Three Months In: EPA’s Endangerment Finding Repeal Has Quietly Become a Legal Fight, not a Scientific One

While the legal fight plays out, organizations and platforms that have reliably challenged claims of “crisis” or “danger” should sharpen their counterpoints on the scientific issues. For example, instead of conceding that *some* “warming” is to be expected, it can be shown empirically that the maximum influence of even the 2XCO2 case is vanishingly weak within the dynamics of the general circulation. We do NOT want Congress to ever codify the misconception of “endangerment” from emissions of IR-active trace gases.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link

Simpson and Brunt articulated this point in 1938 in response to Callendar’s proposed attribution of a reported warming trend to rising concentration of CO2. They were not wrong. The modelers know this, and modern numerical representation of the physical fundamentals gives the computed values of interest.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/15/open-thread-181/#comment-4174555

In short, the accurate scientific situation is that no one knows there is any influence at all from incremental CO2 on “warming” or on any trend of climate variables as an end result of the increased IR absorbing power. And in the proper dynamic context, there is no good physical reason remaining to ever expect such an influence to emerge as a perceptible factor.

One more thing. Jonathan Cohler is “taking the gloves off” on the scientific front. Good. He spoke at Heartland’s ICCC 16 event and is active on X.

Thank you all for your participation against “climate” alarm.