to manipulate the vote, after most of votes counted
Biden had more votes than Obama 😉
Yeah,right..unhuh, we see…
Biden got more votes. That’s not the same as saying the voters supported him.
Not with all the evidence of shenanigans in both the casting and counting of ballots.
So the science incompetent climate alarmist propaganda bloviators have commenced their chatter attack on rationale climate science reality.
For AI, consensus has already replaced evidence. Whatever the majority opinion on the internet is, is what will be given as the correct, scientific answer, no matter the question.
AI has no idea of what the truth is, and what is false. It’s the pefect tool for the left.
Automated Idiocy.
“The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts…”
figures, this is where the cult originated, IMHO- and the state is as fanatic as ever
When a solar “farm” was built behind my ‘hood in 2012, I recorded the entire construction on video. My wife sued the town and the solar company and got them to push it back from the houses and they spend some money to help us hide it behind our houses with trees and shrubs.
When I complained about it when it was planned- I complained to everyone, state politicians, agencies, enviro groups, etc. Got little support. Everyone said, “but Joe, it’s GREEN energy”. When I asked for their addresses so i could inform the company that others want one behind their homes- they vanished.
But the consensus is nothing but speculation. It does not exist. The idea of a scientific consensus is an oxymoron since science is not a democracy. The theories of science are not validated via a popularity contest. Consensus is politics and not science. As far as science goes, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on our global climate system. Greenhouse gas theory is all wrong since the radiant greenhouse effect has not been detected anywhere in the solar system. The AGW conjecture has been falsified by science.
Maybe filing an Amicus Curae brief would be a way to support the EPA in the entirely justified demise of the endangerment finding.
Rarely does a young person display a clear insight in how to work things out and ask probing questions. The English scientist, Michael Faraday, was one such person. When experimenting he kept a careful record of facts and was guided by observed facts. He wrote about his method: “facts were important to me and saved me. I could trust a fact, and always cross-examined an assertion.” Notice how important it was to him to always cross-examine an assertion. If, as a young man, he had been living today and using social media he would have been scorned and derided.
None of those attacking the EPA can pass the Faraday test because they are hacks not scientists.
I don’t think people understand how important CO2 is to life on earth as we know it. We need to make a big deal about this.
I’m going to use round numbers here. My understanding is that the current CO2 concentration is 420ppm. The preindustrial concentration was 280ppm. At a concentration of 150 ppm or less life as we know it here on earth can not go on. Subtract 280 from 420 you get 140. Think about it if CO2 concentrations had gone the other way we would have a concentration of 140ppm. We would be goners. For me a concentration of 280ppm is dangerously close to being not enough CO2 for earth.
250-280ppm is essentially survival, stagnation rations. Limited growth, limited food for animals and man.
the amount above around 280ppm is “usable” CO2.
Also, incidentally perhaps, approximate where Leckner measured that atmospheric absorption by CO2 levelled off.. ie saturated at the main frequency.
The other thing which I will always harp on is the foundation of the “climate crisis” is counterfactual. A WARMER CLIMATE IS BETTER, not worse.
There never should have been an “endangerment finding,” because it assumes the exact reverse of reality – i.e., that the colder “pre-industrial” (read: Little Ice Age) climate was “better,” when if fact THAT climate WAS a “catastrophe,” during which millions starved for lack of the ability to grow sufficient food. And that was with in round numbers ONE EIGHTH of today’s human population.
And our ability to feed 8 times the population in today’s climate vs. the Little Ice Age climate is thanks to three things: warmer temperatures, more CO2, and THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS.
To the extent THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS “contributed” to warmer temperatures OR higher atmospheric CO2 levels, we should be patting ourselves on the back, not self-flagellating as if we’ve done something “bad.”
“…whether “consensus” has officially replaced “evidence” as the highest standard in American
sciencecourts“.I’m surprised that they sued in Massachusetts rather than DC.
The complaint cherry picks the DOE report when it says “The expressed purpose of the group would be to issue a report that would “challenge the mainstream consensus” and “cut against the prevailing narrative that climate change is an existential threat”.
In fact, with respect to the first claim the report says “Secretary Wright assembled an independent group to write a report on issues in climate science relevant for energy policymaking, including evidence and perspectives that challenge the mainstream consensus.” The complaint would have you believe that challenging the ‘consensus’ was the focus of the report as opposed to being part of the complete picture. Not to mention that science is not based on consensus which exposes the ignorance and bias of the complaint. Typical handwaving lawyering.
The second claim of cutting against the prevailing notion that climate change is an ‘existential threat’ is more cherry picking. The report says “Yet we are told—relentlessly—that the very energy systems that enabled this progress now pose an existential threat. Hydrocarbon-based fuels, the argument goes, must be rapidly abandoned or else we risk planetary ruin.
That view demands scrutiny. That’s why I commissioned this report: to encourage a more thoughtful and science-based conversation about climate change and energy.” All of which is more handwaving lawyering.
A first year law student should be able to demolish the report and adequately defend it in subsequent appeals that might possibly include SCOTUS.
The latest report is not perfect (for example using Connolly et Al.’ s paper on the sun is weak as there is a published direct rebuttal of their methods)
But there is no question or uncertainty that any global climate models based statement from 2009 was invalidated by the finding of CMIP6 showing that older models lack resolution and use erroneous cloud physics and both effects matter.
Until this is mathematically resolved for all model based statements made towards the EPA, all of those have to be dismissed, we know that these old models are wrong without any doubt!
2009 also sounds like a time period where unrealistically high emission scenarios (which are still wrong on top of that) were used for policy decisions, which means any statement by alarmists with a proven track record of overstating the alarm must be looked at with suspicion.
Unlike they claim.in their lawsuit, the scientific case is not settled, that consensus seems to me more a lie than a fact.
I thinkthe treatment of Mann, Hughes and Bradley’s “98 hockey stick” paper was and still is corrupt and Curry calls this alarmist group out correctly on this!