…
By Jo Nova
Trump to throw Saurons ring into the volcano this week — soon CO2 will NOT be legally classed as pollution that endangers human life
Trump always wanted to cut the power of the “Climate Change Hoax” at the source, which was the 2009 Endangerment Finding. It is the excuse for Big Government to get itself into your car, house, air, steaks and factories while thieving from your wallet.
A spokesman at the EPA described this as “one of the most damaging decisions in modern history” so we know it hurts The Blob.
The Endangerment Finding was the 2009 legal determination that CO2 caused everything bad, and therefore government agencies had an obligation to protect the public from it, and companies had to track emissions, cars had to be purified, emissions had to be tracked and certified.
Trump to Repeal Landmark Climate Finding in Huge Regulatory Rollback
Meridith McGraw and Benoît Morenne, The Wall Street Journal
The Trump administration is planning this week to repeal the Obama-era scientific finding that serves as the legal basis for federal greenhouse-gas regulation, according to U.S. officials, in the most far-reaching rollback of U.S. climate policy to date.
The reversal targets the 2009 “endangerment finding,” which concluded that six greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. The finding provided the legal underpinning for the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate rules, which limited emissions from power plants and tightened fuel-economy standards for vehicles under the Clean Air Act.
“This amounts to the largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in an interview.
Officials said the rollback would equate to more than $1 trillion in regulation cuts, though they didn’t provide details on how they came up with the number. They said that rescinding the finding would result in an average per-vehicle cost savings of more than $2,400. Public health and environmental groups have said federal climate regulations help prevent hundreds of thousands of premature deaths each year.
Big-Government hellfire is tied to the Endangerment Finding. Like Sauron’s ring of power it was sacred, must not be questioned, binds all others, and centralizes control in the hands of a central authority (like the EPA). And like The One Ring of Middle Earth it would corrupt even the good hearted.
The immediate effect of this is said to be on cars. But there will be legal wrangling. Environmental groups will challenge the finding in court, dragging out the process for years. The Environmental Defence fund called the endangerment finding “a vital tool”. Eventually this opens the door to reducing rules in other areas like power plants, and oil and gas infrastructure.
One official estimated this would save a trillion dollars in regulatory costs — which also means a trillion dollars worth of dependent workers will need to find other jobs.
Thanks to Helen D and Climate Depot.
The carbon pollution mob will be in denial, again.
450
Saving the planet from CO2 is not the end, it’s the means. The carbon pollution mob will fight like fury for their Sauron’s ring.
350
“the Obama-era scientific finding …”
(Obama and Scientific)do not belong in the same sentence, paragraph, page or in fact anywhere together.
He was the most divisive, evil president America has ever had. Not even close.
260
The next few years will be a lucrative time for lawyers.
Hope is not a plan, but I hope a Republican with a
skeptical view of global warming wins the USA presidential
election of November 7, 2028.
430
Is there a cry ‘adVance”?
220
It’s about time and for the last 3 + decades the NON OECD countries have had a free ride, while our OECD countries have been penalised and controlled by left wing loonies.
We’re living in the safest period in Human history and extreme weather death rates have fallen by 98%, so why can’t we have real jobs and real wages again and boosted by real BASE-LOAD energy like Coal, Gas or Nuclear?
532
Next – suspend the law of gravity
584
Gravity … yet another unsettled science.
402
When I point out that EMR is unidirectional in time, people say that is not possible because it would require a hot object to be in communication with a cold object. But then they have no problem with the mass of say Jupiter communicating with the mass of the Sun so they stay in opposing orbit.
The electro-magnetic field communicates in the same was as the gravity field. In fact both communicate at 3e8m/s in a vacuum, which happens to be the same value as the inverse of the square root of magnetic permeability times electric permittivity of a vacuum.
So still lots to understand about gravity yet. Einstein may have got close but no cigar.
110
PF I know you hate real data, but China and the NON OECD countries have now increased their annual co2 emissions by 16 billion tons per year since Dr Hansen’s silly speech in Washington DC in 1988.
Tell us what you’d do about their soaring co2 emissions? Or do you still want to keep your head buried in the sand, again?
But I’ll leave you to your fantasy world and let you frolic with the fairies at the bottom of your garden.
530
A table function would be nice. I highlighted the important bit.
Year Emissions (Billion Tonnes / Gt) Status & Trend
2023 12.6 Gt Record High: Grew 4.7% due to post-pandemic recovery and low hydropower.
2024 ~12.6 – 12.7 Gt Plateau: Growth slowed significantly to ~0.8%, as clean energy began offsetting rising demand.
2025 ~12.5 – 12.6 Gt Potential Peak: Projected to fall by ~1% or remain flat.
137
As much as this data is interesting, it doesn’t counter the statement that the EPA endangerment was a farce, invented in a university that is unable to produce any data to support its claim.
461
The important bit is that my client CO2 is innocent of the charges laid against this harmless trace gas.
It might have an impact on Australian politics, but probably not.
211
https://rclutz.com/2026/02/10/epa-endangerment-finding-was-pre-cooked/
The Endangerment Findings required omitting the history of the Little Ice Age,the satellite data
showing a greening planet and the basic chemistry of co2.
100
There were Ferraris at the bottom of our garden, because we were corrupt.
Geoff S
10
“suspend the law of gravity”
Where would you like us to hang it?
Don’t keep us in suspense.
370
Maybe you’ve heard about a quote from Albert Einstein. Very relevant in today’s dystopian drivel…….
The exact wording escapes me but gist of it is remarkably relevant
“ there is genius and there is stupidity, the difference being that genius has it’s limits…”
370
I’m not sure why a mention of gravity has anything to do with the endangerment statement. Can you enlighten us as to exactly why you believe that the EPA endangerment finding should remain?
210
In Australia we believe in the Magic Pudding. A new CO2 ruling will not affect the promise of “Free Money”. The Trump’s come and go but real politicians will just keep spending their way to our oblivion to get elected.
120
Actually, there isn’t really a law of gravity. Einstein proved that gravity isn’t really a force and it’s actually the effect of warped space time that causes objects in space to move towards a point of equilibrium. Thus, rather than a law of gravity, it’s actually part of the law of relativity.
30
As printed on a few T-shirts:
“Apace-Time is not just “curved”; it is BENT”.
00
Hey Fitzy,
Your mates are predicting Gravity will end at 2.33am EST, on 13 August this year. It will last only 7 seconds but that will be enough to end all life on Earth as humans, buildings, cars, dogs, climate-protesters, and even the oceans will propel off the Earth surface at the speed of Earth’s rotation and then 7 seconds later, slam down back onto the surface – messy!
But don’t doubt this. It has all been proven by computer modelling of intersecting gravity waves in outer space. Done by the same people who model climate.
70
Let’s hope that Trump can see this through and some of the more intelligent countries now follow his example.
So we’re now living in the SAFEST world for Humans ever and yet our delusional donkeys want the OECD countries to WASTE TRILLIONs more $ on toxic, unreliable W & S forever and all for a guaranteed ZERO return?
Can anyone tell us what their problems are with our very recent Human FLOURISHING? That’s in just 0.1% of our existence since 1800 and the use of fossil fuels by the UK.
So what are their problems today?
Is it our record Life expectancy since 1800? From 28.5 years then to 74 years today.
Is it SLR since 1850s?
Is it Arctic or Antarctic Ice?
Is it the flourishing Polar bear numbers since the 1950s?
Is it the GBR coral increases since 1985?
Is it the GREENING of the Earth over the last 40 years?
Is it record crops and Human calories increases even though we now have 6.2 billion MORE people to feed since 1920?
Is it the flourishing Human population in poor Africa of over 1.5 billion today and life expectancy of 64 years?
Is it deaths from extreme weather events that have fallen by 98% since 1920.
Is it much lower strength cyclones over the last 200 years? See Dr Nott’s studies covering the last 6,000 years.
Is it the fact that SLs were much higher 4,000 years ago? See ABC Catalyst program?
Is it Coral islands where Dr Kench’s studies found 87% increased in size or have remained the same?
Is it Eemian SLs that were 6 metres higher than our Holocene SLs?
Or is it Eemian temps that were 8 c higher than today?
470
I love the analogy to the Ring of The lord of the Rings.
221
Hopefully Gollum Thunberg chases it into the fiery lava below Mount Doom…
80
CO2 as pollution? Who dreams up this whacky stuff: how about a dose of real $#!T ~
https://www.weatherwatch.co.nz/content/weekend-low-one-to-monitor-as-high-pressure-slips-away-for-a-time
Now with pollutionmap©️ to keep Wellingtonians up-to-date with the steaming pile of No.2s being pumped into the Cook Strait (hint: lack of infrastructure maintenance because we ship $billions overseas to the UN to ‘keep the planet clean’) then on out into the South Pacific Ocean where it’s OK because it’s outside the environment [h/t Clarke & Dawes].
Saturday 14 Feb possibly could might may be a re-run of 2023’s Valentine’s Day Storm, aka ex-TC Gabrielle, as a moist low aims for Gisborne & the East Cape; however, on the same day at the other end of the country, “snow to about 1800 metres” for the Southern Alps [always look both ways].
CO2 the miracle gas! Hot, cold, rain, snow, wind, calm, everyfink™️ imaginable. We could bottle it and sell it… socialist champagne anyone?
290
Crony Capitalists and Morons.
Without CO2, all life on earth ends. Calling the stuff of life a pollutant is absolutely insane. What’s next? H2O classified as a pollutant? O2 classified as a pollutant? It’s so dumb only an intellectual could think of it.
And of course, it based in ‘the science’, which in no way resembles science as understood by the pioneers who greatly advanced humanity’s understanding of the natural world through the scientific method. The fix was in from day one to declare CO2 a pollutant. They had no intention of conducting a fair scientific evaluation.
https://govoversight.org/the-evidence-is-in-endangerment-finding-was-pre-cooked/
180
What’s the Wellington equivalent to the famed Bondi Cigar.
30
“dunno”
30
Up north here we have the infamous Moon Fish: as for the capital’s bumbling Beehive bureaucrats, I’d suggest Slush Fund.
If they can’t fix the pipes, how are they gonna Save The Planet!
20
When does the full assault on effervescent adult beverages start?
And baking of leavened bread?
ALL beers, ciders, “sparkling” wines, etc are the way they are by virtue od the CO2 generated in their production.
Bread?
That heady, slightly sweet, aroma emanating from your local bakery is ethanol being literally “cooked out of the rising dough.The fermentation process also generates CO2; hence the “texture’ of “modern” bread. See also: Brioche, fluffy sponge cakes, etc.
So, as has long been noted, the “anti-CO2 caper has ALWAYS been a Luddite anti-civilization, “solution” latching onto a “problem”.
Just a basic DEATH CULT.
10
A recent peer-reviewed scientific report killed the narrative that ‘anthropogenic’ CO2 stays for thousands of years in the atmosphere. It is a lie. There’s no difference between CO2 and CO2.
.
[Please include a link to a study or “report” when referring to said study. This applies to all commenters. Thanks – Raquel.]
160
NASA has been spreading the yarn that CO2 stays up in the atmosphere for a thousand years, but more realistically most scientists accept 3 to 5 years Residence Time.
And yes, industrial CO2 is no different to any other.
81
This is the big lie.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NASA_CO2_Chart.jpg
20
R. Müller (2025), On the Residence Time of CO2 in the Atmosphere and the Carbon Mass Balance
https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202510/07
00
When I hear Leftists talk about “CO2 pollution” (although most don’t actually know what CO2 is, they often call it “carbon” pollution which is extremely annoying for the science community.
I wonder if they know what gas plants, cyanobacteria and phytoplankton utilise for photosynthesis? (Seriously.)
291
““carbon” pollution which is extremely annoying for the science community.”
Not only the science community, anyone that understands the difference. I have some exposure to young people, university students, high school students, I find it incomprehensible that these young un’s have such limited understanding of very BASIC chemistry. The simple fact that all life forms on earth are carbon based, the blank looks from people that think I’m a nutter. Simple stuff that I have taken for granted, like table salt is sodium chloride, that water is H2O etc. The simple building blocks that I thought were general knowledge, nope not a clue and they grow up to vote and move into politics!
280
And it is amusing y relate to “people” that “table / cooking” salt is composed of two elements, individually extremely harmful to the body; (a violently reactive “metal” and a seriously toxic gas).
The compound formed by these two is, along with a range of “interesting” compounds of other elements, is basically ESSENTIAL in the process of life itself. Take a peek at the importance of the presence and BALANCE of such materials in the body.
20
‘..which also means a trillion dollars worth of dependent workers will need to find other jobs.’ The steell industry is coming back, the car industry too, IA, … there are lots of opportunities, or maybe migrate to the greenest country in the world: North Korea.
210
The Endangerment Finding is correct. Atmospheric temperatures will continue to increase until net greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to zero. Multiple tipping points exist which will accelerate the increase in temperature. The Paleoclimatic record confirms runaway warming can occur which wipes out most life for millenial time periods. A reduction to zero net greenhouse emissions has to occur sometime this century. The scientific literature is unequivocal about this.
181
Yep, your cage really got rattled, eh.
Remember, the trend (the real one) is your friend.
NOT the “hockey stick” one, but.
270
Even if your last sentence was true, which it is not , that does not preclude further scientific endeavour, which may produce exactly the opposite finding.
Perhaps you believe that science is settled.
Holding such a belief has profound implications for credibility.
390
Simon,
Do you not get the message that many people distrust, from lack of evidence, thought projections that global warming will continue and that it is manmade.
Please look at pre-human eras when proxies show global warming alternates with global cooling, while CO2 also does its ups and downs in a different pattern. If you think the proxies are wrong, you are free to explain how.
Can you give us an estimate of how many times the long proxy data show end-of-earth events that earth survived? Geoff S
340
Word of the AGE for all the “Warmenistas”:
ENTROPY.
00
“The Paleoclimatic record confirms runaway warming can occur which wipes out most life for millenial time periods. ”
Based solely on dodgy models.
120
Fossils not models.
028
So the fossil report that the temperature in the late Jurassic was only 2℃ above current levels (from a few years ago) was only due to the CO2 level around 2700 p.p.m. (from O18 ratios in fossilised eggshells) was wrong?
140
You may need to point to a study or two that backs up these claims.
70
(Simon)
(Simon)
Yet no requirement for Simon to include links for these statements.
That’s two-tier policing, Raquel.
260
Well St. Jacinda of the Podium of Truth did say we were to have a two-tier society.
80
Ian,
You may observe that I wrote, “this applies to all commenters”. So not two-tier. It’s a prompt for everyone.
My suggestion is for the betterment of discussion. Also, I know the document Alex is referring to and it would enhance his comment to include the link. It’s not said to down play his comment or as a dare to back up the claim. It’s not policing.
I don’t need to post the suggestion every time someone refers to something without the link. In this case Alex’s comment is posted before Simon’s.
Sometimes I take the liberty of adding a link. But it’s an unnecessary use of my time, as is having to explain your miss take on my comment.
It’s better that commenters post a link to support what they say when they reference information. I’d be surprised if you don’t actually agree.
It’s not a requirement. It’s a request / suggestion.
Cheers, Raquel.
211
Raquel,
Strong support from me, if that matters.
Since WUWT began, in my comments I have tried to include not only links and references, but also data. This is what discourse between scientists in work situations is like in many cases. Of course, some comments did not lend themselves to a link so none was given. But such no-link comments tend to be opinion or belief or even insult, whose place on WUWT might be more entertaining but has less chance to advance understanding.
Here’s to more data as well as more links. Geoff S
20
Thank you Geoff.
20
Simon, refer to comment 4.4 above……..
50
Can you please provide links to a study that confirms there was runaway warming in the past. And if there was, what stopped that runaway, because the planet seems pretty benign at the moment. I view statements such as this that don’t supply any supporting data as pure alarmism, nothing more.
150
The most recent example is the Paleocene–Eocene thermal maximum (PETM):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_thermal_maximum
028
That article provided no evidence of a “runaway” temperature increase or causation by CO2. In fact, it showed that the temperature dropped back after the hot period. It just proved that the author did not know the cause of the temperature change.
270
Ah, Wikipedia, the internet’s infallible source of truth. Here’s a page listing examples of bias on that platform. Global Warming is 2.18.
https://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
50
“The scientific literature is unequivocal about this.”
Is that ‘The Science’, ‘My Science’, or ‘Your Science’. ??
100
‘The Paleoclimatic record confirms runaway warming can occur …’
Yes, but the warming is not caused by CO2.
50
So, when/if runaway warming occurs, what causes it to stop? Climate Police? Anti-matter? Climate termites? Wide-spread installation of mirrors?
50
‘ … what causes it to stop?’
Its not runaway global warming, we are at the tail end of the Holocene.
At some point in the not too distant future global cooling will become the norm. There are natural cycles of warming and cooling epochs, lasting hundreds of years, so we have to be patient.
Sudden Stratospheric Warming events appear to be involved?
20
So where is the unequivocal proof that the INCREASE in CO2, the alleged problem, is man made? I have never seen such a proof.
Rather in 1958 fossil fuel levels were measured directly by Radio(active) carbon dating at 2.03%+/-0.15%. After two world wars. And fossil fuel specific CO2 levels tiny. We can measure fossil fuel CO2 very easily as fossil fuel CO2 contains no radioactive C14. All other CO2 in equilibrium with the atmosphere is radioactive thanks to cosmic rays.
Neither have I seen any proof that humans or volcanoes or massive fires can change or have changed CO2 levels.
The presumption that fossil fuel CO2 alone, 53% sticks in the air forever while other CO2 goes into the ocean is quite absurd. Fossil fuel CO2 is chemically identical to all other CO2. And is in constant, very rapid equilibrium with the vast oceans which contain 98% of all CO2 gas, so much so that CO2 levels are the same from pole to pole within 1%.
Consider that annual fossil fuel CO2 has just reached 1% of atmospheric CO2 per year. What happens to the other 99% of atmospheric CO2 in equilibrium? Why should CO2 from one source alone be different?
It’s all science nonsense. And besides, you would think an idea like a particular source of CO2 is toxic to the planet would have to be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt before it was made law that fossil fuel CO2 alone was toxic?
161
Atmospheric temperatures will continue to increase until global cooling sets in.
Forget net zero, its irrelevant.
21
Simon:
Really not sure where you’re getting your so-called ‘Paleoclimatic record’ with ‘runaway warming’. I’ve read every page of Geologic Time Scale 2020, and it confirms that we are living in one of the coldest periods of Earth history.
You mentioned the PETM; according to GTS 2020, the available data all point to the temperature rising before the C.I.E. (carbon isotope excursion). Just as with the ice core paleoclimatic data, temperature changes precede carbon dioxide concentration changes; carbon dioxide cannot cause something under those circumstances. If you have proof otherwise, then please present it.
Need more contrary evidence to your assertion about ‘runaway warming’? Please check the Hirnantian Epoch. The best data available to us shows an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 4,000 ppm (roughly ten times todays’ value), though some argue it was easily higher than that (Berner and Kothavala, GEOCARB III). Yet, despite that much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we have the late Ordovician Ice Age (lasted roughly three million years, into the very earliest Silurian). Unless you want to call an ice age cooling ‘runaway warming’.
Still not convinced? OK, let us examine the Tonian, Cryogenian, and Ediacaran Periods:
Tonian (NeoProterozoic Era) 1,000 m.a. to 720 m.a.
Best available atmospheric data suggests carbon dioxide as 4 to 12 percent of the atmosphere; global climate generally warm
Cryogenian: 720 m.a. to 635.5 m.a.
Best available atmospheric data similar/same as Tonian; the prefix cryo means ‘cold’, as in the so-called “Snowball Earth” scenario; no evidence of ‘runaway warming’
Ediacaran: 635.5 m.a. to 538.8 m.a.
Best available atmospheric data suggest about 7,000 ppm carbon dioxide; climate generally warm (warmer than the Cryogenian, despite less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere), with the exception of the Gaskiers Glacial Episode (about 1 – 2 million years in duration); no evidence of ‘runaway warming’
The base of the Ediacaran is defined as the rapid collapse of the Marinoan ice sheets. The ice sheets collapsed, and then the carbon dioxide concentration dropped substantially. Would you care to explain how decreasing carbon dioxide concentration sustained warming?
There is an explanation; point of fact, it is quite simple. You are unlikely to accept it, however.
It’s based on science.
Just like all of the above discussion.
30
Simon your comment provides no information beyond opinion expressed in 6 statements. 6 claims that are unsupported therefore worthless and rejected per Hitchens Razor.
20
Don’t you ever tire of being wrong,
That past rapid warming events had no connection to CO2 levels.
LINK
This was addressed in a new published paper recently.
10
I wonder how long before Australia declares CO2 a pollutant.
130
Not now surely, after all, Minister Bowen has reinvented natural gas that was previously targeted as transition away from fossil fuels in Labor’s original Renewable Energy Target 32% Rudd-Gillard governments to now, Albanese Labor RET 82%, as their “transition fuel” for gas turbine generators.
Noting that this decision followed the “green hydrogen” political funding zero result because none is commercially viable or available, Snowy Hydro CEO upset the Minister by so advising based on a gas turbine generator plant project the Minister wanted fuelled by “green hydrogen” and was apparently upset when told that is mission impossible.
With coal fired power stations now being given operating life extension in NSW and QLD so far I wonder how much longer it will be before Federal Labor announce coal as the new transition reversal fuel, and supplementary nuclear power stations/plants?
230
Their “out”, will be that we need these new fangled AI centres and the cheap electricity that powers them. So, we’ll have to keep all those nasty coal generators active. Suddenly “unrreliable” coal will become “reliable” again. This will happen organically because some states may attract more AI centres than others. There will be be a big dose of FOMO amongst the Labor politicians and they will be all scrambling to get theses AI centres. Because, dont you know, AI is the future. Just like EV’s were and renewables. No child shall go without an AI data centre close by. 🙂
40
At least politicians seem to be valuing keeping the grid powered and the lights on.
Until last year, in the US, this was not always the case.
00
Rick will, if EV sales continue to shrink CO2 will be declared a pollutant within 12 months! After all they have to keep the public on edge!!
30
I MUST give this much MORE than a 10 vote.
Black-Out Bowen, are you awake AND paying attention?
180
One thing BOB is not paying. His Telstra phone bill of $62000.00 which the tax payers have to pay for his communication withtthe world’s global warming nutters who’re also members ofCOP!!!
160
he forgot to turn data roaming on…
00
Here’s the list of 50 failed doomsday predictions by the so called experts over the last 55 years and their score is still zero.
Again, why is it so?
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-eco-pocalyptic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50/
160
Not to forget our very own climate genius, Tim Flannel, who predicted ‘ that the rain that falls will not make it to the ground and even if it does, it won’t flow to dams and rivers.’
You’d have to be a particular kind of dill to stick your neck out like that.
210
“Public health and environmental groups have said federal climate regulations help prevent hundreds of thousands of premature deaths each year.”
The trillion dollars figure and the claimed annual saving of “hundreds of thousands of premature deaths” appears to be based on 2011 EPA reporting of the projected effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act – and mainly shows the health benefits of reducing PM2.5 (fine particulate) pollution in urban areas. Reduced Ozone pollution also contributes.
https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/benefits-and-costs-clean-air-act-1990-2020-second-prospective-study
Neither of these pollutants is on the GHG list.
I guess that the activist strategy of describing CO2 as ‘carbon pollution’ allows for the excuse of understandable error, or journalistic licence.
Environmental groups? Probably just lying.
150
I miss the days of environmental groups being concerned about … the environment.
All the environmental stuff has been subsumed by CO2 panic. The only environmental groups who give a crap about protecting the landscape and habitats anymore are local ones. All of the national groups are laser-focused on CO2 emissions reduction and everything else be damned. Sorry desert tortoises and Joshua trees, we’re going to destroy your habitat to build a solar farm to fight demon CO2. Tough luck. Sorry raptors and whales, we’ve got to build wind farms to do battle with CO2. If some of you must die in the fight, that’s a sacrifice we’re willing to make. So sad.
And even when the do give a crap about plants and animals, they go about it in a catastrophically stupid way. Like protecting the delta smelt and milkweeds by making it more difficult to fight forest fires (which kill way more useful plants/animals than a bait fish and an annoying weed).
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/palisades-fire-started-in-avoidance-area-where-firefighting-was-restricted-docs/ar-AA1Syeyp
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/putting-people-over-fish-stopping-radical-environmentalism-to-provide-water-to-southern-california/
140
This Donald Trump fellow is turning out to be a handy lad.
It is hard to understand his dislike by people with the sad medical condition of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
But then, there are many examples of similar personal delusion creating the madness of crowds.
The mobs protesting our streets because of a visiting head of a country.
The mobs buying inefficient electric cars because others say they should.
Those who believe in preferred religions with impossible events be it life after death or death to all unbelievers.
Wide use of pill popping including illegal drugs by people who think humans, unlike other animals, cannot survive without them.
Mobs who believe the ABC.
(This list could get very long. Disclosure.It includes me.)
Geoff S
280
FWIW – more on that
“Breaking: The Evidence is in: Endangerment Finding was Pre-cooked”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/02/09/the-evidence-is-in-endangerment-finding-was-pre-cooked/
60
FWIW – paywalled but you get the gist
“The Coming Squall”
“What will happen now that Trump is pulling out the linchpin of environmental overreach. If the Trump administration follows through and formally repeals the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding on carbon dioxide, brace yourself. Not for climate catastrophe, mind you, but for something far more predictable: a coordinated, emotional, and increasingly shrill response from climate activists, their allied NGOs, and a subset of science organizations that long ago traded skepticism for advocacy. The reaction will unfold in stages. First will come the wailing. Press releases will read like grief counseling…”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/02/10/the-coming-squall/
140
ABC will need to find an unreliable source, maybe from activists where the protest against Israel visit letter names published was from, and most made up silly names or controversial long deceased people names and living people who gave no permission?
60
I declare that the evidence is wrong and that my opinion is right.
125
You’ll be arguing that specifically from the first person in a minute.
Evidence. The dept of Energy critical review.
https://www.energy.gov/topics/climate
(Ok. There are claims of over 100 errors or lies. But that number is grossly exaggerated by tallying up the feedback to the report, which include multiple comments on the same aspect and are generally opinion based.)
Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere does not significantly increase temperatures. More CO2 has a diminished effect. The amount of measured warming is greater than the capability of CO2.
https://co2coalition.org/publications/saturation-graphics/
130
“Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere”
My science tells me this is impossible. Of total CO2, annual exhaust gases are only 1% of atmospheric CO2. And atmospheric CO2 is only 2% of ocean CO2. So the annual increase in CO2 is a tiny 0.02%.
Yes, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, up 50% from 1750. But this cannot be from fossil fuel. It doesn’t add up. The logical explanation is that slight warming of our soda water oceans releases slightly more CO2. There is no evidence that the extra 50% is caused by burning fossil fuels. Direct measurement shows that of fossil fuel CO2 is only 2.0%. I am amazed no one understands this. You can disprove Al Gore’s mad idea with this one number.
120
Even if we accepted that some of the ’emissions’ stayed in the air, it doesn’t add up. Fossil fuel adds 1% per year. But the growth in atmospheric CO2 is only 0.4%. So half stays in the air forever and half goes into the ocean. Why? And why doesn’t the other half go into the ocean next year? This speculation is not science, it’s utterly illogical. Absorption should be a self limiting geometric progression, not just addition. It’s as if the rational science and mathematics of the scientific enlightenment did not exist. Only an innumerate lawyer would accept such a story. Or Al Gore.
90
It’s true. Your science does tell you this. Thanks for giving us the source.
29
Usual nonsense. Physics, chemistry, mathematics. The whole point is that we have laws based on zero proof. Just the voice of authorities like Al Gore and Tim Flannery. Innumerates with degrees in politics and English respectively. Science by essay.
You don’t need them, just a belief in the impossible.
No part of man made CO2 driven rapid catastrophic Global Warming has ever been proven. And without any proof, there is zero endangerment.
121
Adam Savage of Mythbusters. Are you plagariasing Adam Savage now leafy?
41
Good morning, everyone
The satellites say Australia is nett negative, we should have sat this one out.Imagine if all the snowy 2 people had been employed instead on roads, dams and water treatment plants. Australia could be green from coast to coast. They would not even have had to learn to code.
Trump is basically saying, there never was a scientific case. I believe that to be true.. therefore it has been corruption throughout. our problem has always been our politicians. Al Gore has always had a totally Jimmy Swaggart Persona. More fool anyone who listens to either
BUT
Today is a little warm but beautiful.Enjoy.
110
It was never about science. It was always about empowering the Blob.
111
It’s all about the cash. Like the UN’s demand for $150Bn a year CO2 tax on bunker all, all the world’s shipping. These are people railing against Trump’s reasonable tariffs and impose their own. And then the other $100Bn for the Climate Fund. More like wages for 80,000 people, many on ridiculous all expenses paid jobs. The first IPCC chairman boasted that he flew 360,000km a year, 1,000km a day while telling everyone else to walk.
80
On the one hand, the wonderful idiocy of the American “Justice” system will be on public display as the left contrives
to once again convince us that green is good, and we just don’t understand. On the other hand, in a vast number of tiny corners,
and on a few giant hills, deregulation will make companies more efficient, and the facts about climate change a fait accomli.
50
Man made climate change or AGW was/ is an American disease , no doubt. The major proponents of this false science have mostly been American. The knock on effect is that it has affected most other countries as well, including Australia. The CO2 endangerment legislation was the viral infection equivalent of having visual flu symptoms and then going to a crowded shopping centre.
20
Now that President Trump has nixed the Endangerment Finding for CO₂ the climate Gollums of Mt Doomloop will have to stop being precious about our carbon dioxide.
30
Has NASA , etc ,dog walked him through the science ?, does he care ?.
15
No need.
AGW is unsupported by science. And observations.
70
Oh good, a link to reviewed evidence please.
06
Fossil fuel CO2 at 2.03+/-0.15% in 1958 Mankind has not changed and cannot change CO2 levels. CO2 has a vapour pressure of the 98% which is dissolved in the vast oceans of this water world. The atmosphere is tiny, 1/350th of the oceans, 1/1400th of the heat capacity. Fish breathe too. And phytoplankton produce more O2 than all the forests. Even the slightest ocean surface warming will increase CO2. The idea that mankind has substantially changed atmospheric CO2 is opportunistic fantasy, unsupported by any proof. And proof is required before laws are written.
90
TdeF; All correct, except for your last sentence — laws are often disconnected from proof.
10
Until AGW has been proven to exist, and shown to be the cause of the current slight warming in recent decades, there is nothing to answer.
50
You are either trolling , or displaying ignorance of the scientific method.
Or both.
60
Observation suggests that the recent spike in global warming was caused by the Hunga Tonga eruption.
Now the planet is cooling and CO2 cannot stop the slide.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2026_v6.1_20x9-scaled.jpg
21
That’s it then.
We’re all going to DIE!
Bwah Ha Ha Ha!
40
Are we supposed to clap if a man decides not to jump off a cliff without a parachute?
Are we supposed to stop the political lemmings throwing themselves off the cliff? Or applaud those who decide at the last minute they prefer the sanity of staying on terra firma?
20
We watched President Trump on YouTube announce the repeal of the EPA endangerment finding with Lee Zeldin on Friday 13th February 2026.
Big day for US. When will Australia follow in principle?
Geoff S
20