Endangerment Finding – Climate- Science.press

Trump’s EPA Ends America’s War on CO2

The reaction from the climate establishment was as predictable as it was shrill. The green rag Guardian announced that Trump’s EPA had stripped itself of regulating ability, gutting the Clean Air Act in “a gift to planet polluters”.

Cartoon illustration depicting a celebration of the end of EPA regulations on carbon dioxide, featuring characters holding signs with various slogans, a cheerful carbon dioxide character breaking free from chains, and symbols of energy sources like wind and solar power in the background.

From Tilak´s Substack

By Tilak Doshi

On Monday in Houston, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin stood alongside Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum at a G20 ministerial meeting on energy abundance and signed what may be the single most consequential act of environmental deregulation in American history. The final rule, formally the “Partial Repeal of the Carbon Pollution Standards for Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units”, eviscerates the Biden administration’s 2024 mandate requiring coal- and gas-fired power plants to capture 90% of their carbon dioxide emissions or shut their doors. A companion proposal goes further still, moving to rescind the EPA’s underlying claim to authority to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants under the Clean Air Act altogether. It is an attempt not merely to repeal a rule but to permanently dismantle the legal scaffolding beneath the entire punitive regulatory edifice inspired by the Church of Climate.

The reaction from the climate establishment was as predictable as it was shrill. The green rag Guardian announced that Trump’s EPA had stripped itself of regulating ability, gutting the Clean Air Act in “a gift to planet polluters”. Environmental groups vowed immediate litigation, and the Clean Air Task Force branded the repeal unlawful. Sceptics will recognise the pattern by now: any retreat from Net Zero orthodoxy is met not with argument but with moral panic dressed up as science.

Undoing a fraudulent finding

To understand why Monday’s action matters so much, one has to trace the regulatory lineage back nearly two decades. In 2007, the US Supreme Court in Massachusetts v EPA ruled that greenhouse gases could, in principle, be treated as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The Obama EPA seized on that narrow opening in 2009 to issue what became known as the Endangerment Finding, the proposition that greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles endanger public health and welfare. That single administrative finding, resting on computer models rather than observed harm, became the legal mechanism through which the entire American climate-regulatory apparatus was subsequently built: vehicle mileage mandates, methane restrictions on oil and gas wells, and, in 2024, the power-plant carbon-capture rule that is now being repealed.

Zeldin’s EPA had already struck at that foundation earlier this year, when it finalised the rescission of the 2009 Endangerment Finding itself in February, arguing that the agency lacks statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions on the basis of an imagined ‘climate crisis’ rather than demonstrable local harm. Power plants, the second-largest source of America’s greenhouse gas emissions after transportation, were always the next logical target. The courts’ “major questions doctrine”, which holds that agencies need clear congressional authorisation before regulating matters of major economic significance, cuts sharply against the sweeping powers the Obama and Biden EPAs assumed for themselves.

Monday’s rule is designed with that doctrine in mind, and the accompanying proposal is engineered so that no future administration can simply reinstate the old regime by regulatory fiat. Given that the entire edifice was erected on shaky legal and scientific foundations to begin with, its removal is wholly justified.

The scale of what is underway should not be understated. The power-plant rule is only one entry in a list of dozens of environmental regulations Zeldin targeted when he announced what his agency called the most consequential day of deregulation in American history back in early 2025: vehicle emissions standards, the ‘good neighbour’ rule governing cross-state pollution, environmental-justice offices and mercury restrictions have all been in his sights. Zeldin has been careful to stress that the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards themselves remain. The green lobby has been happy to blur this distinction in its rush to cast every rollback as an assault on breathable air. The distinction matters. It is a repeal of climate regulation built on a contested finding about global atmospheric effects, not a repeal of the conventional pollution controls for particulates, sulphur dioxide and mercury that the Clean Air Act was originally written to address and that have genuinely cleaned America’s air over half a century.

Line graph showing the decline of various pollutants from 1990 to 2023, including SOx, NOx, Mercury, Particulate Matter, and Ozone, with each pollutant represented by a different colored line. — Source: Based on data collated by Grok from EPA and EIA sources.

CO2: the gas of life, not a pollutant

What the hysteria over Monday’s announcement obscures is an elementary scientific point that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, present in the atmosphere at a small fraction of one percent, and it is essential to photosynthesis, the biochemical process on which virtually all plant, and by extension all life on Earth depends. Dr Will Happer, the Princeton physicist and CO2 Coalition co-founder, has for years called carbon dioxide the gas of life, not as rhetorical flourish but as biochemical fact: plants cannot grow without it. Satellite records show the planet has measurably greened as CO₂ concentrations have risen and crop yields have benefited accordingly.

The Endangerment Finding inverted this reality, transforming a trace gas integral to agricultural productivity into an object of state-sanctioned hostility. It asked Americans to believe that the same molecule enriching greenhouses to boost tomato yields is simultaneously an existential threat requiring the closure of the power plants that keep their lights on. The absurdity was never really about atmospheric physics. It is about political power, specifically the power to reorganise the American economy around the preferences of a green priesthood that has rarely had to answer for the cost of its prescriptions in higher electricity bills, deindustrialisation and diminished energy security. Zeldin’s EPA estimates that eliminating the power-plant carbon rule alone will remove more than $300 billion in compliance costs. That is the agency’s own figure, not an independent audit, and it deserves the same scrutiny any regulatory-impact estimate does. But even a fraction of that sum, redirected from compliance costs to reliable power generation, is a fraction worth having.

It is worth dwelling on the numbers that the climate alarmists prefer not to mention. Atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen from roughly 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution to something over 400 parts per million today, an increase that sounds dramatic until one recalls, as CO₂ Coalition scientists routinely point out, that concentrations were several multiples higher for most of the planet’s geological history, when life was in no way endangered by it. The CO₂ Coalition, of which more than 80 scientists and researchers are members, has argued for years that treating a two-hundredths-of-one-percent increase in a trace gas as the central threat to human civilisation inverts the actual risk ledger: energy poverty, not energy abundance, is what shortens lives and stunts economies. That is not a fringe position but reflects elementary plant physiology better than the vilification campaign the Obama and Biden EPAs built their anti-fossil fuels regulatory onslaught upon.

Houston and the energy counter-revolution

That Zeldin chose to make the announcement in Houston, at a G20 ministerial gathering explicitly billed around the theme of energy abundance, was no accident. It is the latest instalment in the broader Trump energy counter-revolution I have chronicled in these pages since the President’s inauguration. Delegations from China, India, Japan and Germany, alongside major oil producers, gathered in the same rooms where Zeldin, with Chris Wright and Doug Burgum, made their case that reliable, affordable energy, not emissions targets set by unelected bureaucrats, should be the organising principle of energy policy.

The announcement landed even as a war-disrupted oil market has pushed fuel prices higher across the country, a reminder that energy abundance and energy security are not abstractions but kitchen-table concerns for ordinary households. Surging electricity demand from data centres, artificial intelligence infrastructure and advanced manufacturing has made the reliability case for coal- and gas-fired baseload power more urgent, not less. This was a point industry groups were quick to make in welcoming Monday’s repeal as protection for grid reliability at precisely the moment America can least afford to lose it.

The Houston meeting’s guest list underscores just how far the old climate consensus has frayed as a diplomatic project. The talks brought together not only China, India, Japan and Germany but also Saudi Arabia, Canada and, notably, Russian officials attending a G20 energy forum for the first time since the invasion of Ukraine. A Venezuelan delegation was also invited amid Washington’s newly expanded stake in that country’s oil reserves. Whatever one makes of the geopolitics, the symbolism is unmistakable: the world’s major economies, energy producers and consumers alike are gathering under an American Presidency that has explicitly reframed the global energy conversation away from emissions targets and toward supply reliability and low cost. It is the same reorientation when Trump first returned to office promising an “energy dominance” agenda that would find enthusiastic support well beyond America’s shores among governments no longer willing to subordinate their energy security to the Brussels and Davos-style globalist climate agenda.

None of this will stop the green ideologues from fighting a rear-guard action in the courts, and it would be naïve to expect otherwise. But the wider context is instructive. Despite the IPCC’s quiet retirement of its most extreme warming RCP8.5 scenario, the climate establishment has refused to acknowledge the collapse of its own modelling premises. Rather than reassess, it doubles down, through litigation, through international bodies, through central-bank mandates dressed up as prudential risk management. Confronted with an EPA that has simply followed the statute and the underlying physics and economics of reliable energy supply, critics reach not for a rebuttal of the science but for the courts and the language of moral urgency.

Expect, too, the familiar coalition of blue-state attorneys general and legacy environmental groups to pursue litigation that has accompanied nearly every Trump-era rollback since the February rescission of the Endangerment Finding itself. Several states announced plans to sue within hours of the announcement. Some of that litigation may well succeed at the margins. The American legal system gives courts ample room to quibble over procedure even when the underlying policy judgment is sound. The argument that a trace atmospheric gas essential to plant life poses imminent danger to human life and justifies the reorganising of the entire American power grid rests more on speculative modelled projections than on measured harm.

A long-overdue correction

What Monday’s action represents, then, is not simply a rollback but a long-overdue correction. It is a recognition, 17 years late, that carbon dioxide was never the pollutant the 2009 Endangerment Finding pretended it to be. An economy built on affordable, reliable fossil-fuelled power is not a problem to be regulated away but the foundation on which American prosperity and the world’s energy security still rest. The gas of life has, for now, won a favourable hearing in Washington. Whether that verdict survives the inevitable litigation by Leftist-Democrat interests is a question for the courts. That it was ever seriously in doubt is a question for historians of the climate industrial complex that demonises as a poison a trace gas essential to life on Earth.

This article was first published in the Daily Sceptic https://dailysceptic.org/2026/09/18/trumps-epa-ends-americas-war-on-co2/

Dr Tilak K. Doshi is the Daily Sceptic‘s Energy Editor. He is an economist, a member of the CO₂ Coalition and a former contributor to Forbes. Follow him on Substack and X.

D.C. Circuit Endangerment Finding Litigation: The Stall Is On

From Manhattan Contrarian

By Francis Menton

The Endangerment Finding (EF) is the completely absurd piece of regulatory overreach by which the Obama EPA in December 2009 purported to determine that the trace atmospheric gas carbon dioxide was a “danger to human health and welfare.” That action may have been absurd, but it was by no means benign. CO2 is a principal product of all combustion of fossil fuels. Following on the EF, EPA and other government agencies in the Obama and then Biden Administrations set out to use the EF as the basis to transform our entire energy economy — suppressing drilling, blocking pipelines, forcing closure of power plants, outlawing combustion cars and gas heat and stoves, and much, much more.

In Trump’s first term, EPA never chose to take on the EF; but in Trump’s second term the agency got right to work on the job of rescission, and issued the final rule rescinding the first part of the EF (as to motor vehicle emissions) on February 13, 2026. By February 18, progressive NGOs were already in court (D.C. Circuit) seeking to block the rescission. I covered the rescission of the EF in this post on February 15, and then the status of the litigation in this further post on July 21.

If you are interested in this subject, here is the key issue to watch: Do the progressive NGOs and their blue state co-petitioners, and for that matter the D.C. Circuit itself, want this case to proceed to a quick resolution? Or do they want to stall?

You might think at first that the Petitioners would want the case to proceed quickly. After all, the D.C. Circuit is a highly favorable forum for climate cultists. Seven of the eleven active judges are Democrat appointees and are reliable votes on any issue that is politically important to the Democratic Party, which the EF certainly is. A reasonably expeditious briefing and decision schedule could easily see a decision by the end of the year from this important court striking down the EF rescission. It would be a huge blow to President Trump’s energy agenda.

But my July 21 post noted that the D.C. Circuit appeared to be in no rush at all. More than five months after commencement of the case, the court had set no deadlines for briefing on the merits. Instead it had only set deadlines for motions — “procedural” motions by May 20, and “dispositive” motions by June 4. The May 20 deadline had drawn two of these “procedural” motions, both of which I characterized as “preposterous.” Both motions could easily have been denied out of hand, but as of July 21 both were pending without decision. Somehow, it was looking like no one here was in a hurry.

And now here we are on August 13. I think that it is now definitive that the stall is underway. Certainly, by now it is clear that the main Petitioners do not want the case decided promptly by the D.C. Circuit. It is almost as clear, if not yet completely definitive, that the D.C. Circuit is gladly co-operating in the stall.

The big development since my last post is that on July 29 a large group of the main Petitioners filed a new motion that they give the title “Motion for 30-day Abeyance for EPA to Act on Pending Reconsideration Petitions Before Merits Briefing.” (This and other motion papers referred to in this post can be found at the government’s PACER website under the D.C. Circuit index number of 26-1037.)

It seems that several of the Petitioners, separate from this litigation, have filed other Petitions with EPA itself, asking it to reconsider the rescission of the EF. Those Petitions have not been decided by EPA. Indeed, EPA has no explicit deadline for deciding or even considering such Petitions. (You may recall that back in January 2016 I filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the EF with EPA, and that Petition sat undecided by the agency until the Biden EPA denied it in 2022, more than six years later.).

The government’s response to this motion, filed on August 10, cuts to the heart of the matter:

It is not every day that frequent-flyer litigants blow past a deadline that they themselves asked for. And it is not every day they rush to challenge an EPA rule with great pomp, only to repeatedly find excuses to slow-walk the path to merits briefing.

Yet that is precisely what Petitioners have done here. Having received, over EPA’s objection, an extension of the procedural-motions deadline to May 20, Petitioners waited two more months—until July 29—before moving for abeyance, seeking the same relief (delaying merits briefing until EPA responds to reconsideration requests) that they had asked this Court for back in April. Petitioners could have and should have renewed that request by the procedural-motions deadline. By holding the abeyance motion in reserve, however, Petitioners were able to unveil it well after other procedural motions have been briefed and are ready for decision. Their goal: delay merits briefing and resolution of this dispute for as long as possible. It is part of a broader strategy that Petitioners have been pursuing. . . .

So what is going on? Clearly, the Petitioners — a who’s who of environmental and other progressive NGOs and blue states — have looked at their prospects, and do not think that even a quick and total victory in the D.C. Circuit will be such a great thing for them. Although I can’t read their minds to see how they reach that conclusion, here are a few reasons why they are probably right:

Even if the D.C. Circuit orders the EF to be reinstated, the Trump administration in the mean time has eliminated all the rules and actions that had the EF as their basis. These rules and actions included: the so-called Clean Power Plan 2.0 (a scheme to force closure of power plants that burn hydrocarbon fuels); automobile mileage standards and related rules forcing conversion of the vehicle fleet to EVs; energy efficiency standards for various devices and appliances ranging from gas stoves to dryers to dishwashers; decisions blocking pipelines from being built; and many more such. Even if the EF were reinstated, these rules and actions would not automatically spring back into effect. The Trump administration would undoubtedly resist reinstating them on many grounds, and there would need to be further petitions and litigation lasting years to try to get any semblance of them back into effect.
And then there is the U.S. Supreme Court. Any decision on the EF by the D.C. Circuit that is adverse to the Trump administration position has a very substantial likelihood of getting reversed in the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court decision upholding the EF rescission could make it difficult or even impossible for a future Democratic administration to try to reinstate the EF.

So the EF litigation Petitioners, and probably also the D.C. Circuit itself, have likely concluded that there is little to be gained from a D.C. Circuit ruling striking down the rescission of the EF, and much to be lost from a potential Supreme Court reversal of such a ruling. Their better strategy is to leave their challenge to the EF rescission sitting for a while, reaching a D.C. Circuit decision toward the end of Trump’s term; and then pray for a new Democratic President in 2029 to reverse course, withdraw any Supreme Court appeal, and start to reinstate the Biden-era regulations to suppress the fossil fuel economy.

Note that this is not an easy course for these environmental crusaders to take. While the EF litigation remains stalled and out of the news, the whole climate scare is slowly fading. The data center boom is bringing forth huge new demand for reliable electricity, with mostly natural gas generators likely to be the predominant source of the power. The UN-organized “net zero” banking alliances — by which major financial institutions agreed not to participate in financing new fossil fuel projects — have largely been disbanded. The tech giants have basically walked away from their “net zero” promises. The jurisdictions that have tried most aggressively to reach “net zero” (Germany, UK, California, New York) are failing more and more obviously. And so forth.

So the progressive NGOs and blue states that are the Petitioners in the EF litigation seem to think that their best bet is to wait for a new Democratic President and maybe a supportive Congress to get net zero back on track in 2029 and thereafter. That may well be their best bet, but I find it hard to believe that plans for “net zero” can ever really get back on track at that late date, even in the most favorable possible political situation.

And meanwhile, the EF litigation sits basically idle in the D.C. Circuit, with frivolous procedural motions still sitting undecided, and no merits briefing schedule six months after filing of the case.

Endangerment Finding Litigation Update

From Manhattan Contrarian

By Francis Menton

On February 13 this year, the federal EPA rescinded one of its regulatory actions known as the “Endangerment Finding.” (EF). The EF, originally adopted in 2009 early in the Obama administration, was likely the single most costly and destructive regulatory action ever to spring forth from the administrative state. The EF became the fundamental underpinning for all the subsequent regulations that sought to restrict and ultimately ban use of fossil fuels in the economy — everything from regulations seeking to force closure of power plants, to efforts to mandate only electric cars, to restrictions on drilling and pipelines, and much, much more. The Trump administration is now systematically dismantling all those regulatory wrecking balls.

But the opposition has not been idle. Once the rescission became final, the Climate Blob immediately sprang into action with a barrage of lawfare. The first litigation challenging rescission of the EF was filed in the D.C. Circuit on February 18. Over the succeeding several weeks, dozens of additional petitioners joined the fray. Since then, however, the case, although pending, has not moved quickly. I last provided an update in this post from June 8.

For discerning observers of this process, here is the key question of interest: Will the D.C. Circuit schedule this matter to move at a pace consistent with enabling final review of EPA’s action to be concluded by the Supreme Court before the end of President Trump’s term? Or, alternatively, does the D.C. Circuit intend to stall resolution of the case in order to potentially give a new Democratic administration a chance to come into office in early 2029 and do another 180 degree course reversal? At this writing, it is still too early to know fully how the D.C. Circuit will deal with this issue. However, from evidence so far, it looks like those betting the court will slow walk the case have the odds on their side.

The first indication that the court is not in a hurry came in a scheduling Order on April 22, setting dates for the next events in the case. April 22, about two months after the case had begun, would have been a normal time for the court to set deadlines for the parties to file their briefs on the merits. But this Order did not do that. Instead, it only set deadlines for the making of certain motions — “procedural” motions by May 20, and “dispositive” motions by June 4. The court in that Order also specifically declined a request to direct the parties to propose deadlines for the main briefing, and stated: “any order directing the parties to file briefing proposals will be entered after any procedural or dispositive motions are resolved.” You might say that the court was sending a clear signal that parties could file any crazy motions that they could think of, and thereby get several months of free delay in the case.

And indeed the May 20 deadline did bring two motions that you might think are completely ridiculous — until you realize that the real point is probably to buy a few months of delay. One of those motions requested a “stay” of the rescission of the EF. I covered that one in my June 8 post, and won’t repeat that here, except for this great quote on the claimed basis for the stay:

The Repeal Rule substantially burdens Petitioners Elena, J.K., M.D., and E.S.’s sincerely held religious beliefs. . . . Petitioners E.S. and J.K. are observant Jews whose religion requires them to walk to synagogue on the Sabbath. . . . M.D. is an observant Muslim whose religion requires her to fast during Ramadan. . . . Each Sabbath that is made too hot for E.S. and J.K. to walk safely to synagogue, and each day of Ramadan that is made too hot for M.D. to safely fast and wear hijab, is a day they are prevented from observing important requirements of their religions.

The second “procedural” motion filed on May 20 styled itself as a “motion to complete the record.” That sounds minor and technical. Such motions are not uncommon, and often just ask to add one or a few documents that may have been omitted from a record, perhaps by mistake. But of course this one is not like that, and rather is a very strategic effort to throw a monkey wrench into the whole process.

For starters, check out this list of parties who signed on to this motion:

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Clean Air Council, Clean Wisconsin, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Citizen, Rio Grande International Study Center, Sierra Club and Union of Concerned Scientists in 26-1037, ZETA in 26-1039, Service Employees International Union in 26-1051, City and County of Denver, Colorado, City and County of San Francisco, California, City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, City of Boston, Massachusetts, City of Chicago, Illinois, City of Cleveland, Ohio, City of Columbus, Ohio, City of Los Angeles, California, City of New York, New York, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Commonwealth of Virginia, DC, Harris County, Texas, Martin Luther King Jr. County, Washington, Santa Clara County, California, Josh Shapiro, State of Arizona, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Delaware, State of Hawaii, State of Illinois, State of Maine, State of Maryland, State of Michigan, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of New Jersey, State of New Mexico, State of New York, State of North Carolina, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Washington, State of Wisconsin and Virgin Islands in 26-1061, Bay Area Air Quality Management District in 26-1090.

It’s an entire who’s who of environmental NGOs and blue states.

So what is the big complaint? When an agency like EPA rescinds a regulation like the EF, one of the things it needs to do is take public comments and respond to the comments. That process is the main reason why there was a nearly thirteen-month period between President Trump’s Executive Order directing EPA to reconsider the EF (January 20, 2025) and EPA’s final rescission of the EF (February 13, 2026). The public comment period here extended from the end of July through September 22, 2025. A big part of the game of the environmental NGOs is to gum up the process by orchestrating the submission of so many tens or hundreds of thousands of comments as to make it next to impossible for the agency to respond thoroughly within any reasonable time frame. Here, many tens of thousands of comments were received. When EPA issued the final rule, it also issued a document responding to the comments. That document was 1,794 pages long! Here is the gripe from the petitioners’ motion:

EPA included a version of EPA’s Response-to-Comments document that was created some 10 hours after Administrator Zeldin announced that the Rescission was “signed, sealed, delivered.” When asked if the document was supplemented or modified after the Administrator signed the final rule, the agency refused to say—suggesting the document reflects post-decisional additions of or edits to EPA’s responses.

Nefarious! With trillions of dollars of economic activity in the balance, this case is getting held up by a demand to fly-speck the final edits of the nearly 2000 page response-to-comments document to see if anything embarrassing can be found.

The government submitted its response to this motion on June 12. Here is the gist of the response on that main point:

[T]he Response to Comments—finalized, as required by the Clean Air Act, on the “date” that the rule was promulgated—is properly part of the record. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(6)(C). In this Circuit, as in everyday speech, “date” means date. The Court should reject Petitioners’ invitation to rewrite the statute to require the Response to Comments to be finalized, docketed, and time-stamped at either the hour or the exact moment of promulgation.

And then the moving parties got to submit a Reply on this motion, which came in on June 29.

So here we are on July 21, more than five months since the case began. The court has not issued a decision on either of these preposterous “procedural” motions. And while we await those decisions, there is no scheduling order as to when the real briefing in the case will begin or end.

If you are a betting person, you will likely bet that the D.C. Circuit will rule against the Trump administration on the merits of this case. After all, the climate scam is a central tenet of Democratic Party orthodoxy, and 7 of the 11 active judges on the D.C. Circuit are reliable partisan Democrats. But the Supreme Court is likely to support the position of the Trump administration. The case needs to reach final resolution in the D.C. Circuit by, at the absolute latest, some time in late 2027, in order for the case to reach resolution in the Supreme Court before President Trump leaves office in January 2029. (Some Supreme Court specialists may say that the drop dead date for D.C. Circuit resolution is even earlier.). Will the D.C. Circuit game the scheduling to make this case take that long to resolve? Place your bets!

Alarmist Fussing at NYT Climate Reporting

“Great reporting by Lisa Friedman and Maxine Joselow [“Trump Allies Near ‘Total Victory’ in Wiping Out U.S. Climate Regulation,” New York Times (February 9, 2026)] on the long campaign by four hardcore climate deniers to take down the Endangerment Finding,” wrote Jeff Goodell on social media.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“… Instead of reporting on this, [Lisa Friedman and Maxine Joselow] present this as a horse race with one side gaining significant ground, and the other on the verge of losing mightily, though they also … [let] statements like ‘hoax’ or ‘green new scam’ go unanswered. It’s not quite yellow journalism but it is not without a heavy amber hue.” – Chris Wilke, Center for Environmental Law & Policy

“Great reporting by Lisa Friedman and Maxine Joselow [“Trump Allies Near ‘Total Victory’ in Wiping Out U.S. Climate Regulation,” New York Times (February 9, 2026)] on the long campaign by four hardcore climate deniers to take down the Endangerment Finding,” wrote Jeff Goodell on social media. The leading author of climate alarmist books and articles continued:

Forget the idea of energy policy based on abundance. This is energy policy based on scorched Earth. And a blatant giveaway to the fossil fuel industry, who will profit while the world burns.

Not so fast! Chris Wilke, executive director at the Center for Environmental Law & Policy, commented:

It’s good, but not great, reporting in my opinion. I respect the research and ability to name names, motivations and history of how we got here. This is very important in that respect. But it fails to discuss the consequences of the deregulatory actions, completely missing the clear trajectory of harm that will intensify as a result of this massive deregulation, as well as the global implications and economic risks.

It also misses the moral bankruptcy, fragility and vulnerability of their arguments. They may still lose this fight in court, especially in light of the finding last month that the Climate Impacts Group was illegally formed from biased people operating on a secret agenda.

Wilke continued:

Instead of reporting on this, the authors present this as a horse race with one side gaining significant ground, and the other on the verge of losing mightily, though they also fail to interview or even get statements from opponents, letting statements like “hoax” or “green new scam” go unanswered. It’s not quite yellow journalism but it is not without a heavy amber hue. They can do better.

Jeff Goodell responded:

This is deadline journalism, Chris. Of course lots more to say, more perspective and context to add, but this is far and away the best reporting I’ve seen today on this breaking news.

Chris Wilke tried, tried to tone it down a bit:

Thanks. I’m glad I saw it, and I’m glad you shared it. I’m also grateful for your writings.

This article however is another glaring example of how the Overton window has shifted as a result of extreme policies. Having climate deniers write a scientific report on climate change, and then to see the administration basing a far-reaching policy decision on climate just one week after that? Shameful, and transparently biased. That is the real story here: the why, not just the who, the what and the how, though that is all good to know.

A follow up article is indeed warranted to respond to the glaring omissions in this case. If that’s in the works, I’d happily postpone or withdraw my criticism. 😎

A Balint Katona joined in, adding a bit of weirdness.

Fair conclusion. I would add, that this should not come as a surprise. All the mass media platform are geared towards news that sell, sensations and creating tension. It is bs, nyt is shite. Instead of sharing relevant information that people can use to make life-affirming decisions, you are left with unnecessary stress.

And Lisa Friedman herself commented!

Thank you Jeff! And I agree with you too, Chris. It’s hard to do everything in one story. We have written at length about the consequences of this and other climate deregulations and will continue to do so. But this piece was an attempt to pull back the curtain and show the players who kept this issue alive even when a lot of corporate actors decided the endangerment finding was no longer worth fighting.
In any case, Ty for reading!!

Credit Trump with a sea change in the whole climate/energy issue. The Progressive Left is playing defense. And nerves are fraying in the face of pragmatism and the mere appearance of two-sided reporting given the changed political mainstream.

Another confusing story highlights why climate hysteria and far-left media are reaching their end

Just days before President Trump announced that the EPA would no longer be guided on climate change by the so-called “endangerment finding,” the Washington Post’s newsroom decided to take another bite at the old “Earth is getting hotter” apple.

Dry land with cracked soil and a lonely tree. Global warming concept. Soil erosion. Ecology. Deforestation

From CFACT

By Gary Abernathy

Contrary to their intent, the resulting story, headlined, “Scientists thought they understood global warming. Then the past three years happened,” made the Trump administration’s decision seem entirely logical.

The story, published Feb. 11, is a lesson in the perils of an entity supposedly focused on journalism conducting its own analysis in the field of climate science, and then producing a story that could not be more confusing if it was intentionally trying to supplant Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s On First?” as the most hilarious comedic routine ever founded on the concept of confusion.

“According to a Washington Post analysis,” the Post’s lead paragraph declared, “the fastest warming rate on record occurred in the last 30 years.” The Post noted that it based its analysis on “a dataset from NASA to analyze global average surface temperatures from 1880 to 2025.”

The story was presumably in the works before the U.S. was hit with one of the most frigid stretches in recent years. Never mind. The Post had that covered.

“Even as the United States languishes under a frigid cold snap, the rest of the world is still experiencing unusually warm temperatures,” the Post assured us. Why just consider Nuuk, Greenland (or “Nuuk, Nuuk” as the Three Stooges might have called it) which “saw temperatures in January more than 20 degrees Fahrenheit above average. Parts of Australia, meanwhile, have seen temperatures push past 120 degrees Fahrenheit amid a record heat wave.”

Some places get cold. Some places get hot. Welcome to Earth, visitors. The Post was worried because “for about 40 years — from 1970 to 2010 — global warming proceeded at a fairly steady rate,” inching up about 0.19 degrees Celsius per decade. “Then, that rate began to shift,” the Post reported. “The warming rate ticked up a notch. Temperatures over the past decade have increased by close to 0.27 degrees C per decade — about a 42 percent increase.”

If this seems utterly confusing, you’re not alone. The Post led off by saying that the fastest warming rate on record “occurred in the last 30 years,” which would be since about 1996. But then it said that from 1970-2010, global warming was “pretty steady.” Huh?

It’s never quite clear why “the last 3 years” is featured in the headline and mentioned a couple of times within the story. Don’t try too hard to make sense of it. These people are journalists, er, I mean scientists, er, science reporters – well, dammit, they’re sure not mathematicians. Give them a break.

Follow the story’s winding road: Sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere actually helped cool things off. But they’re bad to breathe, so when countries cracked down on such things, it just heated things up again. Plus, there are fewer low-lying clouds, letting more heat from the sun get through. On the other hand, “Clouds have long been one of the greatest uncertainties in climate science. Clouds are probably helping to cool the Earth, like aerosols, but how much is an open question.” Like everything else.

Please read the following section closely – more than once if you have to – and then let’s review.

About two decades ago, according to the Post, “Countries also began shifting from coal and oil to wind and solar power. As a result, global sulfur dioxide emissions have fallen about 40 percent since the mid-2000s; China’s emissions have fallen even more. That effect has been compounded in recent years by a new international regulation that slashed sulfur emissions from ships by about 85 percent. That explains part of why warming has kicked up a bit.”

Wait, coal, oil and sulfur emissions helped keep the Earth cooler? And cutting down on those emissions have made the Earth warmer? Here’s the Post’s explanation: “For decades, a portion of the warming unleashed by greenhouse gas emissions was ‘masked’ by sulfate aerosols. These tiny particles cause heart and lung disease when people inhale polluted air, but they also deflect the sun’s rays.” So, pick your poison.

The Post did quote one expert who’s not yet buying the too-hot-to-handle narrative. Chris Smith, a research fellow at the University of Leeds, told the Post, “It’s still too early to definitively conclude there’s an increase in the rate of warming,” and he wants to see a few more years of
additional data.

The Post, on the other hand, may not have that kind of time. In early February, the Post announced another round of layoffs, and while initial estimates guessed a loss of about one-third of its newsroom, “an accounting by the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, the union that represents Post journalists, finds that the paper’s management eliminated closer to half of the journalists it used to employ,” according to The Washingtonian.

It never occurs to the far-left (formerly mainstream) media that its demise might be attributable to more than economic factors or the rise of the internet. Just as important is the clear bias and agenda- driven politics that resulted in a loss of trust by millions of Americans who are not part of the far-left bubble that the media increasingly served.

The era of climate change hysteria is thankfully nearing its end. Some of its biggest promoters are sharing its fate.

This article was published at Real Clear Energy

Going wild at Safari Club International convention in Nashville

“SCI is incredibly grateful for the SUCCESS of #SCINashville this year. We can’t thank YOU enough! Because of your attendance at the 2026 Convention, SCI is able to continue defending YOUR freedom to hunt. 👏 Attendance exceeded expectations, surpassing totals from the 2025 convention, with more than 900 exhibitors from across the globe! Members and guests participated in educational sessions, highly anticipated auctions featuring donations from respected outfitters, manufacturers and artists, and celebrations highlighting both the heritage and future of hunting.” – Safari Club International

From CFACT

By Gabriella Hoffman

CFACT Policy Analyst and District of Conservation host, Gabriella Hoffman, trekked to Nashville, Tennessee last month to cover the annual Safari Club International convention. She recorded two episodes from the event.Listen below:

EP 579: BAAJA Blast: Permitting Reform or Bust – District of Conservation

In Episode 579 of District of Conservation, Gabriella discusses the permitting reform bill – aka BAAJA – that is gaining traction in Congress now. The Senate will hold a cloture vote starting at 3:30pm ET in a motion to proceed. Gabriella discusses the status quo without permitting reform, how BAAJA is good for the environment and affordability. Tune in!SHOW NOTESBipartisan Policy Center: BAAJA ExplainerEstimating the US Energy System Impacts of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act

EP 579: BAAJA Blast: Permitting Reform or Bust – District of Conservation

Repeal of CO2 Rule Is a Return to Commonsense

Calling carbon dioxide (CO2) a beneficial gas could draw mockery or moral outrage. Perhaps even an accusation of “denying science.” For nearly two decades, political forces successfully branded this life-giving gas a toxic agent, a cause of both floods and droughts and a thief of the grandchildren’s future. One solution was to force people to trade their SUVs for overpriced and underwhelming electric vehicles.

From CO2 Coalition

By Vijay Jayaraj

Calling carbon dioxide (CO₂) a beneficial gas could draw mockery or moral outrage. Perhaps even an accusation of “denying science.” For nearly two decades, political forces successfully branded this life-giving gas a toxic agent, a cause of both floods and droughts and a thief of the grandchildren’s future. One solution was to force people to trade their SUVs for overpriced and underwhelming electric vehicles.

Underlying this is a 2007 Supreme Court ruling (Massachusetts versus EPA) that required the agency to regulate greenhouse gases if it found them to be dangerous. This led the Obama EPA to do just that, issuing its 2009 Endangerment Finding that triggered various actions to regulate the emissions of CO₂ and other gases.

Critics of the Endangerment Finding point to its lack of a scientific basis for treating a beneficial gas like CO₂ as hazardous. Hardly anything speaks to the absurdity more than the fact that everybody exhales daily two pounds of carbon dioxide.

So, the EPA’s recent rescission of the Endangerment Finding as it applies to motor vehicles is welcome by not only lovers of the internal combustion engine but also by adherents to commonsense. Regulating CO₂ under vehicle provisions created “an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority” touching “virtually every sector of the economy,” said the agency. (Observers anticipate that EPA also will eliminate its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from industrial facilities.)

EPA returns to reality

EPA’s decision is a long-overdue correction of a regulatory action that exceeded the agency’s congressional authority under the Clean Air Act and ignored mountains of evidence that CO₂ is not a threat. Claims to the contrary are based on exaggerations of the gas’s warming potential and computer models built around unproven assumptions.

Moreover, decreasing atmospheric CO_2, as the rule sought to do, only dampens the gas’s benefit as a plant food. Through photosynthesis, plants take in carbon dioxide and combine it with water and sunlight to produce the sugars that form building blocks of the entire food chain.

When atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ increase, not only do plants grow faster but they also use water more efficiently and become more drought resistant. Satellite observations have recorded a striking increase in global leaf area across much of the world’s vegetated regions. NASA acknowledges that CO₂ fertilization is responsible for most of the greening observed since the 1980s.

A comprehensive scientific analysis found that up to 50% of the global vegetated area showed significant greening between 1982 and 2009 and that rising atmospheric CO₂ accounted for roughly 70% of this greening trend, dwarfing contributions from other factors such as nitrogen deposition, climate influences and land‑use changes.

In the competitive world of greenhouse agriculture, farmers pay money to pump additional CO₂ into their facilities – increasing interior concentrations by three to four times levels in the ambient atmosphere.

David Legates, former Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, says, “CO₂ enhances photosynthesis and … the greening trend continues without slowing, with CO₂ fertilization as the primary driver.” He goes on to state that “if warming is moderate, it should make little difference to global economic growth and could potentially contribute to it due to longer growing seasons, fewer cold-related deaths, and the agricultural productivity gains from atmospheric CO₂fertilization.”

William Happer, professor of physics emeritus at Princeton University, drives the point home: “Although doubling atmospheric CO₂ will cause only a small and benign increase in temperature, it will be enormously beneficial for agriculture and forestry.”

EPA notes that the elimination of all greenhouse-gas emissions from U.S. vehicles would have only “de minimis” effects on global mean surface temperature (0.067 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100). This meaningless theoretical difference needs to be compared to the very real burdens on consumers, manufacturers and workers that the war on fossil fuels has imposed.

A persistent narrative

Despite the undeniable benefits of CO₂ – affirmed and acknowledged by thousands of independent researchers and peer-reviewed scientific literature – much of the public discourse remains influenced by career politicians, sensationalist media, woke academic departments and scientists attached to organizations like the corrupt United Nations. Thus, the relentless campaign to represent a gas necessary for life itself as a danger likely will continue for some time. At stake are billions of dollars invested by the deluded and deceptive and the egos of those who presume to manage a climate well beyond their control.

Nonetheless, striking down the Endangerment Finding is a beginning for officialdom’s restoration of CO₂ to its proper place as a beneficial molecule for which there is no need of measures to protect the public. The 2009 determination that ignored this fact was not scientific; it was political.

Originally published in PJ Media on February 20, 2026.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.

Trump Is right: Science demands we overturn the ‘Endangerment Finding’

Science is on the side of the Trump administration’s efforts to unwind the U.S. from costly climate regulations—much to the consternation of major media platforms that peddle unfounded, politically motivated assertions.

From CFACT

By Kevin Mooney

That’s why fresh research and updated findings into the impact of carbon dioxide emissions should figure more prominently into an otherwise laudatory and audacious White House strategy to repeal the 2009 endangerment finding. In my new book, Climate Porn: How and Why Anti-Population Zealots Fabricate Science, while Targeting American Capitalism, Freedom, and Independence, I review the science and common sense that reiterates CO2 is a naturally occurring, highly beneficial compound. Indeed, it is critical to life on Earth. And yet, the Obama administration saw fit to declare CO2 a “pollutant” in its endangerment finding, which found that CO2 poses a threat to public health and welfare. This enabled the EPA to unleash a wave of costly climate regulations.

A little history is in order to understand how the EPA was permitted to overstep constitutional boundaries and exercise power never delegated to it by Congress.

The problem began in 2007 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v EPA that greenhouse gases (GHG) could qualify as pollutants under the Clean Air Act (CAA). In its 5-4 decision, the high court gave climate activists the greenlight they needed—via the EPA—to exert widespread control over the economy without congressional input. President Barack Obama’s EPA used the endangerment finding to set limits on CO2 emissions from power plants, automobiles and trucks. In a press statement announcing the final rule to reverse the Obama-era endangerment finding, Trump’s EPA described its move as “the single largest deregulatory action in history.” The agency estimates that by junking the endangerment finding it will save the American taxpayers about $1.3 trillion.

“The Endangerment Finding has been the source of 16 years of consumer choice restrictions and trillions of dollars in hidden costs for Americans,” EPA Chief Lee Zeldins said in the release. “Referred to by some as the ‘Holy Grail’ of the ‘climate change religion,’ the Endangerment Finding is now eliminated. The Trump EPA is strictly following the letter of the law, returning commonsense to policy, delivering consumer choice to Americans and advancing the American Dream. As EPA Administrator, I am proud to deliver the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history on behalf of American taxpayers and consumers. As an added bonus, the off-cycle credit for the almost universally despised start-stop feature on vehicles has been removed.”

From a legal standpoint, Zeldin did not leave much out of the equation in his deregulatory moves. The other critical piece here involves the legal gymnastics the Obama administration performed as it deliberately misconstrued the congressional intent of Section 202 of the CAA. Congress authorized the EPA to tackle localized instances of air pollution found harmful to public health and welfare. But Section 202 does not give the agency authority to enact far reaching economic policy changes for the ostensible purpose of combating global warming. Trump’s EPA has clearly committed to following the law in line with what elected officials in Congress had in mind when they crafted CAA’s key components.

The decision to defang unaccountable administrative agents while re-empowering elected representatives makes a nicely timed birthday gift to America as she celebrates 250 years of independence. So far, applause is in order.

But the White House strategy may fall short. One of the most disconcerting headlines came from Politico declaring: “Trump sidelines climate contrarians in science rollback.” In anticipation of taking on the endangerment finding, Trump’s Energy Department (DOE) put out a 141 page report last summer from five well credentialed climate scientists. The team proceeded to upend theories of human induced climate catastrophe—and predictably made itself a target in the process. The climate establishment does not want to be told that any CO2 related warming is much less economically damaging than what is widely believed, and that interventionist government policies are a counterproductive waste.

But that’s what the scientists concluded. So, is it really the case they have been sidelined? Politico reports on how climate activists inside and outside of government bent themselves into all sorts of contortions to try to discredit the DOE report. They attempted to villainize DOE Secretary Chris Wright for providing scientists with a platform to analyze data relevant to recent global warming trends. In his forward to the report, Wright acknowledges readers may be surprised by the report’s findings since they diverge from what the secretary calls the “mainstream narrative.” As Wright observes, this is “a sign of how far the public conversation has drifted from the science itself.” Readers will discover, for instance, that solar activity may have had a significant impact on the warming of the late 20^th century. The idea that natural influences are largely responsible for warming trends has Wright’s antagonists in the media setting their hair on fire. But those same antagonists are detaching themselves from the facts in their assault.

In its “reporting,” Politico makes the critical mistake of claiming the Wright sought “to reach out to scientists who represent the relatively small number of researchers” who reject climate alarmism. In fact, it is not “a small number.” It’s a large and growing number. The CO2 Coalition, a group devoted to highlighting the benefits of CO2, draws in dozens of scientists and researchers from across the globe. So does The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank, set to hold its 16^th International Conference on Climate Change this coming April in Washington D.C. As it turns out, the DOE team of scientists is hardly any kind of outlier in calling attention to the natural influences behind climate change. As I discuss in Climate Porn, The Center for Environmental Research and Sciences(CERES) made waves in December 2024 with a report that challenges key assumptions of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The report makes the case that the U.N. failed to properly account for the impact of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI)—the scientific term used to describe the amount of sunlight or energy that reaches the Earth. The CERES report also discusses the impact the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect has on weather stations around the globe.

“Several of the TSI estimates the IPCC had neglected in their analysis suggest that most of the warming since the 19th century could be natural—especially from the non-urbanized data,” CERES said in a blog post. “Others suggest that the warming has been a mixture of natural and human-caused factors.”

Bonner Cohen, a senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, encourages the Trump administration to continue what started with the DOE report. He explained why in an email message.

By incorporating the growing number of questions being raised challenging the decades-old narrative on global warming/climate change, the Trump administration is restoring scientific balance to a process long dominated by a monolithic explanation of the Earth’s highly complex climate system. The Energy Department’s report did not cherry-pick data to confirm a preexisting bias; it highlighted key findings that had been purposely excluded from the discussion.

As we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, policies imposed without sufficient scientific foundation and driven by the urge to exercise power whatever the cost, will take us down the road to ruin. It is revealing that many of those critical of the rising tide of climate skepticism are the same ones who have assured us that our energy future lies in wind turbines, solar panels, and EVs. They see their world collapsing of its own dead weight and don’t like it.

From a policy perspective, we must understand the opportunity costs of misdirected resources that could be used to address genuine challenges to humanity. Naturally occurring climate change could present some of its own challenges, especially if the Earth moves back into a cooling phase, which it will at some point. There are also perpetual concerns over the threat from near Earth asteroids. But humanity is going to be in stronger position to address these threats with richer, wealthier, more industrialized societies. America’s reenergized space program is a hopeful sign. So is American ingenuity in general. The Institute for Energy Research (IER) has published data that shows from 1970 to 2023, U.S. emissions of six criteria air pollutants declined 78% while GDP grew 321% & energy consumption rose 42%. The American way is the right way, and it looks like the entire premise of global warming scare was faulty right from the beginning.

Trump, Zeldin, Wright, and crew should not just rely on legal arguments, but rather double down on the science as they take on the endangerment finding. Posterity will thank them.

This article originally appeared at Restoration News

2026 IPCC Global Warming Claims Not Only Wrong, But Impossible

Taking on the climate establishment with research that debunks the media narrative.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Climate as heat engine. A heat engine produces mechanical energy in the form of work W by absorbing an amount of heat Qin from a hot reservoir (the source) and depositing a smaller amount Qout into a cold reservoir (the sink). (a) An ideal Carnot heat engine does the job with the maximum possible efficiency. (b) Real heat engines are irreversible, and some work is lost via irreversible entropy production TδS. (c) For the climate system, the ultimate source is the Sun, with outer space acting as the sink. The work is performed internally and produces winds and ocean currents. As a result, Qin = Qout.

Update 2026

Kevin Mooney writes at Real Clear Energy Trump Is Right: Science Demands That We Overturn the ‘Endangerment Finding’ Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Taking on the climate establishment with research that debunks the media narrative.

Science is on the side of the Trump administration’s efforts to unwind the U.S. from costly climate regulations—much to the consternation of major media platforms that peddle unfounded, politically motivated assertions.

That’s why fresh research and updated findings into the impact of carbon dioxide emissions should figure more prominently into an otherwise laudatory and audacious White House strategy to repeal the 2009 endangerment finding. In my new book, Climate Porn: How and Why Anti-Population Zealots Fabricate Science, while Targeting American Capitalism, Freedom, and Independence, I review the science and common sense that reiterates CO2 is a naturally occurring, highly beneficial compound. Indeed, it is critical to life on Earth. And yet, the Obama administration saw fit to declare CO2 a “pollutant” in its endangerment finding, which found that CO2 poses a threat to public health and welfare. This enabled the EPA to unleash a wave of costly climate regulations.

Trump, Zeldin, Wright, and crew should not just rely on legal arguments, but rather double down on the science as they take on the endangerment finding. Posterity will thank them.

Recent Research Discredits Climatists’ Fearful Claims

In light of the above context, I am posting a recent and significant rebuttal of the IPCC “consensus” science that is full of holes like swiss cheese. Ad Huijser recently published a paper explaining why IPCC claims about global warming are contradicted by observations of our Earth thermal system including a number of internal and external subsytems. The title Global Warming and the “impossible” Radiation Imbalance links to the pdf. This post is a synopsis to present the elements of his research findings, based on the rich detail, math and references found in the document. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images. H/T Kenneth Richard and No Tricks Zone.

Abstract

Any perturbation in the radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that induces a net energy flux into- or out of Earth’s thermal system will result in a surface temperature response until a new equilibrium is reached. According to the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis which attributes global warming solely to rising concentrations of Greenhouse gases (GHGs), the observed increase in Earth’s radiative imbalance is entirely driven by anthropogenic GHG-emissions.

However, a comparison of the observed TOA radiation imbalance with the assumed GHG forcing trend reveals that the latter is insufficient to account for the former. This discrepancy persists even when using the relatively high radiative forcing values for CO2 adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), thereby challenging the validity of attributing recent global warming exclusively to human-caused GHG emissions.

In this paper, Earth’s climate system is analyzed as a subsystem of the broader Earth Thermal System, allowing for the application of a “virtual balance” approach to distinguish between anthropogenic and other, natural contributions to global warming. Satellite-based TOA radiation data from the CERES program (since 2000), in conjunction with Ocean Heat Content (OHC) data from the ARGO float program (since 2004), indicate that natural forcings must also play a significant role. Specifically, the observed warming aligns with the net increase in incoming shortwave solar radiation (SWIN), likely due to changes in cloud cover and surface albedo. Arguments suggesting that the SWIN trend is merely a feedback response to GHG-induced warming are shown to be quantitatively insufficient.

This analysis concludes that approximately two-thirds of the observed global warming must be attributed to natural factors that increase incoming solar radiation, with only one-third attributable to rising GHG-concentrations. Taken together, these findings imply a much lower climate sensitivity than suggested by IPCC-endorsed Global Circulation Models (GCMs).

Introduction

On a global scale and over longer periods of time, the average surface temperature of our climate system reacts similarly to that of a thermal system such as a pot of water on a stove: when the incoming heat is steady and below boiling, the system stabilizes when the heat loss (via radiation and convection) equals the input. Analogously, Earth’s surface-atmosphere interface is the main absorber and emitter of heat. Reducing the “flame” (solar input) leads to cooling, regardless of the total heat already stored in the system. The system’s average temperature will drop as well, as soon as the heating stops. So, no sign of any “warming in the pipeline” for such a simple system.

The two transport mechanisms, air and ocean, operate on different timescales. Air has a low specific heat capacity, but high wind speeds make it a fast medium for heat transfer. Oceans, by contrast, have a high specific heat capacity but move more slowly. The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) with the well-known Gulf Stream carrying warm water from south to north, can reach speeds up to about 3 m/s. But its warm current remains largely confined to surface layers due to limited solar radiation penetration and gravity-induced stratification. With a path-lengths of up to 8,000 km and an average speed of 1.5 m/s, ocean heat takes approximately 2 months to travel from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic. This is comparable to the 1 to 2 months delay between solar input and temperature response in the annual cycle, suggesting that oceanic heat transport is part of the climate system’s normal operation. Climate adaptation times from anthropogenic influences are estimated at 3 to 5 years. If “warming in the pipeline” exists, it must be buried in the much colder, deeper ocean layers.

ARGO float data since 2004 show substantial annual increases in Ocean Heat Content (OHC), sometimes expressed in mind-boggling terms such as 10²² joules per year (see Fig.1). While this may sound alarming [1,2], when converted to flux, it represents less than 1 W/m², a mere 0.6% of the average 160 W/m² of absorbed solar energy at the surface. All the rest is via evaporation, convection and ultimately by radiation sent back to space after globally being redistributed by wind and currents.

Fig. 1. Ocean Heat Content (OHC) anomaly from 0–2000 meters over time, shown as 3-month and annual moving averages (CMAA), along with their time derivatives. Notable are the relatively large variations, likely reflecting the influence of El Niño events. The average radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), estimated at 0.85 W/m², corresponds approximately to the midpoint of the time series (around 2015). Data: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/global-ocean-heat-content/basin_heat_data.html [7].

This raises the question: Why would extra GHGs that have only a limited effect on the 99.4% of the outgoing flux, have affected this 0.6% residue during a couple of decennia in such a way that we should be scared about all that “warming in the pipeline” as Hansen et al. [2] are warning us for? In the following sections, we examine data showing that observed trends in the radiation imbalance and OHC are better explained by the internal dynamics of the Earth’s thermal system and natural forcings such as from increasing solar radiation, rather than solely by GHG emissions.

Estimating our climate’s thermal capacity CCL

The rather fast responses of our climate indicates that the thermal capacity of our climate must be much less than the capacity of the entire Earth thermal system. This climate heat capacity CCL depends on how sunlight is being absorbed, how that heat is transferred to the atmosphere and which part of it is being stored in either land or ocean.

At continental land-area, sunlight is absorbed only at the very surface where the generated heat is also in direct contact with the atmosphere. Seasonal temperature variations don’t penetrate more than 1 to 2 meters deep in average and as a consequence, storage of heat is relatively small. Sunlight can penetrate pure water to several hundred meters deep, but in practice, penetration in the oceans is limited by scattering and absorption of organic and inorganic material. A good indication is the depth of the euphotic zone where algae and phytoplankton live, which need light to grow. In clear tropical waters where most of the sunlight hits our planet, this zone is 80 to 100 m deep [12].

Another important factor in our climate’s heat capacity is how this ocean layer of absorbed heat is in contact with the atmosphere. Tides, wind, waves and convection continuously mix the top layer of our oceans, by which heat is easily exchanged with the atmosphere. This mixed-layer is typically in the order of 25 – 100 m, dependent on season, latitude and on the definition of “well mixed” [13]. Below this ~100 m thick top-layer, where hardly any light is being absorbed and the mixing process has stopped, ocean temperatures drop quickly with depth. As the oceans’ vertical temperature gradient at that depth doesn’t support conductive nor convective heat flows going upward, climate processes at the surface will thus become isolated from the rest of the Earth’ thermal system.

Figure 4 with the Change in Ocean Heat Content vs. Depth over the period 2004 – 2020 obtained via the ARGO-floats [6,14], offers a good indication for the average climate capacity CCL. It shows the top layer with a high surface temperature change according to the observed global warming rate of about 0.015 K/year, and a steep cut off at about 100 m depth in line with the explanation above. Below the top layer, temperature effects are small and difficult to interpret, probably due to averaging over all kinds of temperature/depth profiles in the various oceans ranging from Tropical- to Polar regions.

In case of a “perfect” equilibrium (N = 0, dTS/dt = 0), all of the absorbed sunlight up to about 100 m deep, has to leave on the ocean-atmosphere interface again. However, deep oceans are still very cold with a stable, negative temperature gradient towards the bottom. This gradient will anyhow push some of the absorbed heat downwards. Therefore, even at a climate equilibrium with dTS/dt= 0, we will observe N > 0. With the large heat capacity of the total ocean volume, that situation will not change easily, as it takes about 500 years with today’s N ≈ +1 W/m2 to raise its average temperature just 1°C.

The Earth’s climate system can thus be regarded as a subset of the total Earth’s thermal system (ETS) responding to different relaxation times. The climate relaxes to a new equilibrium within 3–5 years, while the deeper oceans operate on multidecadal or even longer timescales, related to their respective thermal capacities C for the ETS, and CCL for the climate system.

The (near) “steady state” character of current climate change

Despite the ongoing changes in climate, the current state can be considered a “near” steady-state. The GHG forcing trend has been pretty constant for decades. Other forcings, primarily in the SW channel, are also likely to change slowly and can be approximated as having constant trends over decadal timescales. Similarly, despite yearly fluctuations, the surface temperature trend has remained fairly stable since 2000.

This analysis strengthens the conclusion that the increase in both N(t) and N0(t) are not a direct consequence of greenhouse gas emissions, but rather of enhanced forcing in the SW-channel.

The preceding analysis highlights how the IPCC’s assumptions diverge significantly from observed reality. While the IPCC model components may collectively reproduce the observed warming trend, they fail to individually align with key observational data, in particular the Ocean Heat Content.

Figure 6 also illustrates that changes in cloudiness are more pronounced on the Northern Hemisphere, especially at mid-latitudes and over Western Europe. For example, the Dutch KNMI weather-station at Cabauw (51.87°N, 4.93oE), where all ground-level radiation components are monitored every 10 minutes, recorded an increase in solar radiation of almost +0.5 W/m²/year since 2000 [26]. Applying the 0.43 net-CRE factor (conservative for this latitude), we estimate a local forcing trend dFSW/dt ≈ 0.2 W/m²/year. This is an order of magnitude larger than the GHG forcing (0.019–0.037 W/m²/year). Even with the IPCC values, GHGs can just account for about 16% of the warming at this station. The average temperature trend for this rural station located in a polder largely covered by grassland, is with ~ +0.043 K/year almost 3x the global average. This, nor the other trends mentioned above can be adequately explained by the IPCC’s GHG-only model.

The IPCC places strong emphasis on the role of climate feedbacks in amplifying the warming effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) [8]. These feedbacks are considered secondary consequences of Anthropogenic Global Warming, driven by the initial temperature increase from GHGs. Among them, Water-Vapor feedback is the most significant. A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor (approximately +7%/K) and since water vapor is a potent GHG, even a small warming from CO2 can amplify itself through enhanced evaporation.

Other feedbacks recognized by the IPCC include Lapse Rate, Surface Albedo, and Cloud feedbacks [8], all of which are inherently tied to the presence and behavior of water in its various phases. Therefore, these feedbacks are natural responses to temperature changes, regardless of the original cause of warming, be it GHGs, incoming solar variability, or internal effects. They are not additive components to natural climate sensitivity, as treated by the IPCC, but rather integral parts of it [4].

This analysis reinforces a fundamental point: climate feedbacks are not external modifiers of climate sensitivity; rather, they are inherent to the system. Their combined effect is already embedded in the climate response function. The IPCC’s treatment of feedbacks as additive components used to “explain” high sensitivities in GCMs is conceptually flawed. Physically, Earth’s climate is governed by the mass balance of water in all its phases: ice, snow, liquid, vapor, and clouds. The dynamics between these phases are temperature-sensitive, and they constitute the feedback processes. Feedbacks aren’t just add-ons to the climate system, they are our climate.

Ocean Heat Content increase

In the introduction, the “heat in the pipeline” concept: the idea that heat stored in the deep, cold ocean layers could later resurface to significantly influence surface temperatures, was challenged. Without a substantial decrease in surface temperatures to reverse ocean stratification, this seems highly unlikely. Large and rapid temperature fluctuations during the pre-industrial era with rates up to plus, but also minus 0.05 K/year over several decennia as recorded in the Central England Temperature (CET) series [27], more than three times the rate observed today, further undermine the notion of a slow-release heat mechanism dominating surface temperature trends.

Ocean Heat Content must be related to solar energy. It is the prime source of energy heating the Earth thermal system. Almost 1 W/m2 of that 240 W/m2 solar flux that is in average entering the system, is presently remaining in the oceans. This is an order of magnitude larger than the estimated 0.1 W/m2 of geothermal heat upwelling from the Earth inner core [11]. Extra greenhouse gasses don’t add energy to the system, but just obstruct cooling. As shown in Section 5.3, this accounts for a radiation imbalance offset τ dFGHG/dt, or equivalent to a contribution to dOHC/dt of only about 0.08 W/m2.
.
As redistribution of “heat in the pipeline” will not change the total OHC, roughly 3/4 of the observed positive trend in OHC must at least be attributed to rising solar input. The oceans act in this way as our climate system’s thermal buffer. It will mitigate warming during periods of increased solar input and dampen cooling when solar input declines, underscoring its critical role in Earth’s climate stability.

The strong downwards slope in the OHC before 1970 confirms the observation in Section 5.4 and expressed by (12) that around the turning point t = ζ, the forcing trend in the SW-channel had to be negative. Moreover, the rather slowly increasing 700-2000m OHC data in Fig.7 indicate that most of the fluctuations have occurred relatively close to the surface. Heat from e.g. seafloor volcanism as “warming from below”, is expected to show up more pronounced in this 700-2000m OHC-profile. Although we cannot rule out geothermal influences [29], this observation makes them less likely.

**ERBE measurements of radiative imbalance.**

As the OHC seems to be primarily coupled to SWIN, the most plausible cause would involve rapid changes in SW-forcing. A sudden drop in cloud-cover might explain such changes, but no convincing observations could be found for the 1960-1980 period. Alternatively, changes in the latitudinal distribution of cloud-cover as illustrated by Fig.6, can result in similar radiative impacts due to the stark contrast between a positive radiation imbalance in the Tropics and a very negative imbalance at the Poles. The ENSO-oscillations in the Pacific Ocean around the equator are a typical example for such influences, as also illustrated in Fig.3 [10]. Shifts in cloud distribution are linked to changes in wind patterns and/or ocean currents, reinforcing the idea as indicated in Section 1, that even minor disruptions in horizontal heat transport can trigger major shifts in our climate’s equilibrium [29, 30]. Sharp shifts in Earth’s radiation imbalance like the one around 1970 as inferred from Fig.7, may even represent one of those alleged tipping points. But in this case, certainly not one triggered by GHGs. Ironically, some climate scientists in the early 1970s predicted an impending (Little) Ice Age [31].

While additional data (e.g. radiation measurements) are needed to draw firm conclusions, the available evidence already challenges the prevailing GHG-centric narrative again. GHG emissions, with their near constant forcing rate, cannot account for the timing nor the magnitude of historical OHC trends, as NOAA explicitly suggests [32]. Similarly, claims by KNMI that “accelerations” in radiation imbalance trends are GHG-driven [1], are not supported by data. And finally, the alarms around “heat in the pipeline” must be exaggerated if not totally misplaced. Given the similarities in radiation imbalance and GHG forcing rates around 1970 with today’s situation, we must conclude that this assumed heat manifested itself at that time apparently as “cooling in the pipeline”.

However, warnings for continued warming even if we immediately stop now with emitting GHGs are nevertheless, absolutely justified. Only, it isn’t warming then from that heat in the pipeline due to historical emissions that will boost our temperatures. Warming will continue to go on as long as natural forcings will be acting. These are already today’s dominant drivers behind global temperature trends. And unfortunately, they will not be affected by the illusion of stopping global warming as created by implementing Net-Zero policies.

Summary and conclusions

This analysis demonstrates that a global warming scenario driven solely by greenhouse gases (GHGs) is inconsistent with more than 20 years of observations from space and of Ocean Heat Content. The standard anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, which attributes all observed warming to rising GHG concentrations, particularly CO2, cannot explain the observed trends. Instead, natural factors, especially long-term increase in incoming solar radiation, appear to play a significant and likely dominant role in global warming since the mid-1970s.

The observed increase in incoming solar radiation cannot be accounted for by the possible anthropogenic side effects of Albedo- and Cloud-feedback. All evidence points to the conclusion that this “natural” forcing with a trend of about 0.035 W/m2/year is equal to, or even exceeds the greenhouse gas related forcing of about 0.019 W/m2/year. Based on these values, only 1/3rd of the observed temperature trend can be of anthropogenic origin. The remaining 2/3rd must stem from natural changes in our climate system, or more broadly, in our entire Earth’ thermal system.

Moreover, the observed increase in Earth’s radiation imbalance appears to be largely unrelated to GHGs. Instead, it correlates strongly with natural processes driving increased incoming solar radiation. Claims of “acceleration” in the radiation imbalance due to GHG emissions are not supported by the trend in accurately measured GHG concentrations. If any acceleration in global warming is occurring, it is almost certainly driven by the increasing flux of solar energy—an inherently natural phenomenon not induced by greenhouse gases.

In summary, this analysis challenges the notion that GHGs are the primary drivers of recent climate change. It underscores the importance of accounting for natural variability, especially in solar input, when interpreting warming trends and evaluating climate models.

Note: Dr. Ad Huijser, physicist and former CTO of Philips and director of the Philips Laboratories, describes himself as “amateur climatologist”. However his approach to climate physics is quite professional, I think.

See Also:

Our Atmospheric Heat Engine

EPA’s CO2 Reversal Is Welcome Opening for Developing World

There is more to be done. Reason and good sense would have the EPA remove the Endangerment Finding’s hold over industrial emissions of greenhouse gases, like those coming from power plants, and would undertake to dismantle the rule’s flimsy scientific justifications.

From The CO2 Coalition

By Vijay Jayaraj

On a crisp, sun-drenched afternoon in the spring of 2023, I found myself walking down Constitution Avenue in Washington, D.C., in front of the William Jefferson Clinton Building, headquarters of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Standing in its shadow, I wondered when, or if, sanity would ever return to the building. My mind drifted to the regulatory malfeasance that gave this agency power to treat carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant, the 2009 Endangerment Finding.

For years, this bureaucratic decree masqueraded as settled science. Climate zealots claimed CO2 and other greenhouse gases threatened public health as agents of planetary overheating, ignoring both a paucity of supporting data and contradictory evidence that inexorably accumulated.

Now, three years after my visit, EPA has rescinded the regulation as it applies to motor vehicles. The basis of its action is twofold: First, the agency has concluded that by attempting to regulate greenhouse gases, EPA exceeded its authority under the 1970 Clean Air Act. Second, the environmental effect of regulating tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases is negligible.

Nevertheless, EPA’s action undermines an ideological foundation for the broad attacks on fossil fuels that have constrained American prosperity and choked the developing world’s aspirations for modern lifestyles.

The 2009 regulation was used to justify the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan – part of the so-called War and Coal – and tailpipe emissions standards that forced unwanted electric vehicles onto dealership lots. The rule has contributed to the closing of power plants, energy shortages, high electricity prices and multiple billion-dollar losses for car manufacturers whose customers mostly prefer internal combustion engines. It has also fueled endless litigation against producers of hydrocarbon fuels.

Because CO2 is necessary for all life, beginning with its role in plant photosynthesis, regulation of the gas gave EPA jurisdiction over the entire U.S. economy. Climate crusaders abroad followed EPA’s lead.

Worldwide, the economic waste resulting from the rule is staggering. The Climate Policy Initiative estimates that between 2011 and 2020 climate spending totalled $4.8 trillion. Estimates for “energy transition investment” – money dumped into the wind, solar and EV rat hole – was $2.3 trillion in 2025 alone.

That is trillions diverted from healthcare, infrastructure, education and genuine alleviation of suffering and advancement of human flourishing. Imagine those resources being directed to improving carbon-intensive energy sectors that have produced the wealthiest and healthiest civilizations in all of history.

Since the dawn of the industrial age, we have witnessed an unprecedented increase in global life expectancy. We have seen a drastic reduction in deaths from natural disasters – not because the weather is milder, but because people are better protected by modern infrastructure and technology made possible by fossil fuels. We have achieved historic highs in agricultural production, feeding a population of 8 billion.

CO2 has played a pivotal role in the greening of the Earth, acting as an atmospheric fertilizer that boosts crop yields and expands forests. Even methane, demonized alongside CO2, is merely a byproduct of a livestock industry essential for providing protein to a ballooning global population. Emissions of neither gas contribute significantly to global temperatures.

Once the EPA designated CO2 a legal hazard, U.S. diplomats, aid agencies and technical experts carried that framing into global climate negotiations, development programs and financing arrangements.

Over time, the EPA’s stance became a de facto reference point for regulators elsewhere. If the U.S. “gold standard” for environmental protection treated CO2 as an endangerment, ministries from Europe to Asia would use similar language in national climate laws.

With the EPA backing away from its regulation of greenhouse gases, developing countries should waste no time in severing whatever restrictions Western climate overseers have placed on their use of fossil fuels. For too long, climate policies have impeded economic growth and denied access to reliable supplies of electricity, to safer indoor fuels for cooking and heating, to refrigeration and to clean water. The result has been higher rates of morbidity and mortality among the world’s poor.

CO2 is not the enemy of humankind. Misguided attempts to criminalize its emissions are!

Originally published in Daily Caller on February 22, 2026.

Tag: Endangerment Finding

Trump’s EPA Ends America’s War on CO2

Like this:

D.C. Circuit Endangerment Finding Litigation: The Stall Is On

Like this:

Endangerment Finding Litigation Update

Like this:

Alarmist Fussing at NYT Climate Reporting

Like this:

Another confusing story highlights why climate hysteria and far-left media are reaching their end

Like this:

Going wild at Safari Club International convention in Nashville

EP 579: BAAJA Blast: Permitting Reform or Bust – District of Conservation

EP 579: BAAJA Blast: Permitting Reform or Bust – District of Conservation

Like this:

Repeal of CO2 Rule Is a Return to Commonsense

Like this:

Trump Is right: Science demands we overturn the ‘Endangerment Finding’

Like this:

2026 IPCC Global Warming Claims Not Only Wrong, But Impossible

Update 2026

Recent Research Discredits Climatists’ Fearful Claims

Abstract

Introduction

Estimating our climate’s thermal capacity CCL

The (near) “steady state” character of current climate change

Ocean Heat Content increase

Summary and conclusions

Like this:

EPA’s CO2 Reversal Is Welcome Opening for Developing World

Like this: