In a landmark action, the Trump administration has decisively erased the challenge of climate change by using the presidential powers of "nuh-uh".

At issue is what’s known as the endangerment finding, a 2009 scientific conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to Americans’ health and welfare.

For nearly 17 years, the E.P.A. had relied on the bedrock finding to justify regulations that limit carbon dioxide, methane and other pollution from oil and gas wells, tailpipes, smokestacks and other sources that burn fossil fuels.

By repealing the endangerment finding, the United States is likely to add up to 18 billion metric tons of emissions to the atmosphere by 2055, according to the Environmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group. That is about three times the amount of climate pollution the country emitted last year.

I wished I was making it up but one of the argument is that CO2 is actually good, plants use it.

But on Fox Business on Wednesday, Doug Burgum, the interior secretary, revived a debunked myth to sum up how the Trump administration views carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.

“CO2 was never a pollutant,” he said. “When we breathe, we emit CO2. Plants need CO2 to survive and grow. They thrive with more CO2.”

While carbon dioxide can help plants grow, the extraordinarily high levels in the atmosphere are overwhelming natural processes and increasing the frequency and severity of drought, heat waves and other damaging events, according to scientists.

There is also the issue is that depending on landscape and crop other factors are more limiting than CO2, but that is entirely beside the point. It is pretty much the same argument against global warming by pointing out that winters exist.

After all, my fridge is cold, so what is everyone so afraid about? So please excuse me, while I go huff some asbestos in preparation for a refreshing sewage bath.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/12/climate/trump-epa-greenhouse-gases-climate-change.html?unlocked_article_code=1.LlA.9x5h.aUEJwaIwn1jf&smid=url-share

Clearly, the administration seeks to overwrite reality and, by extension, scientific consensus on many levels. This, obviously will have massive implications, especially as research is highly dependent on government funding.

So my broader question is really is there a way to maintain scientific integrity in such an environment?

26 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Clearly, the administration seeks to overwrite reality and, by extension, scientific consensus on many levels

They’re doing it elsewhere (e.g. health), so it’s not really a surprise

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

In a landmark action, the Trump administration has decisively erased the challenge of climate change by using the presidential powers of "nuh-uh".

I wished I was making it up but one of the argument is that CO2 is actually good, plants use it.

There is also the issue is that depending on landscape and crop other factors are more limiting than CO2, but that is entirely beside the point. It is pretty much the same argument against global warming by pointing out that winters exist.

After all, my fridge is cold, so what is everyone so afraid about? So please excuse me, while I go huff some asbestos in preparation for a refreshing sewage bath.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/12/climate/trump-epa-greenhouse-gases-climate-change.html?unlocked_article_code=1.LlA.9x5h.aUEJwaIwn1jf&smid=url-share

Clearly, the administration seeks to overwrite reality and, by extension, scientific consensus on many levels. This, obviously will have massive implications, especially as research is highly dependent on government funding.

So my broader question is really is there a way to maintain scientific integrity in such an environment?

I thought a lot of climate initiatives took place at state, not federal level, though. Will these be affected by this nonsense?

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

So my broader question is really is there a way to maintain scientific integrity in such an environment?

Given the POTUS' fondness for CO2, perhaps a nice gift could be pumping his office and suite full of it? I myself have heard it's an excellent sleep aid.

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

I thought a lot of climate initiatives took place at state, not federal level, though. Will these be affected by this nonsense?

Things like allowable tailpipe emissions are set by the EPA, which has federal regulatory authority. States are allowed to have stricter emission limits, and CA has done this often. But the EPA regs do not carve out exceptions for states to be less strict. Whatever Turnip does, some states will retain stricter regs. And since they are populous states like NY and CA that will still prod automakers to comply.

51 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Given the POTUS' fondness for CO2, perhaps a nice gift could be pumping his office and suite full of it? I myself have heard it's an excellent sleep aid

7 minutes ago, geordief said:

Unfortunately carbon dioxide is good for turnips and other vegetables. The Potus of All America might swell in His sleep and it might be impossible to extract Him from the room without unusual measures.

Edited Friday at 03:55 AM4 days by geordief

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

Given the POTUS' fondness for CO2, perhaps a nice gift could be pumping his office and suite full of it? I myself have heard it's an excellent sleep aid.

Things like allowable tailpipe emissions are set by the EPA, which has federal regulatory authority. States are allowed to have stricter emission limits, and CA has done this often. But the EPA regs do not carve out exceptions for states to be less strict. Whatever Turnip does, some states will retain stricter regs. And since they are populous states like NY and CA that will still prod automakers to comply.

So presumably measures to reduce CO2 emission will continue to be implemented in the more enlightened states at least. Trump can’t ban EVs, wind farms and solar arrays.

On 2/13/2026 at 2:52 AM, TheVat said:

Given the POTUS' fondness for CO2, perhaps a nice gift could be pumping his office and suite full of it? I myself have heard it's an excellent sleep aid.

Things like allowable tailpipe emissions are set by the EPA, which has federal regulatory authority. States are allowed to have stricter emission limits, and CA has done this often. But the EPA regs do not carve out exceptions for states to be less strict. Whatever Turnip does, some states will retain stricter regs. And since they are populous states like NY and CA that will still prod automakers to comply.

Here is a rather nice example of how US states can bypass Trump: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/16/gavin-newsom-a-loser-says-trump-california-green-energy-deal-uk

I find it significant the way so many US politicians have decided to become pro-active in building or maintaining bridges to the EU and the UK. The Munich security conference has been an eye-opener. So many Democrats pitched up, from Newsom to AOC. They are sending a message that this aberration squatting in the White House should be seen as just that.

I hope they are right and meanwhile it seems to me these contacts with individual states are an excellent stop-gap.

Edited 18 hours ago18 hr by exchemist