{"id":407613,"date":"2025-10-11T09:50:35","date_gmt":"2025-10-11T07:50:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=407613"},"modified":"2025-10-11T09:50:37","modified_gmt":"2025-10-11T07:50:37","slug":"trump-reloads-an-america-first-energy-agenda-while-reasserting-sound-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=407613","title":{"rendered":"Trump reloads an \u2018America First\u2019 energy agenda while reasserting sound science"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

From CFACT<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Kevin Mooney<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

For a good laugh, turn to page 42 of the report President Donald Trump\u2019s Energy Department released in July. On this page, the huge gulf between climate modeling and observed warming comes into sharp focus. The report includes a chart of all 36 climate models, as well as the warming that actually occurred from 1973 to 2022 in the U.S. Corn Belt. The big red bars represent what the models predicted for the twelve Midwestern states that make up the Corn Belt, while the tiny blue bar represents the observed amount of warming. Look for yourself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are not talking about some narrow disparity that could be explained away through subsequent studies and minor recalibrations. A chasm has emerged between what global warming alarmists have been telling us for years and what rigorous scientific study actually demonstrates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Corn Belt comparison is a particularly acute example of the flawed modeling exercises that have been in motion for years. It\u2019s also one that the Trump administration has brought to light thanks to its willingness to provide five independent scientists with a platform to probe the climate impact of greenhouse gas emissions. The scientists draw from expertise in physical science, economics, climate science, and academic research \u2014 and they have upset the climate apple cart by cutting right to the heart of what erroneously has been used to impose expensive regulations on the American economy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tear Down These Regulations!<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Donald Trump has already had his \u201ctear down this wall\u201d moment, although it may not become apparent for a few decades. That moment came on July 29, 2025, when Trump\u2019s Environmental Protection Agency announced it would begin the process to rescind the \u201cEndangerment Finding\u201d that sits at the heart of the climate agenda. By releasing the Energy Department\u2019s updated scientific report in tandem with the EPA\u2019s reversal of its prior rulemaking, the Trump administration has delivered a powerful one-two punch that will give added momentum to its \u201cAmerica First\u201d energy agenda. Bonner Cohen, a senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, is all on board with the Trump administration\u2019s strategy and gives special recognition to Chris Wright, the Energy Department secretary, and Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator. \u201cThe Endangerment Finding served as the keys to the kingdom that would deliver the power the alarmists sought,\u201d Cohen said in an interview.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The overreaching of climate activists has been a critical asset along the way toward unleashing American energy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When posterity looks back at this moment, it will have good cause to place the climate catastrophe predictions in the same category as some other historical doozies. A few that come to mind include Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev\u2019s line \u201cWe will bury you!\u201d; the belief that the Titanic was \u201cunsinkable\u201d; as well as the 1970s \u201cpeak oil\u201d predictions that said the world would run out of energy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But there\u2019s a critical difference when it comes to climate activists. Being sincere, full of conviction, and wrong at the same time is all part of the human condition. But cooking the books to achieve policy goals is another matter. The Climategate scandal of November 2009 exposed Big Science for all to see when emails leaked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain, revealing that researchers were willing to fabricate data and muzzle dissenting voices when Mother Nature did not cooperate with theories linking human activity to dangerous levels of global warming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since then, climate modeling has only taken on more water, as it has become clear that the faulty assumptions underlying the models continuously run counter to reality. The recent warming that began in the mid- to late twentieth century is much more gradual and modest, and is likely even beneficial for animals and plants, according to the Energy Department report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors refrain from completely lampooning the example of the Corn Belt modeling failures. Instead, they play it straight, as well they should.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Readers are told, \u201cThis example shows that users need to assess model projections carefully on a case-by-case basis since local biases might be sufficiently large that the models are simply not fit for purpose.\u201d They go on to conclude, \u201c[C]limate models show warming biases in many aspects of their reproduction of the past few decades.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those of us who identify as climate skeptics opposed to the overgrowth of the administrative state \u2014 which has become a major conduit for unconstitutional policy measures, many of them in the name of climate change \u2014 might want to grab a few cigars.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We could gather around the table at a local favorite (I\u2019ll pick Shelly\u2019s Back Room in D.C. for anyone paying attention)\u2014and put our own cheeky spin on what a well-credentialed group of scientists and researchers have produced for the benefit of the American people. Here\u2019s just a snippet of what might come out of that conversation. It\u2019s put more in laymen\u2019s terms, and with a little less D.C. beltway restraint:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The example of the modeling in the Corn Belt shows us that we are dealing with science fiction. \u201cUsers\u201d should know that these models are not designed to reflect reality, but are instead designed to advance a political agenda detached from science. We can go on to conclude that the ending is written before the modeling process even begins, so that climate activists can line their pockets with taxpayer-funded grants and collaborate with their government benefactors to impose burdensome regulations on those same taxpayers.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s the kind of language that\u2019s going to resonate with beleaguered taxpayers and ratepayers who are victimized by climate policies and the junk science that gives rise to those policies. But notice that this imagined rant  is not quite so humorous as it reaches the end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump\u2019s EPA estimates that climate regulations have cost the American people more than $1 trillion since 2009. That was the year President Barack Obama\u2019s administration issued the \u201cEndangerment Finding\u201d\u2014enabling the EPA to run wild under the Clean Air Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How did we get to this point?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA<\/em> ruled that greenhouse gases qualify as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Under the act, the EPA must regulate pollutants that it determines can \u201creasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.\u201d The Supreme Court left it to Obama\u2019s EPA to determine whether it wanted to expand its authority by controlling carbon dioxide emissions. Not a good idea. Progressive government figures rarely relinquish political power once they have it. This is precisely what the Obama administration did when it finalized the Endangerment Finding in 2009, therefore enabling the EPA to set limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, cars, and trucks, while also imposing methane fees on oil and gas companies. The Endangerment Finding enabled the Obama and Biden administrations to bypass Congress, all in the name of fighting what they called the \u201cclimate emergency.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But wait. Should carbon dioxide really be categorized as a pollutant, given how beneficial it is for animal and plant life? Here\u2019s the answer we get from our five scientists:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

While the definition of \u201cpollutant\u201d is ultimately a legal matter, there are important scientific distinctions between CO2 and the Criteria Air Contaminants. The latter are subject to regulatory control because they cause local problems depending on concentrations that include nuisances (odor, visibility), damage to plants, and, at high enough exposure levels, toxicological effects in humans. In contrast, CO2 is odorless, does not affect visibility and has no toxicological effects at ambient levels. It is a naturally occurring part of the atmosphere and a key component of human and plant respiration. CO2 is essential for plant photosynthesis and higher levels are beneficial for vegetation. In these aspects, CO2 is similar to water vapor.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In other words, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Back in our cigar bar, it would not be unreasonable for someone to chime in and describe the assault on carbon dioxide as \u201can assault on humanity itself.\u201d After all, bigger families with more children and expanding populations breathe out more carbon dioxide. But is this bad news for the planet? Is carbon dioxide the control knob for climate?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The United Nations\u2019 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, which dates back to 1988, published the series of reports most responsible for linking anthropogenic (human) emissions with potentially dangerous levels of global warming. But the team of scientists working with the Energy Department sees \u201cthree areas of substantive criticism\u201d that can be directed toward the IPCC: 1) \u201cinadequate assessment of natural climate variability\u201d; 2) \u201cinappropriate statistical methods\u201d; and the now-famous 3) \u201csubstantial discrepancies between models and observations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just to briefly discuss number one, there is growing evidence that Total Solar Irradiance\u2014the term used to describe the sunlight or energy that arrives at the Earth\u2014is much more significant than what was previously thought. The Energy Department report strongly suggests that the contribution of solar activity to the late twentieth-century warming has been greatly underestimated by the IPCC and others. The Heritage Foundation has also released a new report on behalf of another independent scientific team, a group called the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences, that takes a deep dive into solar influences. After identifying \u201cat least 27 different estimates of the changes in [Total Solar Irradiance] since 1850,\u201d the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences team concluded, according to Heritage, that \u201c[s]everal of these estimates suggest that global warming is \u2018mostly natural,\u2019 and several suggest that global warming is a mixture of natural and human-caused factors.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is a healthy debate raging on the causes of climate change that is finally out in the open. If anything, the evidence has shifted in a direction that says we are dealing mostly, but perhaps not entirely, with natural variability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cohen, the think tank energy policy analyst, told The American Spectator<\/em> on the current state of climate science:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

For years we were told that \u201cThe science is settled on climate change\u201d and that the only responsible thing to do was to clean up our act and go about the urgent business of reordering our society to meet the crisis at hand. The \u201cscience is settled\u201d claim was a rhetorical tool designed to shut off any and all debate on the matter. Pretending that models were science was part of the game. Models can be easily manipulated to produce the desired result, and a sufficiently terrified public could be counted on to go along with what their betters said needed to be done to confront the \u201ccrisis.\u201d The whole exercise had nothing to do with the climate; rather, the climate served as a pretext for a breathtaking power grab. The Endangerment Finding served as the keys to the kingdom that would deliver the power the alarmists sought.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Looking ahead, there could very well be challenges associated with climate change regardless of the main causes. But humanity will most certainly be in a better position to address those challenges if societies across the globe are wealthier and more economically robust. That scenario doesn\u2019t play out without having access to affordable and reliable energy sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Real Devil: Climate Change or Climate Change Policies?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Energy Department report warns us that \u201cmodels and experience suggest that CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and excessively aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our cigar smokers would like to paraphrase and cut to the chase. Apparently, \u201cWe should be concerned not so much with climate change,\u201d they say, \u201cbut with harmful climate change policies.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s the succinct, informal way of explaining what\u2019s at stake. Our crew at Shelly\u2019s is also wondering whether the policy damage has already been done, as the regulatory costs flowing out of the Endangerment Finding amount to about $1 trillion. But help is on the way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the same press release announcing its decision to uproot the Endangerment Finding, the EPA also said that if its reversal is finalized, the American people could expect to save $54 billion in annual costs through the repeal of greenhouse gas standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s an argument to be made that Trump\u2019s decision to move against the Endangerment Finding makes his entire presidency worthwhile just by itself. But there are others worth noting. Tom Pyle, the president of the American Energy Alliance, was pleased to see the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d take down what he calls \u201cmarket-distorting subsidies\u201d for wind and solar schemes. Pyle also credits Trump for withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe Paris Agreement was a bad deal from the start,\u201d Pyle said in a press release. \u201cIt committed the U.S. to unilateral economic disarmament by saddling the economy with unnecessary regulations and would have driven energy costs sky-high for American families.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Had Trump not been reelected to consecutive terms, we would not be talking now about revoking the Endangerment Finding or withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. The four-year interval enabled the president to get all the right personnel in place and to hit the ground running with the right strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Returning for a moment to the chart on page 42 of the report our man Wright put into circulation, my cigar club stumbles on a seemingly obvious mistake the climate critters made that skilled prevaricators typically avoid. Here\u2019s how the conversation goes down in Shelly\u2019s: \u201cSince the kids are back in school, that\u2019s a reminder for us about how to cheat without getting caught.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That observation comes from a club member asking not to be named. Intrigued, we all press on for an explanation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe old joke, and the old rule,\u201d he says, \u201cis that if you\u2019re going to copy off the smart kid sitting next to you, then be sure to get one or two answers deliberately wrong just for the purpose of appearances. After all, if you both get a hundred on the test, they\u2019re sure going to know who the real deal is between the two of you. But the climate goons didn\u2019t learn that lesson.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No\u2026 they sure didn\u2019t. Instead, they went for it all. They bent, manipulated, and reshaped data into all kinds of contortions to produce outcomes in line with their agenda. That much is obvious. These missteps give Team Trump a clear opening to secure lasting, transformative policy changes in the energy space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eliminating the Endangerment Finding remains a heavy lift, and there is complicated legal terrain. But the economics and the science are on our side. Let\u2019s also not forget that the complexion of the U.S. Supreme Court has changed in the right ways since Massachusetts v. EPA.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That calls for more cigars!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article originally appeared at\u00a0Restoration News<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0The American Spectator<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

For a good laugh, turn to page 42 of the report President Donald Trump\u2019s Energy Department released in July. On this page, the huge gulf between climate modeling and observed warming comes into sharp focus. The report includes a chart of all 36 climate models, as well as the warming that actually occurred from 1973 to 2022 in the U.S. Corn Belt. The big red bars represent what the models predicted for the twelve Midwestern states that make up the Corn Belt, while the tiny blue bar represents the observed amount of warming. Look for yourself.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":407618,"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":[691829997,691818056,691818153,691838709,691834686,691834729,691818087,691838710,691836121,691833487],"class_list":["post-407613","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-carbon-dioxide-co","tag-climate-change","tag-climate-models","tag-corn-belt","tag-department-of-energy-secretary-chris-wright","tag-environmental-protection-agency-administrator-lee-zeldin","tag-global-warming","tag-physical-science","tag-total-solar-irradiance","tag-us-president-donald-j-trump","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/AQM7Oyla0kuWK6ifzQT6V0hRx_r8kVkHFOMdSZ7vXlR4opTI0Dy6lssdaax5KkgiYJ31M2M9SNCnOnc__KjBKxwS_HJ1-_2vq4x1j7M_9vK2NcIuZHVAoBZVW3o_S3r74w3K3UGzM0aLb1UZkK2iNEmM-uy1LA.jpeg?fit=1280%2C1280&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1I2p","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":262703,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=262703","url_meta":{"origin":407613,"position":0},"title":"Epic Fail in America\u2019s Heartland: Climate Models Greatly Overestimate Corn Belt Warming","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/18\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"For the last decade I\u2019ve been providing long-range U.S. Corn Belt forecasts to a company that monitors and forecasts global grain production and market forces. My continuing theme has been, \u201cdon\u2019t believe gloom and doom forecasts for the future of the U.S. Corn Belt\u201d.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate models\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate models","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-models"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/00corn-belt-1.jpg?fit=1024%2C682&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/00corn-belt-1.jpg?fit=1024%2C682&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/00corn-belt-1.jpg?fit=1024%2C682&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/00corn-belt-1.jpg?fit=1024%2C682&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":264174,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=264174","url_meta":{"origin":407613,"position":1},"title":"PJ Media, Steve Milloy, and Dr. Roy Spencer Show Climate Models Overestimate Corn Belt Warming","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/27\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"A recent post at the news and opinion website PJ Media makes the point that the climate models used to promote green policies have overestimated the warming seen in the Corn Belt of the United States. This is true, and in fact the temperature data from the region shows a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate models\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate models","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-models"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0-CMIP6-climate-models.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0-CMIP6-climate-models.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0-CMIP6-climate-models.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0-CMIP6-climate-models.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0-CMIP6-climate-models.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":298638,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=298638","url_meta":{"origin":407613,"position":2},"title":"New Article on Climate Models vs. Observations","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/28\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Since commenter Nate objects to my inclusion of the Corn Belt graph (yes, it is a small area), please go to the actual article link at Heritage.org where 2 out of the 3 graphs I provide are for global average temperatures.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate models\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate models","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-models"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/00Screenshot-2024-01-28-091316.png?fit=1200%2C880&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/00Screenshot-2024-01-28-091316.png?fit=1200%2C880&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/00Screenshot-2024-01-28-091316.png?fit=1200%2C880&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/00Screenshot-2024-01-28-091316.png?fit=1200%2C880&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/00Screenshot-2024-01-28-091316.png?fit=1200%2C880&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":299201,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=299201","url_meta":{"origin":407613,"position":3},"title":"Spencer vs. Schmidt: My Response to RealClimate.org Criticisms","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/31\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"What follows is a response to Gavin Schmidt\u2019s blog post at RealClimate.org entitled\u00a0Spencer\u2019s Shenanigans\u00a0in which he takes issue with my claims in\u00a0Global Warming: Observations vs. Climate Models. As I read through his criticism, he seems to be trying too hard to refute my claims while using weak (and even non-existent)\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/001979-2023-Tsfc-trends-obs-vs-CMIP6-restricted-ECS-range-550x516-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/001979-2023-Tsfc-trends-obs-vs-CMIP6-restricted-ECS-range-550x516-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/001979-2023-Tsfc-trends-obs-vs-CMIP6-restricted-ECS-range-550x516-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":298481,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=298481","url_meta":{"origin":407613,"position":4},"title":"Hot Climate Models Not Fit For\u00a0Policymaking","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/27\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"While the climate system has warmed somewhat over the past five decades, the popular perception of a \u201cclimate crisis\u201d and resulting calls for economically significant regulation of CO2 emissions is not supported by science.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0climate-models-epic-fail.webp?fit=999%2C775&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0climate-models-epic-fail.webp?fit=999%2C775&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0climate-models-epic-fail.webp?fit=999%2C775&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0climate-models-epic-fail.webp?fit=999%2C775&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":421300,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=421300","url_meta":{"origin":407613,"position":5},"title":"Climate Policy 2025: Much Good News","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/14\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"The bad news was really good in the\u00a0New York Times\u00a0stocktaking, \u201cHow Trump\u2019s First Year Reshaped U.S. Energy and Climate Policy,\u201d subtitled \u201cThe sweeping changes have affected everything from coal plant retirements to international diplomacy over shipping emissions.\u201d Four Times reporters\u2014Brad Plumer,\u00a0Lisa Friedman,\u00a0Maxine Joselow,\u00a0and\u00a0Scott Dance-summarized the Trump Administration\u2019s ethics-driven course change.\u00a0","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\/01\/AQOknM8KjkhcOqhAwRTIAFaxoVcNF1uWkal4gwx76Fir975uG9Z16EC74asaNKEiZf9DSDx1bOxJVyU8M5djNGlD_C_gmZo-AkVx5JtKtCOPHFQXHrr36JYfbqb_Eihq-1.jpeg?fit=1159%2C747&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/AQOknM8KjkhcOqhAwRTIAFaxoVcNF1uWkal4gwx76Fir975uG9Z16EC74asaNKEiZf9DSDx1bOxJVyU8M5djNGlD_C_gmZo-AkVx5JtKtCOPHFQXHrr36JYfbqb_Eihq-1.jpeg?fit=1159%2C747&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/AQOknM8KjkhcOqhAwRTIAFaxoVcNF1uWkal4gwx76Fir975uG9Z16EC74asaNKEiZf9DSDx1bOxJVyU8M5djNGlD_C_gmZo-AkVx5JtKtCOPHFQXHrr36JYfbqb_Eihq-1.jpeg?fit=1159%2C747&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/AQOknM8KjkhcOqhAwRTIAFaxoVcNF1uWkal4gwx76Fir975uG9Z16EC74asaNKEiZf9DSDx1bOxJVyU8M5djNGlD_C_gmZo-AkVx5JtKtCOPHFQXHrr36JYfbqb_Eihq-1.jpeg?fit=1159%2C747&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/AQOknM8KjkhcOqhAwRTIAFaxoVcNF1uWkal4gwx76Fir975uG9Z16EC74asaNKEiZf9DSDx1bOxJVyU8M5djNGlD_C_gmZo-AkVx5JtKtCOPHFQXHrr36JYfbqb_Eihq-1.jpeg?fit=1159%2C747&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/407613","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=407613"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/407613\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":407620,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/407613\/revisions\/407620"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/407618"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=407613"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=407613"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=407613"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}