{"id":370528,"date":"2025-03-17T17:05:33","date_gmt":"2025-03-17T16:05:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=370528"},"modified":"2025-03-17T17:05:35","modified_gmt":"2025-03-17T16:05:35","slug":"2025-the-poisonous-tree-of-climate-change","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=370528","title":{"rendered":"2025 The Poisonous Tree of Climate\u00a0Change"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Now that Trump\u2019s EPA is determined to reconsider its past GHG Endangerment Finding, it\u2019s important to understand how we got here.\u00a0 First of all, there was the EPA\u2019s theory basis for the finding:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The 3 Lines of Evidence can all be challenged by scientific studies since the 2009 ruling.  The temperature records have been adjusted over time and the validity of the measurements are uncertain.  The issues with climate models give many reasons to regard them as unfit for policy making.  And the claim that rising CO2 caused rising Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) is dubious, both on grounds that CO2 Infrared activity declines with higher levels, and that temperature changes precede CO2 changes on all time scales from last month\u2019s observations to ice core proxies spanning millennia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, all the arrows claiming causal relations are flawed.\u00a0 The rise of atmospheric CO2 is mostly nature\u2019s response to warming, rather than the other way around. And the earth warming since the Little Ice Age (LIA) is a welcome recovery from the coldest period in the last 10,000 years.\u00a0 Claims of extreme weather and rising sea levels ignore that such events are ordinary in earth history.\u00a0 And the health warnings are contrived in attributing them to barely noticeable warming temperatures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background on the Legal Precedents<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

This post was triggered by noticing an event some years ago.  Serial valve turner Ken Ward was granted a new trial by the Washington State Court of Appeals, and he was allowed to present a \u201cnecessity defense.\u201d  This astonishingly bad ruling is reported approvingly by Kelsey Skaggs at Pacific Standard Why the Necessity Defense is Critical to the Climate Struggle.<\/strong><\/a> Excerpt below with my bolds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A climate activist who was convicted after turning off an oil pipeline won the right in April to argue in a new trial that his actions were justified.<\/strong> The Washington State Court of Appeals ruled that Ken Ward will be permitted to explain to a jury that, while he did illegally stop the flow of tar sands oil from Canada into the United States, his action was necessary to slow catastrophic climate change.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Skaggs article goes on to cloak energy vandalism with the history of civil disobedience against actual mistreatment and harm.\u00a0 Nowhere is it recognized that the brouhaha over climate change concerns future imaginary harm.\u00a0 How could lawyers and judges get this so wrong?\u00a0 It can only happen when an erroneous legal precedent can be cited to spread a poison in the public square.\u00a0 So, I went searching for the tree producing all of this poisonous fruit. The full text of the April 8, 2019, ruling is\u00a0here.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A paper at Stanford Law School (where else?) provides a good history of the necessity defense as related to climate change activism The Climate Necessity Defense: Proof and Judicial Error in Climate Protest Cases<\/a>. <\/strong> Excerpts in italics with my bolds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My perusal of the text led me to the section where the merits are presented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The typical climate necessity argument i<\/strong>s straightforward. The ongoing effects of climate change are not only imminent, they are currently occurring<\/strong>; civil disobedience has been proven to contribute to the mitigation<\/strong> of these harms, and our political and legal systems have proven uniquely ill-equipped<\/strong> to deal with the climate crisis, thus creating the necessity of breaking the law to address it. As opposed to many classic political necessity defendants, such as anti-nuclear power protesters, climate activists can point to the existing (rather than speculative) nature of the targeted harm<\/strong> and can make a more compelling case that their protest activity (for example, blocking fossil fuel extraction) actually prevents some quantum of harm produced by global warming. pg.78<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What?  On what evidence is such confidence based?  Later on (page 80), comes this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, courts\u2019 focus on the politics of climate change distracts from the scientific issues involved in climate necessity cases. There may well be political disagreement over the realities and effects of climate change, but there is little scientific disagreement, as the Supreme Court has noted.131<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

131 Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497, 499 (2007) (\u201cThe harms associated with <\/em>climate change are serious and well recognized . . . [T]he relevant science and a strong consensus <\/em>among qualified experts indicate that global warming threatens, inter alia, a precipitate rise in sea <\/em>levels by the end of the century, severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems, a <\/em>significant reduction in water storage in winter snowpack in mountainous regions with direct and <\/em>important economic consequences, and an increase in the spread of disease and the ferocity of <\/em>weather events.\u201d).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The roots of this poisonous tree are found in citing the famous Massachusetts v. E.P.A. (2007) case decided by a 5-4 opinion of Supreme Court justices (consensus rate: 56%).\u00a0 But let\u2019s see in what context lies that reference and whether it is a quotation from a source, or an issue addressed by the court.\u00a0 The majority opinion was written by Justice Stevens, with dissenting opinions from Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia.\u00a0 All these documents are available at sureme.justia.com\u00a0Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From the Majority Opinion:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide<\/strong> in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat<\/strong>. It is therefore a species\u2014the most important species\u2014of a \u201cgreenhouse gas.\u201d Source: National Research Council:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

National Research Council 2001 report titled Climate Change: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (NRC Report), which, drawing heavily on the 1995 IPCC report,<\/strong> concluded that \u201c[g]reenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth\u2019s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising.\u201d NRC Report 1.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Calling global warming \u201cthe most pressing environmental challenge of our time,\u201d[<\/strong>Footnote 1] a group of States,[Footnote 2] local governments,[Footnote 3] and private organizations,[Footnote 4] alleged in a petition<\/strong> for certiorari that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has abdicated its responsibility under the Clean Air Act to regulate the emissions of four greenhouse gases<\/strong>, including carbon dioxide.  Specifically, petitioners asked us to answer two questions<\/strong> concerning the meaning of \u00a7202(a)(1) of the Act: whether EPA has the statutory authority<\/strong> to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles; and if so, whether its stated reasons for refusing to do so are consistent with the statute.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

EPA reasoned that climate change had its own \u201cpolitical history\u201d: Congress designed the original Clean Air Act to address local air pollutants rather than a substance that \u201cis fairly consistent in its concentration throughout the world\u2019s atmosphere,<\/strong>\u201d 68 Fed. Reg. 52927 (emphasis added); declined in 1990 to enact proposed amendments to force EPA to set carbon dioxide emission standards<\/strong> for motor vehicles, ibid. (citing H. R. 5966, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. (1990)); and addressed global climate change in other legislation<\/strong>, 68 Fed. Reg. 52927. Because of this political history, and because imposing emission limitations on greenhouse gases would have even greater economic and political repercussions than regulating tobacco, EPA was persuaded that it lacked the power to do so. Id., at 52928. In essence, EPA concluded that climate change was so important that unless Congress spoke with exacting specificity, it could not have meant the agency to address it.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having reached that conclusion, EPA believed it followed that greenhouse gases cannot be \u201cair pollutants\u201d within the meaning of the Act.<\/strong> See ibid. (\u201cIt follows from this conclusion, that [greenhouse gases], as such, are not air pollutants under the [Clean Air Act\u2019s] regulatory provisions \u2026\u201d).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even assuming that it had authority over greenhouse gases, EPA explained in detail why it would refuse to exercise that authority.<\/strong> The agency began by recognizing that the concentration of greenhouse gases has dramatically increased as a result of human activities, and acknowledged the attendant increase in global surface air temperatures. Id., at 52930. EPA nevertheless gave controlling importance to the NRC Report\u2019s statement that a causal link between the two \u201c \u2018cannot be unequivocally established.\u2019 \u201d<\/strong> Ibid. (quoting NRC Report 17). Given that residual uncertainty, EPA concluded that regulating greenhouse gas emissions would be unwise<\/strong>. 68 Fed. Reg. 52930.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. Indeed, the NRC Report<\/strong> itself\u2014which EPA regards as an \u201cobjective and independent assessment of the relevant science,\u201d 68 Fed. Reg. 52930\u2014identifies a number of environmental changes that have already inflicted significant harms,<\/strong> including \u201cthe global retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow-cover extent, the earlier spring melting of rivers and lakes, [and] the accelerated rate of rise of sea levels during the 20th century relative to the past few thousand years \u2026 .\u201d NRC Report 16.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In sum\u2014at least\u00a0according to petitioners\u2019 uncontested affidavits\u2014the rise in sea levels associated with global warming has already harmed and will continue to harm Massachusetts.<\/strong>\u00a0The risk of\u00a0catastrophic harm, though remote, is nevertheless real.<\/strong>\u00a0That risk would be reduced to some extent if petitioners received the relief they seek. We therefore hold that petitioners have standing to challenge the EPA\u2019s denial of their rulemaking petition. [Footnote 24]<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change<\/strong>. Its action was therefore \u201carbitrary, capricious, \u2026 or otherwise not in accordance with law.\u201d 42 U. S. C. \u00a77607(d)(9)(A). We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding<\/strong>, or whether policy concerns can inform EPA\u2019s actions in the event that it makes such a finding. Cf. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843\u2013844 (1984). We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

My Comment:<\/strong> Note that the citations of scientific proof were uncontested assertions by petitioners.  Note also that the majority did not rule that EPA must make an endangerment finding:  \u201cWe hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From the Minority Dissenting Opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is not at all clear how the Court\u2019s \u201cspecial solicitude\u201d for Massachusetts<\/strong> plays out in the standing analysis, except as an implicit concession that petitioners cannot establish standing on traditional terms.<\/strong> But the status of Massachusetts as a State cannot compensate for petitioners\u2019 failure to demonstrate injury in fact, causation, and redressability.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the Court actually applies the three-part test, it focuses, as did the dissent below, see 415 F. 3d 50, 64 (CADC 2005) (opinion of Tatel, J.), on the State\u2019s asserted loss of coastal land as the injury in fact. If petitioners rely on loss of land as the Article III injury, however, they must ground the rest of the standing analysis in that specific injury. That alleged injury must be \u201cconcrete and particularized,\u201d<\/strong> Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S., at 560, and \u201cdistinct and palpable,\u201d Allen, 468 U. S., at 751 (internal quotation marks omitted). Central to this concept of \u201cparticularized\u201d injury is the requirement that a plaintiff be affected in a \u201cpersonal and individual way,\u201d Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S., at 560, n. 1, and seek relief that \u201cdirectly and tangibly benefits him\u201d in a manner distinct from its impact on \u201cthe public at large,\u201d<\/strong> id., at 573\u2013574. Without \u201cparticularized injury, there can be no confidence of \u2018a real need to exercise the power of judicial review\u2019 or that relief can be framed \u2018no broader than required by the precise facts to which the court\u2019s ruling would be applied.\u2019 \u201d Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 508 (1975) (quoting Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208, 221\u2013222 (1974)).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The very concept of global warming seems inconsistent with this particularization requirement<\/strong>. Global warming is a phenomenon \u201charmful to humanity at large,\u201d 415 F. 3d, at 60 (Sentelle, J., dissenting in part and concurring in judgment), and the\u00a0redress petitioners seek<\/strong>\u00a0is focused no more on them than on the public generally\u2014 it is\u00a0literally to change the atmosphere around the world.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If petitioners\u2019 particularized injury is loss of coastal land<\/strong>, it is also that injury that must be \u201cactual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical,\u201d<\/strong> Defenders of Wildlife, supra, at 560 (internal quotation marks omitted), \u201creal and immediate,\u201d Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 102 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted), and \u201ccertainly impending,\u201d Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U. S. 149, 158 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As to \u201cactual\u201d injury, the Court observes that \u201cglobal sea levels rose somewhere between 10 and 20 centimeters over the 20th century as a result of global warming\u201d<\/strong> and that \u201c[t]hese rising seas have already begun to swallow Massachusetts\u2019 coastal land.\u201d<\/strong> Ante, at 19. But none of petitioners\u2019 declarations supports that connection.<\/strong> One declaration states that \u201ca rise in sea level due to climate change is occurring on the coast of Massachusetts, in the metropolitan Boston area,\u201d but there is no elaboration. Petitioners\u2019 Standing Appendix in No. 03\u20131361, etc. (CADC), p. 196 (Stdg. App.). And the declarant goes on to identify a \u201csignifican[t]\u201d non-global-warming cause of Boston\u2019s rising sea level: land subsidence.<\/strong> Id., at 197; see also id., at 216. Thus, aside from a single conclusory statement, there is nothing in petitioners\u2019 43 standing declarations and accompanying exhibits to support an inference of actual loss of Massachusetts coastal land from 20th century global sea level increases<\/strong>. It is pure conjecture.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court ignores the complexities of global warming and does so by now disregarding the \u201cparticularized\u201d injury it relied on in step one, and using the dire nature of global warming itself as a bootstrap for finding causation and redressability.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Petitioners are never able to trace their alleged injuries back through this complex web to the fractional amount of global emissions that might have been limited with EPA standards. In light of the bit-part domestic new motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions have played in what petitioners describe as a 150-year global phenomenon, and the myriad additional factors bearing on petitioners\u2019 alleged injury\u2014the loss of Massachusetts coastal land\u2014the connection is far too speculative to establish causation.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Justice Scalia\u2019s Dissenting Opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even on the Court\u2019s own terms, however, the same conclusion follows. As mentioned above, the Court gives EPA the option of determining that the science is too uncertain to allow it to form a \u201cjudgment\u201d<\/strong> as to whether greenhouse gases endanger public welfare. Attached to this option (on what basis is unclear) is an essay requirement: \u201cIf,\u201d the Court says, \u201cthe scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, EPA must say so.\u201d Ante, at 31. But EPA has said precisely that\u2014and at great length, based on information contained in a 2001 report by the National Research Council (NRC) entitled Climate Change Science:<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAs the NRC noted in its report, concentrations of [greenhouse gases (GHGs)] are increasing in the atmosphere as a result of human activities (pp. 9\u201312). It also noted that \u2018[a] diverse array of evidence points to a warming of global surface air temperatures\u2019 (p. 16). The report goes on to state, however, that \u2018[b]ecause of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents<\/strong> (and particularly aerosols), a [causal] linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established.<\/strong> The fact that the magnitude of the observed warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not constitute proof<\/strong> of one because the model simulations could be deficient in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale\u2019 (p. 17).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe NRC also observed that \u2018there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of [GHGs] and aerosols\u2019<\/strong> (p. 1). As a result of that uncertainty, the NRC cautioned that \u2018current estimate of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments<\/strong> (either upward or downward).\u2019 Id. It further advised that \u2018[r]educing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in current model predictions of global climate change will require major advances in understanding and modeling<\/strong> of both (1) the factors that determine atmospheric concentrations of [GHGs] and aerosols and (2) the so-called \u201cfeedbacks\u201d that determine the sensitivity of the climate system to a prescribed increase in [GHGs].\u2019 Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe science of climate change is extraordinarily complex and still evolving.<\/strong> Although there have been substantial advances in climate change science, there continue to be important uncertainties in our understanding of the factors that may affect future climate change and how it should be addressed. As the NRC explained, predicting future climate change necessarily involves a complex web of economic and physical factors including<\/strong>: Our ability to predict future global anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and aerosols; the fate of these emissions once they enter the atmosphere<\/strong> (e.g., what percentage are absorbed by vegetation or are taken up by the oceans); the impact of those emissions that remain<\/strong> in the atmosphere on the radiative properties of the atmosphere; changes in critically important climate feedbacks<\/strong> (e.g., changes in cloud cover and ocean circulation); changes in temperature characteristics (e.g., average temperatures, shifts in daytime and evening temperatures); changes in other climatic parameters<\/strong> (e.g., shifts in precipitation, storms); and ultimately the impact of such changes on human health and welfare (e.g., increases or decreases in agricultural productivity, human health impacts). The NRC noted, in particular, that \u2018[t]he understanding of the relationships between weather\/climate and human health is in its infancy and therefore the health consequences of climate change are poorly understood\u2019<\/strong> (p. 20). Substantial scientific uncertainties limit our ability to assess each of these factors and to separate out those changes resulting from natural variability from those that are directly the result of increases in anthropogenic GHGs.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cReducing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in current model predictions<\/strong> will require major advances in understanding and modeling of the factors that determine atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and the processes that determine the sensitivity of the climate system.\u201d 68 Fed. Reg. 52930.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I simply cannot conceive of what else the Court would like EPA to say.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Scalia laid the axe to the roots of this poisonous tree.\u00a0 Even the scientific source document relied on by the majority admits that claims of man- made warming are conjecture without certain evidence.\u00a0 This case does not prove CAGW despite it being repeatedly cited as though it did.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

2025 The Legal Landscape Has Shifted For EPA<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

But much has changed in the legal landscape<\/strong> in recent years that will give opponents to Zeldin\u2019s effort an uphill battle to fight<\/strong>. First<\/strong> is the changed make-up of the Supreme Court.<\/strong> When the Massachusetts v. EPA case was decided in 2007, the Court was evenly divided,<\/strong> consisting of four conservatives, four liberals, and Anthony Kennedy, a moderate who served as the Court\u2019s \u201cswing vote\u201d in many major decisions. Kennedy was the deciding vote in that case, siding with the four liberal justices.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But conservatives hold an overwhelming 6-3 majority on today\u2019s Supreme Court.<\/strong> While Chief Justice John Roberts and<\/strong> Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett have occasionally sided<\/strong> with the Court\u2019s three liberal justices in a handful of decisions, there is little reason to think that would happen<\/strong> in a reconsideration of the Massachusetts v. EPA case. That seems especially true for Justice Roberts, who wrote the dissenting opinion in the 2007 decision.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s <\/strong>2024 decision\u2002<\/strong><\/a>in the Loper Bright Industries v. EPA case could present another major challenge for Zeldin\u2019s opponents to overcome. In a 6-3 decision in that case, the Court reversed the longstanding Chevron Deference legal doctrine.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As I wrote at the time, [w]hen established in 1984 in a unanimous, 6-0 decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens, Chevron instructed federal courts to defer to the judgment of legal counsel for the regulatory agencies when such regulations were challenged via litigation. Since that time, agencies focused on extending their authority<\/strong> well outside the original intents of the governing statutes have relied on the doctrine to ensure they will not be overturned.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The existence of the Chevron deference<\/strong> has worked to ensure the judiciary branch of government has also been largely paralyzed to act decisively to review and overrule elements of the Biden agenda<\/strong> whenever the EPA, Bureau of Land Management or other agencies impose regulations that may lie outside the scope and intent of the governing statutes. In effect, this doctrine has served as a key enabler of the massive growth of what has come to be known as the US administrative state.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The question now becomes whether the current Supreme Court with its strong conservative majority will uphold its reasoning in Massachusetts v. EPA in the absence of the Chevron Deference.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bottom Line For Zeldin And EPA<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Opponents of the expansion of EPA air regulations<\/strong> by the Obama and Biden presidencies have long contended<\/strong> that the underpinnings for those actions \u2013 Massachusetts v. EPA and the 2009 endangerment finding \u2013 were a classic legal house of cards<\/strong> that would ultimately come falling down when the politics and makeup of the Supreme Court shifted.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump and Zeldin are betting that both factors are now in favor of these major actions at EPA. Only time, and an array of major court battles to come, will tell.<\/strong> <\/em> [Source: David Blackmon at Forbes<\/strong><\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Footnote:  <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Taking the sea level rise projected by Sea Change Boston, and through the magic of CAI (Computer-Aided Imagining), we can compare to tidal gauge observations at Boston:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Now that Trump\u2019s EPA is determined to reconsider its past GHG Endangerment Finding, it\u2019s important to understand how we got here.\u00a0 First of all, there was the EPA\u2019s theory basis for the finding<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":370539,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691833871,691829997,691818056,691833292,691833869,691818087,691830175,691833870],"class_list":["post-370528","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-cai-computer-aided-imagining","tag-carbon-dioxide-co","tag-climate-change","tag-epa-environmental-protection-agency","tag-ghg-endangerment-finding","tag-global-warming","tag-greenhouse-gases-ghgs","tag-little-ice-age-lia","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/00Climate-Change-Tree-Art-Concept-1536x1024-1.webp?fit=1536%2C1024&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1yog","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":426214,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=426214","url_meta":{"origin":370528,"position":0},"title":"Trump Administration Ends Obama-Era Climate Finding, Repeals Vehicle GHG Standards","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/14\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"On February 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Administrator Lee Zeldin and alongside President Trump, finalized a major rule that revokes the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, a landmark Obama-era determination that greenhouse gases (GHGs) like carbon dioxide endanger public health and welfare. This finding had served\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Biden and Obama administrations\"","block_context":{"text":"Biden and Obama administrations","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=biden-and-obama-administrations"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328-1.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328-1.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328-1.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328-1.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":425995,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425995","url_meta":{"origin":370528,"position":1},"title":"Trump and Zeldin Deliver Single Largest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/13\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"On February 12, 2026, President Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced what they described as the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history. This occurred during an event in the White House Roosevelt Room. The core of the action is the EPA's final rule repealing the 2009 Greenhouse\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"American dream\"","block_context":{"text":"American dream","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=american-dream"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0AQN0KhAmYkjSkAWpPLnH2R5K_gRWQqHTkycKyB7IWN58whr3XAQiPIsaYYmy-wd0-RKF3dLXpuzrDFKe5EgG8Fyoa5fyVLiEZ5zM6CotN7PsOLjZ3xujIDJ7zRDkhCXQ-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C723&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0AQN0KhAmYkjSkAWpPLnH2R5K_gRWQqHTkycKyB7IWN58whr3XAQiPIsaYYmy-wd0-RKF3dLXpuzrDFKe5EgG8Fyoa5fyVLiEZ5zM6CotN7PsOLjZ3xujIDJ7zRDkhCXQ-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C723&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0AQN0KhAmYkjSkAWpPLnH2R5K_gRWQqHTkycKyB7IWN58whr3XAQiPIsaYYmy-wd0-RKF3dLXpuzrDFKe5EgG8Fyoa5fyVLiEZ5zM6CotN7PsOLjZ3xujIDJ7zRDkhCXQ-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C723&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0AQN0KhAmYkjSkAWpPLnH2R5K_gRWQqHTkycKyB7IWN58whr3XAQiPIsaYYmy-wd0-RKF3dLXpuzrDFKe5EgG8Fyoa5fyVLiEZ5zM6CotN7PsOLjZ3xujIDJ7zRDkhCXQ-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C723&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0AQN0KhAmYkjSkAWpPLnH2R5K_gRWQqHTkycKyB7IWN58whr3XAQiPIsaYYmy-wd0-RKF3dLXpuzrDFKe5EgG8Fyoa5fyVLiEZ5zM6CotN7PsOLjZ3xujIDJ7zRDkhCXQ-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C723&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":425649,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425649","url_meta":{"origin":370528,"position":2},"title":"EPA Endangerment Finding Was\u00a0Pre-Cooked","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/11\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2009 Endangerment Finding which determined that greenhouse gases (GHGs) like CO\u2082 endanger public health and welfare was predetermined politically rather than based on open scientific deliberation.","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":427608,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=427608","url_meta":{"origin":370528,"position":3},"title":"Climate alarmists howl after EPA rescinds \u2018Endangerment Finding\u2019","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/23\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"The US Environmental Protection Agency has finally\u00a0rescinded the 2009 Endangerment Finding\u00a0(EF) \u2013 the Obama era EPA ruling that claimed carbon dioxide and other \u201cgreenhouse gas\u201d (GHG) emissions \u201cendanger\u201d human health and welfare. Within minutes, climate alarmists challenged it in court.","rel":"","context":"In \"2009 Endangerment Finding (EF)\"","block_context":{"text":"2009 Endangerment Finding (EF)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=2009-endangerment-finding-ef"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":427141,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=427141","url_meta":{"origin":370528,"position":4},"title":"EPA\u2019s elegant arguments for endangerment repeal","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/20\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"EPA\u2019s arguments for repealing the Obama endangerment finding are simple, clear, and strong. So, they have a likely chance of winning in the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), which is where the final decision will be made.","rel":"","context":"In \"automobiles\"","block_context":{"text":"automobiles","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=automobiles"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":400855,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=400855","url_meta":{"origin":370528,"position":5},"title":"What is the Scientific Threshold for GHG Endangerment?","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/08\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Today, I explain why the acceptance of just these claims provides a sufficient basis under the\u00a0U.S. Clean Air Act\u00a0(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\u00a0report\u00a0of the Department of Energy\u2019s Climate Working Group (DOE\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"2009 EPA Endangerment Finding\"","block_context":{"text":"2009 EPA Endangerment Finding","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=2009-epa-endangerment-finding"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQNz-3v_GUn7bhBqsq0byriNLYF6ycCo45QH7ELe2ZWCrgWn-ySePgmhDfB21nb3nn7qfa_7RgBKE8ObxFA7LNI8u44gTkbN1qUhL2K-YkoWfCG0psr_sRcVRJf8wA.jpeg?fit=1080%2C720&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQNz-3v_GUn7bhBqsq0byriNLYF6ycCo45QH7ELe2ZWCrgWn-ySePgmhDfB21nb3nn7qfa_7RgBKE8ObxFA7LNI8u44gTkbN1qUhL2K-YkoWfCG0psr_sRcVRJf8wA.jpeg?fit=1080%2C720&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQNz-3v_GUn7bhBqsq0byriNLYF6ycCo45QH7ELe2ZWCrgWn-ySePgmhDfB21nb3nn7qfa_7RgBKE8ObxFA7LNI8u44gTkbN1qUhL2K-YkoWfCG0psr_sRcVRJf8wA.jpeg?fit=1080%2C720&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQNz-3v_GUn7bhBqsq0byriNLYF6ycCo45QH7ELe2ZWCrgWn-ySePgmhDfB21nb3nn7qfa_7RgBKE8ObxFA7LNI8u44gTkbN1qUhL2K-YkoWfCG0psr_sRcVRJf8wA.jpeg?fit=1080%2C720&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQNz-3v_GUn7bhBqsq0byriNLYF6ycCo45QH7ELe2ZWCrgWn-ySePgmhDfB21nb3nn7qfa_7RgBKE8ObxFA7LNI8u44gTkbN1qUhL2K-YkoWfCG0psr_sRcVRJf8wA.jpeg?fit=1080%2C720&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/370528","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=370528"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/370528\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":370541,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/370528\/revisions\/370541"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/370539"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=370528"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=370528"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=370528"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}