Tag: greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs)

Climate alarmists howl after EPA rescinds ‘Endangerment Finding’

The US Environmental Protection Agency has finally rescinded the 2009 Endangerment Finding (EF) – the Obama era EPA ruling that claimed carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gas” (GHG) emissions “endanger” human health and welfare. Within minutes, climate alarmists challenged it in court.

From CFACT

By Paul Driessen

The US Environmental Protection Agency has finally rescinded the 2009 Endangerment Finding (EF) – the Obama era EPA ruling that claimed carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gas” (GHG) emissions “endanger” human health and welfare. Within minutes, climate alarmists challenged it in court.

The action follows an extensive review of scientific evidence, legal and constitutional principles, and 572,000 public comments (534,000 via mass comment campaigns).

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called it “the single largest deregulatory action in US history.” Just eliminating federal GHG emission standards for vehicles (model years 2012–2027 and beyond) will save American taxpayers over $1.3 trillion, EPA estimates. They will no longer have to pay for measuring, reporting, certifying and complying with federal GHG vehicle emission standards.

EPA had attached endangerment tailpipe emission standards to impossible-to-meet 50.4 mpg fuel economy requirements – effectively banning internal combustion engines and forcing people to buy electric models. Now motorists can buy the cars and light trucks they choose.

Scrapping the hated automatic stop/start “feature” will save consumers $2,400 per vehicle – and hopefully let us have repair shops disable it. Anyone who’s tried to merge into moving traffic from even a brief stop knows how maddening and dangerous this gimmick is.

Future actions will likely eradicate endangerment diktats on coal and gas power plants that generate electricity for the grid. That will keep electricity costs affordable and ensure we have power when we need it: for lights, heat, AC, refrigerators, stoves, computers, entertainment, hospitals, schools, shops, offices, traffic lights, data centers and banking – not just on average days, but during winter storms and summer heatwaves. No Net Zero wind-solar-battery system yet devised can do that, at any price.

The Endangerment reversal generated predictable howls of outrage from factions with economic or ideological stakes in the Obama ruling and tomes of regulations promulgated in its wake. They’ll no longer be able to dictate energy, economic and consumer choices. The rest of us should rejoice.

The EF originated with Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The US Supreme Court said EPA could regulate GHGs if the agency found that they “cause or contribute” to “air pollution” that may be “reasonably anticipated” to “endanger public health or welfare” by causing dangerous climate and weather changes.

The Obama EPA twisted and tortured science, history and common sense to fit the Court ruling and promulgated the Endangerment decree. Officially, the 2007 ruling has not been reversed.

However, the Trump EPA’s extensive final rule rescinding the EF demonstrates that Mass v EPA has effectively been reversed – and certainly rendered irrelevant by subsequent Supreme Court decisions, evidence-based science and international reality.

* Legal and constitutional rulings torpedo and sink the 2009 Endangerment dreadnaught.

In West Virginia v. EPA (2022) the Court ruled that federal agencies may not violate the “major questions doctrine,” which states that, in the absence of clear congressional direction or authorization, agencies may not make decisions or issue regulations “of vast economic and political significance.”

The Clean Air Act (CAA) does not include life-giving carbon dioxide as a pollutant. It provides no legislative language or other authorization for EPA to unilaterally declare that CO2 is a pollutant that would somehow “endanger public health or welfare” by causing or contributing to climate disruptions.

EPA nevertheless did precisely that – and used the Endangerment declaration to give itself effective control over the nation’s transportation, electricity generation, petrochemical and other industries; its economy, employment and living standards. EF regulations have impacts of undeniably “vast economic and political significance,” making them impermissible and unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court ruling in Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024) restricted EPA’s discretion and assertion of power even further. That case overturned the Court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. NRDC and ended judicial deference to government agencies (the “Chevron doctrine”). Bureaucrats may no longer devise self-proclaimed “reasonable interpretations” of unclear statutory language, if those interpretations would significantly expand regulatory powers or inflate private sector costs.

EPA’s Endangerment Finding doesn’t have a legal or constitutional leg to stand on.

* Evidence-based science gives EPA no foundation for declaring CO2 a dangerous pollutant.

Unlike pollutants listed in the CAA, carbon dioxide is nontoxic. Indeed, it is essential to planetary life. Humans and animals exhale it when they breathe; plants absorb CO2 during photosynthesis and emit oxygen. More atmospheric CO2 helps plants grow better, faster and with less water.

Endangerment proponents offer little more than baseless hair-raising assertions about climate calamities already upon us … and future catastrophes predicted by computer models based on GHGs controlling Earth’s climate. It’s Monty Python in Search of the Holy Grail of climate control – and ultimately control of American and world economies and living standards.

But as EPA’s new analysis, thousands of scientists, and reams of data and evidence demonstrate, this fearmongering does not reflect planetary reality. Average global temperatures have increased only slightly in 100 years; many US temperature records set in the 1930s still stand; and many alleged recent historic highs were recorded at airports and urban areas (heat islands).

Hurricane frequency and intensity likewise show minimal change since 1865; no Category 3-5 hurricanes struck the USA for a record twelve years, 10/2005–08/2017; and tornado frequency and intensity have actually declined since 1950.

There is no real-world evidence that CO2 or other GHGs have replaced the complex solar, cosmic and other natural forces that have brought numerous climate fluctuations throughout Earth history.

* Even total US elimination of fossil fuels would be a multi-trillion-dollar lesson in futility.

China emits one-third of global greenhouse gases, more than all developed nations combined. India and Indonesia add another tenth. They’re building new coal-fired power plants every month, to raise their people’s living standards and become global powers.

In still-destitute countries, billions have minimal, sporadic access to electricity 750 million have no access. They are constructing coal and gas power plants, industrializing, driving cars – and emitting GHGs at ever-increasing rates, to improve and save millions of lives. US emissions are irrelevant.

* The real dangers to our health and welfare come from eliminating fossil fuels.

Wind and solar power were de minimis during Winter Storm Fern. So was New England’s expected Canadian electricity. Coal, gas and nuclear power came to the rescue. Without them, thousands of lives would likely have been lost.

Oil, natural gas and coal still provide over 80% of total US primary energy consumption – plus irreplaceable feedstocks for more than 6,000 medical, pharmaceutical, communication, construction, transportation and other products. Without fossil fuels, our lives would revert to 1900 or earlier.

Any actual endangerment to our health and welfare does not arise from using fossil fuels – and possibly adding a smidgeon to adverse (or beneficial) climate and weather changes. It comes from eliminating fossil fuels, relying on “renewable” energy that’s missing when most needed, and denying humanity thousands of essential petrochemical products.

There is no basis for the DC Court of Appeals and US Supreme Court to do anything but affirm the Trump-Zeldin reversal of the ignominious, destructive Obama Era Endangerment Finding.

The coming El Niño

We are hearing about the coming El Niño. I will deal with the weather aspects in a post later in the week. But look at this quote, I pulled in the Washington Post.

Defense Department meteorologist Eric Webb described this change in global temperatures during major El Niño events as an upward “stairstep.”

A serene beach scene framed by tall palm trees, showcasing a clear blue sky and turquoise waters, with a small pond and sandy shore in the foreground.
Beautiful tropical beach with coconut palm trees at Seychelles

From CFACT

By Joe Bastardi

We are hearing about the coming El Niño. I will deal with the weather aspects in a post later in the week. But look at this quote, I pulled in the Washington Post.

Defense Department meteorologist Eric Webb described this change in global temperatures during major El Niño events as an upward “stairstep.”

“Due to the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases, the climate system cannot effectively exhaust the heat released in a major El Niño event before the next El Niño comes along and pushes the baseline upward again,” he said.

1) How long have I been showing this is a step-up function?

Decades now.

Line graph depicting the UAH satellite-based temperature variations of the global lower atmosphere from 1970 to January 2026, showing temperature departures from the 1991-2020 average, with a red trend line and blue data points.

And it’s the excess WV that we cannot get rid of, not the trace GHGs that man is putting into the atmosphere.

BUT YOU WILL NEVER GET THAT ADMISSION OUT OF PEOPLE PUSHING THIS. 

So now they acknowledge that the source region is the oceanic El Niño Step ups. 

So, what is causing the step up?

Let’s get to the source. So, without El Niños, there is no extra WV and now warming right. Again, as I have pointed out thousands of times there would have been little if any warming if the oceans were the same way 40 years ago.

World map showing sea surface temperature anomalies in degrees Celsius for February 7, 1986, with color gradients indicating various temperature ranges.

now

Global sea surface temperature anomaly map showing various color-coded temperature differences in degrees Celsius, updated for February 7, 2026.

I have gone through this in previous blogs. Notice another hot spot developing right over where the Hunga source region for underwater volcanic activity is.

So, the steady state increase of CO2 is clearly seen since the 1950s.

Line graph showing carbon dioxide concentration in parts per million from 1960 to 2020, with three data series: Mauna Loa CO2 (blue), NOAA CO2 (orange), and WDCGG CO2 (red).

There was little change in SST from the 50s through the 80s (I have gone over this a thousand times, but since they are at least admitting the step-up function lets counter the idea that its man-made GHG that is causing all this.)

Here is what changed.  The increase in geothermal input, which PRECEDED THE RISE, indicates likely causation.

A line and bar graph illustrating the relationship between ocean heat content anomaly and mid-ocean seismic activity from 1977 to 2022. The bars represent seismic activity, while the line indicates changes in ocean heat content anomaly over the years.

The hypothesis is simple.

This is a different aspect of the forcing that was not there 40 years ago.

Its input, which the scientific community refuses to acknowledge or take the steps to test (Saturate the ocean floor with sensors, so they have plausible deniability if they never measure it) causes a cumulative build-up of heat.

This distorts the global wind pattern, so we are in a La Niña base State to counter it. Plainly seen in the Multivariate Enso Index data since the super El Niño of 97-98.

A line graph depicting the Multivariate ENSO Index Version 2 from 1980 to 2025, with red bars indicating positive anomalies and blue bars indicating negative anomalies.

Notice how the last El Niño was not as strong as the other big ones in the data.

This suggests that the spike in global temperatures was driven in part, and perhaps a major part, by Hunga. So, the 2 coincided, and as far as the Oceanic Niño Index, 23-24 was strong, but the impact on the atmosphere was blunted (that is why this is a multivariate index), likely because the difference in SST between the ENSO areas and the non-ENSO areas is not as great anymore.  It’s the difference that drives the weather, and if the ocean is simply warm all over, the impact would not be as great. This is part of the distortion I speak about.

That distortion is also leading to distorted cloud patterns as vertical velocities over the tropics have decreased with a weakened Hadley cell. The result is less clouds, so more incoming radiation to the tropics, and more heating.

Now here is the kill shot. If there is continuous high input of geothermal, then there is a cumulative buildup of heat in the oceans, so when the La Niña base state is disturbed, the El Niño comes back.  The La Niña base state is to counter the warming and is only because of the warming.  But the heat as to eventually overwhelm it until it can recalibrate. 

But how strong the El Niño is and how much input it has needs to be questioned. The more WV already in the air, the less the input, unless it’s very great, will impact the system.  It’s already warm, and it’s cooling back now.   

So, while climate activists can jump up and down screaming another spike is coming, 1) that admits the ocean is in control, and not man-made gasses, which is why they run to the argument that man-made gases won’t let it cool down, when in reality it’s the WATER VAPOR FROM NATURAL INPUT THAT IS DOING IT.  2) This may just be a bounce up and down in the new plateau from the last event, which ignores Hunga’s input, which IMO is an absurd avoidance of the issue.  Again, that would point to nature, not man, as the cause, and we can’t have that.

I suspect over the years (it’s taken 2 decades to get that admission) much of what I have been showing will be shown to have merit.  But in the meantime, remember the bottom line in this is that man is still the cause. They are not going to stop and any novel ideas, even if they are based on simple natural ideas, will be shot down. In fact, that’s the biggest danger. What if the simple answer is the correct answer? Down goes the whole cottage industry.  

Its political and the current administration is not going to be there forever. Remember, this is the ultimate weapon (climate) to take down the foundation system of this country.  So, anything countering that will be hidden.

Again, anyone who has followed me has seen me opine on this for close to 2 decades. So, if what I am saying has merit, it won’t be acknowledged till such a time when the political agenda at work here has made it so it’s too late.

Why Don’t Global Lower Tropospheric Temperatures More Closely Track Atmospheric CO2 Levels?

Global lower tropospheric temperatures, as measured by satellite datasets like the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) record, do show a long-term upward trend that aligns with rising atmospheric CO2 levels since the late 1970s (from about -0.47°C anomaly in 1979 to around +0.30°C by late 2025, while CO2 increased from ~336 ppm to ~427 ppm). However, they do not track CO2 levels more closely—meaning no smooth, immediate, or perfectly linear response—for several well-established reasons rooted in climate dynamics.

A detailed illustration of a space station orbiting Earth, with visible solar panels and scientific equipment against a backdrop of stars.

Global lower tropospheric temperatures, as measured by satellite datasets like the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) record, do show a long-term upward trend that aligns with rising atmospheric CO2 levels since the late 1970s (from about -0.47°C anomaly in 1979 to around +0.30°C by late 2025, while CO2 increased from ~336 ppm to ~427 ppm).

However, they do not track CO2 levels more closely—meaning no smooth, immediate, or perfectly linear response—for several well-established reasons rooted in climate dynamics.

The radiative forcing from CO2 is logarithmic, not linear—doubling CO2 does not double the warming effect, and feedback (e.g., water vapor amplification or cloud changes) modulate the response.

Additionally, CO2 is not the only driver; other greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide) and human activities (land use, deforestation) contribute, while natural forcings can counteract.

In paleoclimate records, CO2 often lagged behind temperature changes as feedback (e.g., released from warming oceans), but in the modern era, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the primary driver, with the long-term correlation evident over decades rather than years.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

From Manhattan Contrarian

By Francis Menton

A satellite in low Earth orbit above the planet, showcasing its solar panels and intricate structure against the backdrop of the Earth and space.

The big news in 2025 for the climate scare was that all of a sudden, this scare wasn’t such big news anymore. We’re talking here about something that all of the right people had agreed for decades was an “existential” threat to humanity. It was supposedly the single most important thing that we all needed to focus on and transform our lives to stop. We only had ten years to “save the planet”; or maybe it was only five. If we failed, we would shortly be inundated by sea level rise, or maybe devastated by floods and droughts, or burned up by wildfires.

And then, during 2025, quite rapidly the scaremongering stories became less frequent. Several prominent priests of the climate cult turned apostate (e.g., Bill Gates, Matthew Yglesias). The political push for “net zero” dramatically slowed. Why? There have undoubtedly been many reasons for the shift. Among those have been Trump administration regulatory changes and de-funding of scare-promoting bureaucracies and NGOs, plus the emerging extreme costs and ineffectiveness of the “net zero” energy transition.

But here’s another issue that, although I rarely see it mentioned, could play a big role in the ongoing eclipse of the climate cult: The failure of global tropospheric temperatures to closely track the rise in atmospheric CO2.

The asserted basis for the climate scare is the proposition that greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere, primarily CO2 from the burning of hydrocarbon fuels, cause the atmosphere to warm. The hypothesis is that atmospheric temperatures are essentially stable in the absence of human influences, and that human-produced GHGs are introducing a forcing mechanism that causes atmospheric heat to track rising GHG levels, leading to higher and higher temperatures.

As our frequent and curmudgeonly commenter Richard Greene points out, you will be hard pressed to find any legitimate climate scientists to dispute the proposition that CO2 and some other human-produced gases (e.g., methane) are GHGs whose accumulation in the atmosphere is likely to lead to at least some warming. But, assuming that you accept that proposition, the question remains: Will the resulting warming be large, or moderate, or small? Indeed, could the GHG-induced warming be so small as to be even near or below the limit of detectability by available instruments? Could observed changes in temperatures be principally caused by other factors? And how could you assess those questions?

I suggest that the right way to assess the question is to look at the best available evidence. In other words, try using the Scientific Method! For these purposes, I propose as the best available evidence the record of global average lower tropospheric temperatures from the University of Alabama at Huntsville (based on NASA satellite readings), and the record of atmospheric CO2 levels from the NOAA observatory at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. It so happens that both of those records have just been updated through December 2025. Here are screenshots of the graphs from the two websites. First, here is the UAH global temperature record since 1979:

Graph showing UAH satellite-based temperature of the global lower atmosphere from 1979 to December 2025, with blue data points and a red trend line indicating temperature departures from the 1991-2020 average.

And here is the atmospheric CO2 record from NOAA since 1958:

Graph showing atmospheric CO2 levels at Mauna Loa Observatory from 1960 to 2020, with CO2 mole fraction plotted in parts per million (ppm).

A few things leap off the graphs. The CO2 trend has a small annual seasonality (associated with plant growth in the Northern Hemisphere, which has much more land area than the Southern); but aside from that, the trend is smoothly upward, with even a small amount of acceleration.

The trend of temperatures, on the other hand, is anything but smoothly upward. If you look at the UAH graph holistically, you will undoubtedly perceive an overall rising trend of temperatures as the years progress. But unlike the CO2 graph, the temperature graph is punctuated by periodic and significant reversals, where temperatures decline quite rapidly, and by amounts that are very large in relation to the overall rise.

Consider just the most recent 22 months, from April 2024 to December 2025. The UAH temperature anomaly has declined from +0.94 deg C to +0.30 deg C over that period, a decline of 0.64 deg C. The entire temperature rise in the UAH record from its inception in 1979 to its all-time record in April 2024 was from -0.47 deg C to +0.94 deg C, or 1.41 deg C. The recent 0.64 deg C decline represents almost half of that.

And yet even as world temperatures were giving back almost half of their increase over the past 46 years, the CO2 level continued its slow and steady rise, going from about 421 ppm to 427 ppm over those 22 months, according to the NOAA graph.

If you look at the NOAA graphs of the other GHGs, you will see that they follow a rising trend similar to the trend of CO2.

So, if CO2 and the other GHGs are the main factor in determining changes in atmospheric temperatures, why have the temperatures gone down for almost two years now while the GHGs have continued their rise?

I’m not saying that I know the answer to that question. I am saying that the know-it-alls who claim that the GHGs are the control knob for average atmospheric temperatures don’t know either.

Clearly, there are factors at play other than the GHGs, and the impact of those factors is not small relative to the impact of the GHGs. Whatever those factors are, they are capable of driving global average temperatures down by at least 0.64 deg C even as the concentration of GHGs continues to go up. In fact, they are capable of driving temperatures down even much more than that.

If you look at the other parts of the UAH temperature graph, you will see that this phenomenon of rapidly declining temperatures, as in the past 22 months, has also occurred repeatedly over the 46 year period of the satellite temperature record, all while the GHGs were continuously rising. Among the larger declines in the satellite temperature record were one of about 0.80 deg C from early 1988 to early 1989; one of more than a full 1 deg C from early 1998 to early 2000; one of about 0.80 deg C from early 2010 to early 2012; and one of more than 0.70 deg C from early 2016 to early 2018.

Something that was not GHGs drove temperatures down repeatedly by amounts ranging from 0.70 deg C to over a full 1 deg C over the past 46 years. And now that you know that, how exactly do you know that the increases in temperatures that have occurred over these years were not also caused in part or mostly, or even entirely, by these same unidentified forces? And if these forces are capable of driving temperatures down by more than 1 deg C, how exactly do we know that the current decline is not going to continue until temperatures have gone below the place where they started at about -0.47 deg C back in 1979? And if the temperatures do not go back to -0.47 deg C in the current round of decline, how do we know that they won’t go below that level in the next decline, or the one after?

There are obviously many hypotheses as to factors in play other than the GHGs. Some of those include: variations in solar irradiation; volcanic activity; atmospheric aerosols; level of cloudiness; and various oscillations in ocean temperatures. That list is by no means comprehensive. It may well be that there are other factors as yet unidentified. Moreover, I haven’t seen anyone who has put together a set of proposed factors that when combined can reproduce a pattern comparable to the satellite temperature record. You can call the unknown factors “noise,” but the “noise” may be as significant as all the other factors put together.

But the hypothesis that the GHGs are the main factor, the effective “control knob” of global temperatures? That looks to me to be falsified by the satellite temperature record. If commenters can explain why that is not the case, I’m very interested to hear why.

Wildfires Below Average Last Year–Met Office Says Global Warming Has Made Them Worse!

The Met Office are no longer a serious, scientific organisation, but a political one:

A modern, concrete building featuring large symbols, such as a thermometer and globe, with several uniformed figures standing outside.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Cunningham

 The Met Office are no longer a serious, scientific organisation, but a political one:

A fiery sky illuminated by wildfires, with silhouetted trees in the foreground. The scene conveys the intensity and destruction of extreme heatwaves and droughts.

The latest State of Wildfire report is building unequivocal evidence of how climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of extreme wildfires.

Human-driven climate change made wildfires in parts of South America and Southern California many times larger and more destructive, according to an annual assessment by international experts.

According to climate models, the Los Angeles wildfires in January were twice as likely and 25 times larger, in terms of burned area, in the current climate than they would have been in a world with no human-caused global warming. It also made last year’s burning in the Pantanal-Chiquitano region in South America 35 times larger, while also driving record-breaking fires in the Amazon and Congo.

However, it is still too early to tell how much climate change contributed to the impacts of the wildfires.

The new report warns that more severe heatwaves and droughts are making extreme wildfires more frequent and intense worldwide, resulting in increasing threats to people’s lives – through fire and polluting smoke – as well as property, economies and the environment.

Key findings from this year’s report include:

  • Warming increased burning in Pantanal, Chiquitano and Amazon, releasing billions of tonnes of CO2
  • Climate change increased likelihood of Southern California’s deadly fires by at least 2-3 times
  • Experts urge nations to significantly cut emissions at COP30 and adapt to a hotter, more fire-prone world

UKCEH land surface modeller Dr Douglas Kelley, who co-led this year’s report, said: “Our annual reports are building unequivocal evidence of how climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of extreme wildfires. Without human-driven warming, many of these wildfires, in Pantanal and Southern California, for example, would not have been on an extreme scale.” 

Report co-lead Dr Matt Jones of the University of East Anglia said: “We urge world leaders at COP30 to make bold commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions rapidly this decade. This is the single most powerful contribution that most developed nations can make to avoiding the worst impacts of extreme wildfires on living and future generations.”

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-media/media-centre/weather-and-climate-news/2025/state-of-wildfire-report-2025

Note the highly political call for rapid cuts in GHGs. It is not the job of the Met Office to canvass for political action.

The report, in any event, is full of contradictions and provides no data to back up their claims are wildfires are more frequent and intense, never mind that climate change has caused anything.

The only “evidence” offered is from fraudulent weather attribution computer models. If the changes were as drastic as the Met Office pretend, surely there would be ample data to quantify it, instead of relying on make-believe models?

On the contrary, the opposite seems to be the case – the evidence we have shows there is no upward trend.

Indeed, the report itself admits that last year’s fire season was below average and was the 8th lowest since 2002!

Global summary of the 2024-2025 fire season, indicating that at least 3.7 million square kilometers burned, which is 9% below the average of previous fire seasons and ranks as the 8th lowest since 2002.

Take the US, for instance, which has been highlighted in the report for the California fires. Some years are up, others are down, but there is no underlying trend whatsoever:

Bar graph showing US wildfire acreage from 2001 to 2024, with varying levels of acreage burned each year.
https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/statistics/wildfires

And, of course, if we go back further in time, wildfires were much worse. In those days, they were more or less allowed to burn themselves out, which in turn got rid of all the dead wood and undergrowth which acts as fuel to make forest fires more intense.

Then systematic fire suppression began, which drastically curtailed the size of fires, but also allowed the accumulation of that very same dead wood and undergrowth.

Line graph depicting the total acreage burned in the U.S. from 1916 to 2006, with annual and five-year moving averages showing trends in wildfires over the decades.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170910052844/https://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/criteria-indicators/indicators/indicator-316.php

Laughably, the report even blames the California fires on wet weather, which the BBC tried to do at the time:

Extract from a scientific report discussing how climate change is impacting wildfire frequency and intensity, referencing Southern California's weather conditions.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/17/5377/2025/

Swain referred to heavy rain during the two winters prior to 2024/25, which I have marked on the rainfall graph below for the Los Angeles Division:

Line graph showing precipitation levels for California's Climate Division 6 from 1896 to 2025, with notable peaks and troughs indicating variations in rainfall over the years.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/divisional/time-series/0406/pcp/6/3/1895-2025

Clearly those two years were not unusual at all. California’s climate regularly swings from one extreme to the other.

Equally 2024/25 was not unusually dry either, ranking only the 13th driest since 1895.

Whatever caused the Palisade fire, it was not excessive rain or drought.

Then there’s Europe:

Graph showing wildfire area in the Mediterranean region (Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, and Greece) from 1980 to 2024, with a red line indicating the average area of 434,000 hectares.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2025/02/23/eu-wildfire-trends-2024/

A declining trend.

Overall, the Met Office study dishonestly cherry picks the regions where fire activity was above normal last year, blames it on climate change, but just ignores all the other places.

And then proceeds to claim “The latest State of Wildfire report is building unequivocal evidence of how climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of extreme wildfires.”

And they call it science!

What is the Scientific Threshold for GHG Endangerment?

Today, I explain why the acceptance of just these claims provides a sufficient basis under the U.S. Clean Air Act (CAA) to find that greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) endanger public health or welfare. The quote above comes from the executive summary of the much-discussed report of the Department of Energy’s Climate Working Group (DOE CWG).

A cartoonish character representing CO2 is playfully chasing three young people running in a grassy field, illustrating the concept of carbon emissions as a threat.

It is much lower than you think

Consider the following claims:

[E]missions are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere through a complex and variable carbon cycle, where some portion of the additional CO2 persists in the atmosphere for centuries. . . Carbon dioxide also acts as a greenhouse gas, exerting a warming influence on climate and weather . . .

Today, I explain why the acceptance of just these claims provides a sufficient basis under the U.S. Clean Air Act (CAA) to find that greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) endanger public health or welfare. The quote above comes from the executive summary of the much-discussed report of the Department of Energy’s Climate Working Group (DOE CWG). Roger Pielke Jr. substack- The Honest Brocker has the story.

“Endangerment” is a legal concept, not scientific, which can be traced back to 1955 in federal legislation regulating air pollution.1 The relevant language of the CAA is shown below, from Section 202(a), with the endangerment clause highlighted.

Text from the U.S. Clean Air Act outlining standards for motor vehicle emissions, highlighting the endangerment clause related to air pollution and public health.
US Clean Air Act.

The concept of “endangerment” under the CAA has been considered explicitly by the courts, which concluded that “endangerment” means “risk of harm”:

The meaning of “endanger” is not disputed. Case law and dictionary definition agree that endanger means something less than actual harm. When one is endangered, harm is threatened; no actual injury need ever occur. Thus, for example, a town may be “endangered” by a threatening plague or hurricane and yet emerge from the danger completely unscathed. A statute allowing for regulation in the face of danger is, necessarily, a precautionary statute. Regulatory action may be taken before the threatened harm occurs; indeed, the very existence of such precautionary legislation would seem to demand that regulatory action precede, and, optimally, prevent, the perceived threat.2

In the 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding, the EPA administrator characterized the finding explicitly in terms of “risk of harm,”3 with the nature of risk and of harm considered together. The EPA administrator found,

. . . that six greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.

The EPA administrator explained:

The Administrator reached her determination by considering both observed and projected effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, their effect on climate, and the public health and welfare risks and impacts associated with such climate change. The Administrator’s assessment focused on public health and public welfare impacts within the United States. She also examined the evidence with respect to impacts in other world regions, and she concluded that these impacts strengthen the case for endangerment to public health and welfare because impacts in other world regions can in turn adversely affect the United States.

The CAA offers no standards of risk or harm necessary to constitute a finding of endangerment, and the Supreme Court has ruled that relatively small amounts of pollution are not exempt from regulation.4

Read the full story here.