Combatting the EPA’s Ongoing Assault on Climate Science: Attorney General Bonta Slams EPA’s Proposed Rescission of Endangerment Finding
Monday, September 22, 2025
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov
Through multiple actions, Attorney General Bonta and multistate partners, stand up for climate science, oppose EPA’s proposal to repeal all the federal motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards that protect the health and safety of Americans
OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 23 attorneys general and seven counties and cities in filing a comment letter opposing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rescission of its landmark 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions, including from motor vehicles, drive climate change and endanger public health and welfare. This finding is known as the Endangerment Finding. Last month, the Trump Administration announced its proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding, claiming that EPA lacks authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change, as well as to eliminate all existing EPA greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles.
“The EPA’s rescission proposal is not just a step backward — it is a dangerous retreat from science and the law,” said Attorney General Bonta. “To suggest that greenhouse gas emissions don’t endanger public health is absolutely reckless. Let’s be clear: This proposed rollback does not serve the public. It serves bad actor polluters. It prioritizes fossil fuel interests over scientific truth. It puts short-term oil profits ahead of public health and combatting climate change. We cannot allow it; the stakes are too high. We urge the EPA to withdraw this proposal.”
The 2009 Endangerment Finding was the direct result of the landmark 2007 Supreme Court opinion in Massachusetts v. EPA, which confirmed EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that threaten public health and welfare. In direct response to that opinion, and after more than two years of scientific review, EPA determined in 2009 that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles contribute to climate change that harms public health and welfare in numerous ways.
As the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine confirmed just last week, “EPA’s 2009 finding that the human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases threaten human health and welfare was accurate, has stood the test of time, and is now reinforced by even stronger evidence.” EPA’s new proposal, which relies on a flawed, unlawful, and unfinished report issued by a handful of climate deniers handpicked by the Secretary of Energy — the so-called “Climate Working Group”— seeks to reverse that finding with no grounding in law or science.
Today’s comment letter builds on the coalition’s efforts to fight back against EPA’s dangerous proposal.
Endangerment Finding Comment Letter
In today’s letter, the coalition argues that rescinding the Endangerment Finding would violate settled law, Supreme Court precedent, and scientific consensus, endangering the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans, particularly those in communities disproportionately impacted by environmental harms.
Scientific research has proven that every region of our country, and especially California, is experiencing the ongoing and significant harms of climate change and motor vehicle pollution, including changes in temperature, precipitation, and sea level rise. Extreme summer heat, driven by climate change, is leading to increased rates of heat-related illness and death, particularly among vulnerable populations like children, the elderly, low-income individuals, and workers. Increasing rates of natural disasters – like wildfires, hurricanes, flooding, and droughts – not only have a devastating effect on public health and safety, but on state and local economies as well.
Not only does EPA’s proposed rescission ignore those facts, which are backed by robust climate science, but it also violates EPA’s legal obligations under the federal Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change. The coalition argues that EPA’s new legal interpretations are fundamentally inconsistent with the Clean Air Act and binding Supreme Court precedent, and that the proposal would mark a drastic reversal of its own longstanding findings without any explanation grounded in science. To make matters worse, the Climate Working Group report on which EPA relies is procedurally and substantively flawed, yet EPA accepts its findings and disregards the scientific consensus, which was just reaffirmed by the National Academies last week.
In filing this comment letter, the coalition urges EPA to abandon its unlawful and unsupported proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding.
Attorney General Bonta co-led this letter alongside attorneys general of Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York. The coalition includes the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin; the Cities of Chicago, New York, and Oakland; the City and County of Denver; and the Counties of Martin Luther King Jr., the City and County of San Francisco, California; and the County of Santa Clara, California.
A copy of the letter can be found here.
Motor Vehicles Comment Letter
In withdrawing the 2009 Endangerment Finding, EPA also proposes to repeal all existing federal greenhouse gas emissions standards for all motor vehicle classes and all years. In a second letter submitted to the EPA today, the coalition explains that this unprecedented disruption to the regulatory landscape of the last 15 years will be catastrophic for the States’ and local governments’ residents, industries, natural resources, and public investments. For instance, EPA projected last year that current motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards would prevent more than 8 billion metric tons of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions over the next 30 years, avoiding $1.82 trillion in climate harms. If those reductions from the federal motor vehicle greenhouse gas program, alone, were the emissions of a country, that country would rank No. 33 on a list of the world’s top emitters.
A robust regulatory program for greenhouse gas emissions is also crucial to vehicle affordability, consumer choice, and the success of the American automotive industry. The greenhouse gas program for vehicles spurs automakers to innovate and create better cars, saving drivers hundreds of billions of dollars in fuel and maintenance costs, and helps support domestic manufacturing and jobs. Repealing that program, as EPA now proposes, will shutter factories, kill jobs, and wipe out billions of dollars in investments by Congress, States, and local governments to keep the American auto industry thriving and globally competitive. The best way to support drivers and auto workers — while also helping the planet — isn’t to protect the President’s fossil-fuel friends, but to continue promoting innovation in the most cutting-edge vehicle technologies.
Attorney General Bonta leads the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia; and the Chief Legal Officers of the City of Chicago, Illinois; the City of New York, New York; the City of Oakland, California; Martin Luther King, Jr. County, Washington; the City and County of Denver, Colorado; the City and County of San Francisco, California; and the County of Santa Clara, California
A copy of the letter can be found here.
Climate Working Group Comment Letter
On September 2, Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition of 22 attorneys general, three cities, and two counties in filing a comment letter opposing the Climate Working Group (CWG) report that EPA relied on in its proposed rescission of the Endangerment Finding.
In that comment letter, the coalition identified numerous procedural and substantive legal flaws in the CWG report. In creating the CWG, the Department of Energy selected five widely known climate change deniers, ignored well-established scientific integrity standards, and failed to comply with Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) procedures, which require the disclosure of all committee-related records and that committee meetings be open to the public.
The report explicitly sought to contradict mainstream climate science. It was written in less than two months and riddled with inaccuracies, factual omissions, and mischaracterizations of irrefutable climate science research — weak attempts to undermine decades of peer-reviewed scientific research establishing that the emission of greenhouse gases causes climate change and endangers public health and welfare.
In filing the comment letter, the coalition urged the Department of Energy to withdraw the unlawful and misguided CWG report.
Joining Attorney General Bonta in filing the comment letter, which was co-led by the attorneys general of Massachusetts and New York, were the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the Chief Legal Officers of the City and County of Denver, Martin Luther King Jr. County, Washington, and the Cities of Chicago and New York.
Climate Working Group Amicus Brief
On August 29, Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition of 19 attorneys general and the City of New York in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Environmental Defense Fund v. Wright, supporting the plaintiffs in their effort to declare the Climate Working Group’s report unlawful.
In their brief, the coalition argued that the Department of Energy violated FACA by establishing and utilizing the Climate Working Group, and that this violation will harm state and local governments’ strong interest in ensuring that the federal government rely on the best available science to guide its climate policy decisions.
On September 17, the Court held that the Climate Working Group is not exempt from FACA.
Joining Attorney General Bonta in filing this amicus brief, which was led by the attorney general of Massachusetts, were the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the City of New York.
In addition to the actions described above, Attorney General Bonta testified before EPA last month to oppose its proposed rescission of the 2009 Endangerment Finding and motor vehicle greenhouse gas standards. His remarks can be found here.
# # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Howling libs have become very boring. Oh the hysteric hyperbolic hypocrisy! Ugh.
Here’s an idea: tax the lawyers. Just the lawyers. Everybody else gets a free ride.
Absolutely no mention of the projected costs and benefits of the endangerment finding or the motor vehicles policies.
The costs of course are astronomical and the benefits are the cube root of diddly squat.
The benefit is actually an irrational number.
No, the benefit is a negative number, a very large one.
Isn’t it strange that only climate science is the only perfect science? Every alarmist paper is just plain perfect, they never get retracted. Odd.
My AI says that “several” have been retracted, still odd.
The following video is too long, but the first couple of minutes is relevant in any case. “Retractions are on the rise, but not enough.”
Several out of tens of thousands.
I would rather hold Democrats accountable for their crimes against America.
Need to step it up on Soros’ prosecution as he looks like he’s about to head to a place with a really hot climate.
The primary hypothesis of many Climate Scientists, that water vapor is feedback from CO2 warming of the planet, has been falsified. Since 1988 the measured increase in average global water vapor has been 1.654 kg/m^2 while the calculated likely maximum increase possible from planet warming is 1.177 kg/m^2. The ‘extra’ WV increase of about 40 % more than expected from just planet warming is from human activity and 3.1 billion more people.
NOAA atmospheric specific and relative humidity data says that both have been steady or declining since the 1950’s. Trenbirth and others say the NOAA data is wrong but where is the alleged increase to be found?
That is mal-information. Water vapor is measured using satellite based instrumentation and reported by NASA/RSS as Total Precipitable Water (TPW) anomalies at https://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/old_files/tpw_v07r02_198801_202312.time_series.txt . Here is a graph of that data thru 2024 which shows that WV has been increasing at about 1.5 % per decade.
How can any “scientist” worth his salt claim that CO2 heat can drive water vapor when it takes the heat equivalent of one K of a kilogram of CO2 to create one gram of extra water vapor (by evaporation). They measure the heat from extra CO2 in fractions of a K per decade, and claim it has a measurable effect on the water cycle which already produces a daily rainfall equivalent to the total weight of CO2 in the atmosphere (10^12 tonnes). Preposterous!
Harold The Organic Says:
RE: The Greenhouse Effect
RE: H2O vs CO2
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is 425 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1.29 kg and contain 0.83 g of CO2 at STP.
In air at 70° F and 70% RH, the concentration of H2O is 17,780 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has mass of 1.2 kg and contains 14.3 g of H2O and 0.77 g of CO2 . To the first approximation and all things being equal, the greenhouse effect (GHE) due to water is given by:
GHE=moles H2O/moles H2O+moles CO2=0.79/0.79+0.019=0.98 or 98%
The calculation assumes that a molecule of H2O and CO2 each absorb about the same amount of out-going long wavelength IR emanating from the earth’s surface. Note how little CO2 there is in the air and that 71% of the earth’s surface is covered by H2O.
The above empirical temperature data and calculations falsifies the claims
made by the IPCC that CO2 causes “global warming” and is “he control knob of climate change”. The purpose of these claims is to provide the UN the justification for the distribution of donor funds, via the UNFCCC and the UN COP, from the rich countries to poor countries to help them cope with the effects of alleged effects of global warming and climate change. The poor countries came to COP29 in Baku clamoring not for billions but trillions of funds. They left the conference empty handed with no pledges if funds from the rich countries.
By rescinding the 2009 Endangerment Finding, EPA Administer Lee Zeldin will put an end to the greatest scientific fraud since the Piltdown Man.
“The EPA’s rescission proposal is not just a step backward — it is a dangerous retreat from science and the law,” said Attorney General Bonta. “To suggest that greenhouse gas emissions don’t endanger public health is absolutely reckless.”
————————
The law? When did federal law make CO2 a dangerous pollutant?
People like AG Bonta give me the impression that they hate fossil fuels and fossil fuel companies with a passion. They need confirmation that their hate is correct and justified, and the climate alarmist narrative provides it. How convenient.
When the ” climate science” provides such confirmation, it becomes infallible and beyond question. Any science that disputes the alarmist narrative is heresy. The alarmist narrative becomes sacred and is the state religion.
The problem here is obvious for anyone who understands how sound science and scientific discourse are supposed to work. The characteristics that AG Bonta and others endow the climate scare narrative with make it anything but reputable science. Their hate however precludes them from realizing that, and it probably would not matter if they did.
With their fossil fuel hate confirmed, the only thing left to do is to get rid of the despised energy source. Full speed ahead with wind and solar and never mind what it will do to the economy. Now however the Trump administration is attempting to reverse course, and I wish them every success.
Bonta doesn’t really hate fossil fuel companies. He probably owns stock in some of them. For Bonta and Newsom, pandering to the progressive environmentalists is a vote winner in CA. The focus groups made him do it!
Maybe Bonta doesn’t, but I’m willing to bet that a lot of people in the environmental movement (and their political allies) likely do.
This ^^ is right on the money. The stupid voters around here (from Oakland, where this article of climate crapology emanated) will still be calling normal people climate deniers in 20 years, even as the Black Lives Matter signs on their lawns have fallen apart.
These jokers have been howling about all of their scientific evidence showing CO2 causes catastrophic global warming. Yet they don’t share that evidence with the rest of us. Stop yacking about what you have and start backing it up with proper science. I say you don’t have any, all you have is examples of severe weather and ragtag computer models, neither of which are proper scientific evidence proving CO2 causes catastrophic global warming.
A few weeks ago, AG Bonta was stating, proudly, that since January 20th, he has led California in about 100 lawsuits against Trump (or, at least, the US Government). He has crowed that he has won 90% of them. I doubt that 90% of them have even come to trial, let alone worked all the way through the appellate process. Let’s wait, Rob, until all the cases have worked their way through all the courts, and see how well you’ve done.
‘Attorney General Bonta co-led this letter alongside attorneys general of Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York. The coalition includes the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin…’
‘Attorney General Bonta leads the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia…’
‘Joining Attorney General Bonta in filing the comment letter, which was co-led by the attorneys general of Massachusetts and New York, were the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin…’
‘Joining Attorney General Bonta in filing this amicus brief, which was led by the attorney general of Massachusetts, were the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin…’
So, it looks like about 22 of 50 US states are currently in the tank for climate alarmism. This number either gets whittled down to single digits over the next 3 years or we’re screwed as a constitutional republic.
Its totally irrational. To see the irrationality, consider the tiny island nation of Tuvalu. Its like Tuvalu arguing that since global CO2 emissions are provoking a climate crisis, and this will flood Tuvalu, Tuvalu has to go to Net Zero ASAP.
Its the perpetual argument used by the climate movement: there is global crisis caused by global emissions. Therefore we locally must get to Net Zero. Even though this will have no material effect on the global emissions which are the alleged problem. Even though it will do nothing to help with the alleged local problems global warming is supposed to create.
Its like saying, save Florida by moving everyone to EVs and heat pumps. And now exactly is that supposed to save Florida?
“Its totally irrational. To see the irrationality, consider the tiny island nation of Tuvalu. Its like Tuvalu arguing that since global CO2 emissions are provoking a climate crisis, and this will flood Tuvalu, Tuvalu has to go to Net Zero ASAP.”
Can’t you see that it is your argument that is irrational? How often have the sceptics on this site criticised wealthy climate alarmist who fly in private jets which emit CO2, and called them hypocritical?
Using your argument, the wealthy owners of the planes could claim that reducing their personal CO2 emissions by discarding their private jets and travelling on public planes, would have no material effect (or at most a minuscule effect) on the global emissions of CO2.
A similar argument could be applied to those who litter the landscape with plastic bottles. Whilst admitting that plastic waste in general is a real problem, a person who throws an empty bottle on the roadside or into a river, could use your argument to justify his action, by claiming that there are millions of waste plastic bottles scattered in the landscape, rivers and seas, and one or two extra ones from him are not going to make a difference.
Whilst I don’t believe that CO2 emission are a problem, and I do believe they are more likely a benefit, I think it is quite rational for any individual who does believe that CO2 emissions are a pollutant should reduce (and/or sequester) their CO2 emissions as much as possible, including small islands like Tuvalu and owners of private jets.
It is amazing how otherwise supposedly intelligent people can make such statements that there is a climate crisis confirmed by experience when the actual data on storms, sea level rise and other parameter of the “crisis” confirm the exact opposite. Are they incredibly stupid or incredible liars?
Wow, glad they used THE SCIENCE to determine the damage- at 1.82 T. Not 1.81 or 1.83! Now, that’s great science! /s
Umm.. someone ought to let them know that CO2 DOES NOT cause any “climate harms”…
… whatever the **** they are !.
This idiotic use of words from the climate worriers is getting truly bizarre and out of hand. !
So, taxpayers are supposed to spend multiple trillions in new EV subsidies, solar power subsidies for homeowners and businesses, subsidies for onshore and offshore wind power, subsidies for new battery back-up, and purchases of buses, EV trucks, completely changing our diet and agriculture systems and retrofitting homes with we electric heating to avert $60B per year of theoretical damage. Demonstrated benefits to agriculture and wildlife from greening and to our civilization from petrochemicals are not considered l, either. This is willfully Innumerate and scientifically blinkered.
Translation: “Our STRONGLY WORDED LETTER compels you to do as we say!”
Rubbish.
The rescission of the 2009 Endangerment Finding does not depend on the CWG report, which itself is a way-too-mild critique of the alarmist claims. Even if it was unintentional, that report served effectively as a diversion.
This is why I offered this comment to EPA. There is no need to slog through all the legalese, the IPCC reports, NCA’s, countless published papers, etc, etc. Assuming there is at least one scientist still awake at EPA, they can directly assess the ERA5 outputs to answer the question, “What is the magnitude of the potential influence of emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like?” Spoiler: It is vanishingly weak in the proper context of dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation. I’m not making this up.
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194-0305
Lee Zeldin has been doing great so far as EPA administrator, so let’s hope he pushes to a firm conclusion to rescind.
Perhaps the AG could be asked where we can find his scientific treatise on the workings of the atmosphere in the physics literature and preferably a publication not having the word ‘climate’ in it?
“Extreme summer heat, driven by climate change, is…”
Climate change is an average of weather parameters and as such is a result not a cause. If these “experts” can’t get their common terms defined their analysis is severely compromised.
If the endangerment finding will drive auto costs down when will that begin to show? I don’t think any cars are less expensive than they were when it was put into effect.
Make an example of California. Show how killing their deluded CC agenda will increase the economy by making them more business friendly, reduce taxes, and lower the living cost. All this and help the environment as well. Then they could concentrate more on their out of control crime.
Hey California Attorney General Bonta, why don’t you invest some of your time doing something really useful for California citizens, such as investigating why the current CA Governor and legislature have—and continue to—back the California High-Speed Rail project.
Here is the current situation, as summarized by Google’s AI overview (with my bold emphasis added):
“The California High-Speed Rail (HSR) project has violated its original conditions through massive cost overruns, significant delays, and a drastic narrowing of the project’s scope. The initial promises made in the 2008 bond measure, Proposition 1A, have been broken in several key areas.
“Cost
Original promise: The initial projected cost for the full system from San Francisco to Los Angeles was estimated at $33 billion when voters approved Proposition 1A in 2008.
Reality: The cost has quadrupled, with recent estimates for the full system exceeding $100 billion. The scaled-back segment from Merced to Bakersfield alone is estimated to cost nearly $37 billion, which is more than the original budget for the entire project.
“Timelines
Original promise: Proposition 1A envisioned that the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles line would be operational by 2020.
Reality: The 2020 deadline has long passed. The current target for the partial line connecting Merced and Bakersfield is in the 2030s, and there is no confirmed timeline for the full route.
“Scope
Original promise: The project was planned to be an 800-mile system connecting San Francisco, Sacramento, and Los Angeles/Anaheim.
Reality: The current focus is on building a much shorter “starter” line of 171 miles through the Central Valley, connecting Merced and Bakersfield. Critics have dubbed this reduced segment a “train to nowhere” because it does not connect California’s major metropolitan areas.
“Funding
Original promise: The bond act required the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) to identify matching federal and private funds before spending state bond money. Revenues from the project were supposed to be reinvested into expanding the system.
Reality: The project has struggled to attract private funding due to its mounting costs and delays. In 2025, the federal government terminated $4 billion in funding, citing the project’s poor management, missed deadlines, and overruns.
Planning and oversight
“Original promise: The project was supposed to be subject to rigorous independent review and cost-effective construction.
Reality: The project has been plagued by mismanagement and poor decision-making from the start, as documented in multiple audits by the California State Auditor. Construction began before crucial steps like land acquisition and utility relocation were complete, causing billions in additional costs and significant delays.
“Operational viability
Original promise: The rail line was designed to be a competitive alternative to flying, with trains traveling at speeds up to 220 miles per hour.
Reality: The initial, and much longer, full line was projected to be profitable. However, there are significant doubts about the economic viability of the initial Central Valley segment, given its low population density and lack of connection to major metropolitan hubs.”
Meanwhile, despite all this evidence of misfeasance and malfeasance, California AG “Rob” Bonta remains blissfully silent on this corrupt boondoogle, leading people like myself to ask how much has he personally received to be bought off?
Finally, please note that the projected cost of $37 billion for just the 171 miles connecting the towns of Merced and Bakersfield amounts to the outrageous cost of $216 million per mile of train track . . . and that through some of the cheapest land along the planned LA to SF route! 800 miles at that rate would project to a final HSR cost (not adjusted for inflation) of $173 BILLION, and that’s not factoring in the significant additional costs (and delays) of the change in plans to now route the HSR through many intermediate city centers in the hope of increasing ridership. Of course, routing the HSR through multiple town centers will result in it being LSR and likely not even competitive with air travel between LA and SF!
Bonta and his babbling bunch of boneheaded boffins should ease up on the Klimate Koolade. Maybe take up a hobby.
From the above article:
“In today’s letter, the coalition argues that rescinding the Endangerment Finding would violate settled law, Supreme Court precedent, and scientific consensus, endangering the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans, particularly those in communities disproportionately impacted by environmental harms.
Scientific research has proven that every region of our country, and especially California, is experiencing the ongoing and significant harms of climate change and motor vehicle pollution, including changes in temperature, precipitation, and sea level rise. Extreme summer heat, driven by climate change, is leading to increased rates of heat-related illness and death, particularly among vulnerable populations like children, the elderly, low-income individuals, and workers. Increasing rates of natural disasters – like wildfires, hurricanes, flooding, and droughts – not only have a devastating effect on public health and safety, but on state and local economies as well.”
Hmmm . . . let’s see:
— “would violate settled law” . . . I’ve never heard of such . . . even the US Constitution allows for laws in the US to be changed . . . SCOTUS reviews and often reverses laws that are existing, thus proving that no law is ever “settled” . . . and it’s incredible this fact is not recognized by CA AG Bonta and 22 AGs from other states? Good grief!
— “scientific consensus” . . . a term often used by the scientifically-illiterate who don’t understand that obtaining a “consensus” is not part of the Scientific Method and, in fact, it is often that the greatest progress in science is made by overthrowing the “consensus” positions of many claiming to be true scientists . . . I need only point out Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity overturned the consensus view, originated by Issac Newton, that space and time were separate, unchanging physical parameters across the universe.
— “environmental harms” . . . an alarmist phrase that is left totally undefined . . . would that be too high ambient temperatures in summer or too low ambient temperatures in winter? . . . maybe too much rain/flooding or too little rain/drought? . . . maybe too much “desertification” on Earth or too much “greening” on Earth, both being attributed to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 50 or so years? . . . etc . . . etc.
— “Scientific research has proven” . . . all true scientists with an IQ above room temperature acknowledge that science never really proves anything . . . the best science can offer is a preponderance of quantifiable evidence (observations and measured data) that indicates where truth may lay, always subject to revision as more data becomes available . . . for example, science NEVER proved Newton’s scientific observations, nor has it proved Einstein’s theories, which don’t apply at the level of quantum mechanics. I directly challenge Rob Bonta and the 22 other AGs that are referenced to provide the “proof” that they careless assert exists.
— “Increasing rates of natural disasters” . . . I directly dispute this assertion . . . please provide objective evidence of this being true since about 1800, the approximate beginning of the Industrial Revolution . . . in doing so, please address the difference in ability to report “natural disasters” worldwide in 1800 versus the capability to do so today, taking into account changes in monitoring capability (e.g., satellite coverage since about 1959) and TV network news coverage starting in about 1940. The increased reporting of natural disasters does not necessarily indicate an increased incidence of natural disasters . . . Logic 101. BTW, has there been any “natural disaster” equivalent to the Little Ice Age that lasted roughly from 1300 to 1850 AD?
Where is the data to support this? Even NOAA’s own climate at a glance data doesn’t show this for Tmax during the summer months of June, July, and August in most of the U.S.
How do these folks get away with out and out lies?
Because they are Lib Democrats and have the Media in their pockets to spread agiprop.
If this clown believes, that emissions (CO2) are harmful, could someone please ask him to stop breathing, because by exhaling close to 1kg of that stuff every day he is endangering public health.
. . . and to stop driving or using any ICE powered vehicle, and to stop using grid electricity (about 60% of which is provided by power plants burning FFs and emitting CO2), and to stop using pharmaceuticals (70 to 90% of which are estimated to be derived from fossil fuel stock), and to stop eating all commercially produced food, where the associated production and distribution rely heavily on the use of fossil fuels with attendant CO2 emissions.
Yeah, this clown, Bonta, needs to be reminded of what life would be like without any human-originated emissions of CO2!
Rob Bonta has wasted all his time and taxpayer money endlessly suing the Trump administration and supporting unconstitutional California legislation.
He is the result of a one party government in action.
Climate Science ?? But there is no climate crisis. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on our global climate system. There is plenty of scidntific rational to support the conclusion that the climate sensivity of CO2 is effectively zero. The AGW hypothesis has been falsified by science. Mankind does not even know what the optiumal global climate actually is let alone how to achieve it. World wide trillions of dollars have been spent trying to fight climate cvhange yet no one is saying that there has been any improvement in the Earth’s climate. Spending money to fight climate change is just a big waste of funds. It is all a matter of science.
If the state of california thinks that the use of fossil fuels is bad for the people of California then they should ban the use and even the possession of fossil fuels in the state. All products and services that involve the use of fossil fuels should also be banned including building materials such as lumber, concrete, and asphault. Anything moved by trucks that make use of fossil fuels should also be band.. People should not be allowed to wear clothing that was transported via the use of fossil fuels. All buildings built with materials that involved the use of fossil fuels should be condemed as well as all surfaces built of concrete or asphalt.
All state officials need to each explain what they believe to be the climate sesnsivity of CO2, the exact number. In their explanation they need to provide a detailed explanation of the atmospheric physics involved.. It is my conclusion that the climate sensivity of CO2 is effectively zero ans hence the AGW hypothesis is false. All of these state officials need to read and fully understand “The Rational Climate e-Book” by Patrice Poyet which they can download for free from the Internet.