Charles Rotter On February 12, the Trump EPA the rescission of the 2009 endangerment finding, the administrative determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare under the Clean Air Act, and the legal scaffolding on which sixteen years of federal climate regulation has been built. Administrator Lee Zeldin called the finding:
the Holy Grail of federal regulatory overreach.
Ninety days later, the dust has begun to settle, and the contours of what comes next are visible. The...
This post is currently for VIP and Premium Subscribers Only.
After 30 days it will be available to all users.
You can bookmark it and read in 30 days or
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.
i have a paid up subscription, why can I never read subscription articles?
You have the ad free membership tier contact me and we’ll see about changing your membership.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/contact-2/
The Endangerment Finding is legally defective. The CAA requires issuance of a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for the endangering “pollutant”. Seventeen years later, there is still no NAAQS. The process required by the CAA is incomplete.
Certainly, developing an NAAQS for a “globally well mixed trace gas” would be difficult, if even possible, and enforcement would be even more difficult, especially since the primary source of the “pollutant” is China.
Clearly, the CAA was the wrong vehicle for attempting to control CO2 emissions.
CO2 is not a pollutant in any sense of that word.
It does not cause heath issues to any person or animal and is loved by plants.
Anyone who claims CO2 is a pollutant or poison should never exhale else they are a climate criminal.
That’s why the quotation marks. 😉
I was agreeing. 🙂
“The Endangerment Finding is legally defective.”
Agreed. It was also defective on the scientific merits, but I have to agree with how Administrator Zeldin has carefully chosen to finalize the rescission as a statutory and legal matter. This leaves the scientific debate outside the EPA’s authority to even state a position.
EPA website still has not taken down all of the alarmist pages.
Links from the home page are gone, but google search will get you behind the curtain.
“We’ll keep watching.”
And we’ll keep reading. Thank you.