ABC’s Unscientific Attack on Trump and CO2

James D. Agresti

.
Just Facts

ABC News repeatedly botched the science of a major regulation “to fight climate change” while falsely accusing President Trump of “rejecting” and “wiping out” “science.”


SOURCES:

The full ABC World News Tonight with David Muir broadcast on the EPA’s repeal of the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases is available here.

The EPA’s technical support document for the repealed regulation states that it concerns “greenhouse gas emissions” and that the “dominant gas emitted is CO2, mostly from fossil fuel combustion.”

Per the U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory, CO2 is a “clear gas” that “occurs naturally” in the “Earth’s atmosphere,” is “part of the air that humans breathe,” is “essential to plant life,” and is “stable, inert, and non-toxic” at “standard temperature and pressure conditions.”

Per the Cambridge University Press textbook Understanding Environmental Pollution, CO2 is “vital to life” and “almost all biochemicals found within living creatures derive directly or indirectly from atmospheric CO2.”

Per a scholarly paper on the human physiology of CO2, “Carbon dioxide production occurs in cells, mainly during the citric acid cycle in the cytoplasm and mitochondria, respectively.”

Per the MIT Press Dictionary of Environment and Development, “carbon dioxide contributes more than any other [manmade] gas to the greenhouse effect….”

Per the academic book “Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep Geologic Formations,” CO2 is “generally regarded as a safe and non-toxic, inert gas. It is an essential part of the fundamental biological processes of all living things. It does not cause cancer, affect development or suppress the immune system in humans.”

Natural processes emit about 770 billion metric tons of CO2 per year, while human activities emit about 41 billion.

The EPA’s technical support document for the regulation repealed by Trump states, “Current ambient air concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs remain well below published exposure thresholds for any direct adverse health effects, such as respiratory or toxic effects.”

The EPA explicitly states that the repealed regulation applies to “greenhouse gases” and “does not affect regulations that combat criteria pollutants and air toxics.”

When Trump repealed the regulation, the New York Times ran a headline at the top of its home page on 2/18/26 at 9:15 AM EST that read, “With Latest Rollback, the U.S. Essentially Has No Clean-Car Rules.”

The Associated Press, Politico, NBC News, CNN, NPR, Bloomberg News, and other media outlets have misportrayed CO2 as a dirty, noxious pollutant.

Per the Cambridge University Press textbook “Understanding Environmental Pollution,” “Anything is toxic at a high enough dose. … Even water, drunk in very large quantities, may kill people by disrupting the osmotic balance in the body’s cells.”

Per a paper about “Oxygen Toxicity” in the “American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine,” “Numerous studies in laboratory animals demonstrated that exposure to an FIO2 greater than 0.7 over 3–6 days can cause death from progressive respiratory failure (4, 5).”

CO2 can be dangerous at high doses, but it causes no adverse cardio-pulmonary effects or discomfort in humans until concentrations exceed 48 times the level in Earth’s atmosphere.

CO2 is a desired output of catalytic converters, which the EPA describes as an “anti-pollution device” that converts “exhaust pollutants such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides to normal atmospheric gases such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water.”

Cornell University grad Bill Maher claimed in 2026 that “CO2” is “carbon” and a “pollutant” that will kill you if you “go in the garage, close the door,” and “turn the car on.”

Per the “New England Journal of Medicine,” “Carbon monoxide intoxication continues to be one of the most common causes of morbidity due to poisoning in the United States, and the “carbon monoxide in motor vehicle exhaust fumes accounts for the majority of deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning.”

CO2 is not carbon, just like water, or H2O, is not hydrogen.

Footage from ABC News is reproduced under the fair use provision of U.S. copyright law for “purposes such as criticism” and “comment” (17 U.S.C. §107).

James D. Agresti is the president of Just Facts, a research institute dedicated to publishing rigorously documented facts about public policies and teaching research skills.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 15 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
29 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mr.
March 8, 2026 6:11 pm

Don’t think I’ve ever seen so many pathetic stunts being pulled to demonize an everyday essential part of life asset as there have been for CO2.

Remember those lame tv ads where black balloons supposedly representing CO2 were being released into the air.

This was nothing but abuse of childrens’ naivety.

SxyxS
Reply to  Mr.
March 9, 2026 3:01 am

If you want to ban an essential life asset you need pathetic stunts 24/7 – It’s the only way to have a chance to succeed.

William Howard
Reply to  Mr.
March 9, 2026 5:19 am

remember this is not about CO2 – that is just their tool to gain power and control-

ResourceGuy
March 8, 2026 6:24 pm

The climate con games helped push legacy media out of the picture in a one-way transition, much like land line phones, newspapers, and radio. I guess you could say CO2 did that also. Buggy whip news bias is a thing now.

Walter Sobchak
March 8, 2026 6:43 pm

“With Latest Rollback, the U.S. Essentially Has No Clean-Car Rules.”

Which is just nonsense. All of the rules about NOx, hydrocarbons, particulates, CO (monoxide) etc. were unrelated to the GHG rule and are still in force, as are the CAFE rules about gas mileage.

spren
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
March 8, 2026 7:23 pm

Anything you read in the New York Times is always nonsense. They are a garbage organization and it is a wonder how they manage to survive. Anyone who relies on them for their information is obviously a very stupid person just for reading it.

sidabma
March 8, 2026 6:45 pm

CO2 was created by God as food for plants that in turn feed us. Those same plants that absorb CO2 in turn release oxygen back into the atmosphere. Sidel Systems USA has been involved with the commercial greenhouse industry since the 1970’s. We brought the Sidel SRU Flue Gas Condenser into this market in the early 1980’s. The SRU unit was designed to capture the waste heat energy out of the combusted natural gas that the heating boilers was creating. This technology increase the boilers efficiency from 80% to mid 90%, utilizing the captured Btu’s where they were originally supposed to go ~ heating the greenhouses. The balance of the then cooled exhaust was CO2 that was pumped inside these greenhouse areas providing the food bearing and flower producing plants with CO2 Enrichment. This CO2 increased our clients plant productivity.
Double whammy. Reduced natural gas bills and increased plant productivity = Increased profits.

AI is coming and AI is needing a lot of electricity produced. The natural gas power plants that will produce all this electricity are only +- 50% energy efficient. Talk about wasted energy.
The Sidel SRU Flue Gas Condenser can also capture most of the heat energy out of these power plants combusted exhaust. Waste Is Not Waste If It Has A Purpose and Sidel Systems has a purpose for all these new power plants combusted natural gas exhaust. We will turn this combusted exhaust into a lot of good paying – full time jobs and money.

President Trump recently created DOGE to look for and reduce waste. President Trump we need you to put natural gas on this DOGE list. It’s just stupid to pull all of this energy out of the ground and then process it as per our requirements, and then pipeline it all over America to have 50% of it blown into the atmosphere. Story Tip. I think America has been doing this long enough. Energy Is America’s Strength. We Must Stop Wasting It.

John Hultquist
March 8, 2026 7:15 pm

 I don’t always skip scientific reports when looking for science news, but when I do, I cater to folks with a Bachelor of Arts degree in journalism. 🙂

Chris Hanley
March 8, 2026 7:42 pm

🤣 Bill Maher trying to come over as so cool, so au courant, but displaying to the world that he and his claque are complete nitwits (assuming it was not merely a ‘laff-track’).

KevinM
March 8, 2026 8:10 pm

Can’t help but think organizations like ABC news have given up on any viewer that knows anything about chemistry. There are plenty ways to attack the person who they want to attack. Why go with a line of attack they have all the skill to disprove. College graduation rate (given 6 years to get there) crossed 50% of USA in 2008-ish. Those people are now in their 30’s. The message would be, traditional network news organizations are circling their wagons around over 40’s demographics.

Bruce Cobb
March 8, 2026 8:51 pm

ABC News should be charged with polluting the airwaves with their noxious mind-pollution.

March 8, 2026 9:48 pm

By the way, carbon monoxide is a greater problem the colder it gets. It’s part of the reason why low temperatures are attributable to greater mortality than warm temperatures. Modestly higher nighttime temperatures during winter should be considered a gift.

March 8, 2026 10:26 pm

From the article: “Natural processes emit about 770 billion metric tons of CO2 per year, while human activities emit about 41 billion.”

The above statement appears to be confusing. Is it suggesting that humans are not natural?

For example, from Google AI, “Ants are “ecosystem engineers” whose nest designs directly impact how CO2 is released: 
Chimney Effect: Leaf-cutter ant nests feature specialized, complex, and sometimes large (up to 10 meters in diameter) mound-shaped, porous, or turret-like openings that facilitate the passive, wind-induced ventilation of CO2 from the deep, underground chambers.”

We humans have more sophisticated technology than ants, and we are able to exploit, for our own purposes, the natural fossil type of fuels buried in the ground, whereas ants cannot do that. Does that make us unnatural?

SxyxS
Reply to  Vincent
March 9, 2026 3:14 am

The interesting thing is that those who call all this results of technical progress unnatural
call themselves progressives.

I think that’s unnatural.

MarkW
Reply to  Vincent
March 9, 2026 6:47 am

The statement also causes confusion by some, who assume that at human caused emissions can’t be responsible for the atmospheric increase because it is only about 5% of natural emissions. Given time (a few decades) natural sinks will increase in order to absorb all the new plant food in the air.

Prior to the industrial age, natural sources and sinks of CO2 were in balance. If man kinds emissions of CO2 were to stabilize, in a few years, after the sinks catch up, the levels of CO2 will once again stabilize.

If the alarmists are ever successful in eliminating all human CO2 emissions, there will be a great die off after plants quickly absorb all the excess CO2 in the atmosphere and CO2 levels return to pre-industrial age levels.

ed sebesta
March 9, 2026 5:15 am

Breaking News!
As advanced process engineers, we state with confidence that there is an input from the oceans into the atmosphere that is 5.5 to 7 times the emissions input. The emissions and the ocean inputs essentially drive the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Without a doubt, the oceans are a major cause of the increasing atmospheric CO2. Our emissions can’t cause AGW.
The “Process Engineers Contrarian View of CO2 in the Earth System” which presents the compelling data and process engineering calculations that supports this incredible finding can be obtained from esebesta@comcast.net.

MarkW
Reply to  ed sebesta
March 9, 2026 2:16 pm

Like I said above.

BTW, Emissions from the ocean lag temperature changes by some 900 to 1000 years.
The end of the Little Ice Age was only about 250 years ago.

It’s too soon for changes in the temperature of the oceans to be a player in how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.

If you add up all of the fossil fuels that have been burned over the last 100 years, it results in the release if enough CO2 to cause at least twice the increase that has been observed over the same time.

Why are some people so desperate to absolve mankind from any responsibility for this highly beneficial gas?

The Expulsive
March 9, 2026 5:48 am

I see that Ken doll (David Muir) repeat the same headlines at least four times on his nightly broadcast and wonder what happened to American news broadcasting? Is it is a lack of money that ends up giving us a 5 or 10 minute broadcast about no leads or real information concerning that kidnapped woman, or repeated ‘leaders’ about a primate in Japan? And they used to have Frank Reynolds, Howard K. Smith, Harry Reasoner, etc., back in the day.
The Ken doll now has a ‘special’ about Trump and climate does he? I will give that a pass.

Reply to  The Expulsive
March 9, 2026 6:15 am

The lady says Trump wiped out government science! Is that some kind of special science?

MarkW
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 9, 2026 6:50 am

People, and that includes scientists, will always bend their results to favor whoever is paying the bills.
Government science will always shade it’s results to favor the politicians who are paying for it.

March 9, 2026 6:08 am

“Footage from ABC News is reproduced under the fair use provision of U.S. copyright law for “purposes such as criticism” and “comment” (17 U.S.C. §107).”

Is the fair use provision even necessary if all you do is give a link to an online video?

James D. Agresti
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 9, 2026 8:32 am

The video at the top of the posts reproduces the ABC News footage.

MarkW
March 9, 2026 6:30 am

“carbon dioxide contributes more than any other [manmade] gas to the greenhouse effect….”

Lying though omission. What they aren’t telling you is that CO2 is a bit player compared to water vapor. A non manmade greenhouse gas.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2026 10:08 am

Ah, but those hydrogen fuel cells create H2O, so at least a pittance of H2O is manmade.
Also, humans exhale H2O. Granted it is a normally ingested liquid.

Yes, CO2 is a bit player.

Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2026 12:58 pm

Actually, I would think that humans release way more steam into the atmosphere than we do CO2.

All those pictures of cooling towers for example. 😉

Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2026 2:10 pm

Please do a chemistry equation showing combustion of say methane, CH4. See if any H2O shows up.

Citizen Scientist
March 9, 2026 12:22 pm

Surprise, surprise! If President Trump ever states that CO2 is a “climate polluter” all the leftist media will immediately accuse him of rejecting the scientific finding that proves CO2 is “plant food”, “fossil fuel combustion” is a basis for development  etc. It does not matter what you say, it does matter what political party you belong to. 

Reply to  Citizen Scientist
March 9, 2026 2:54 pm

I don’t belong to any political party. As a result, members of both major parties in America hate me when I tell them that.

Which is exactly the reason I don’t belong to any political party.

I get one vote. It is my choice who I vote for. They can earn my vote or not. Their choice has obviously already been made, it is not my problem to associate with either of them anymore.

March 9, 2026 2:46 pm

“Fighting” climate change has done nothing other than transfer dollars from the public into government accounts.

That’s it. That’s all that has happened. There has never been any reduction of atmospheric CO2 for 40 years. ALL efforts to do so have failed as shown by Mauna Loa measurements.

When all of your ideas fail to produce any effect, can you really call that “fighting”? The hubris is strong with these climate hypocrites.