EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin is pushing back on rigid climate forecasts and urging a more measured approach that treats long-term projections as ranges, not ironclad outcomes. He warned against slapping the “science denier” label on people who question specific predictions and argued the EPA should update rules as new data comes in. The agency is re-examining major climate regulations, including the 2009 Endangerment Finding, as part of a broader rethink of federal greenhouse gas policy.
Speaking at the Great American State Fair, Zeldin highlighted the uncertainty built into decades-ahead models and the danger of presenting one number as destiny. “When someone looks at 2050 or 2100 and they say ‘This is exactly what the sea level is going to be. This is what the temperature is going to be,’ it doesn’t acknowledge correctly that there really is a range from the optimistic to the pessimistic,” he said, calling for humility in projections. That realism matters when regulations and economic choices hinge on scientific forecasts.
When pressed about Biden-era climate predictions he thinks have been overturned by new evidence, Zeldin opted not to name a single failed forecast but instead focused on process. He argued forecasts decades out should be seen as evolving estimates that are updated as methods and measurements improve. That point feeds directly into policy: rules based on out-of-date assumptions can lock in needless costs.
“Relying on present day facts rather than bad assumptions from the past is incredibly important,” Zeldin insisted, framing the debate around data rather than rhetoric. He made clear that evidence available today should guide regulation, not old worst-case scenarios stitched into law. That approach resonates with voters who want accountable agencies and clear justification for costly mandates.
“Every day that goes by we learn what the reality is at that point in the future, and we’re able to compare it to what the predictions are,” he added, underscoring the need for continuous reassessment. Zeldin suggested combining long-term modeling with real-world measurements to keep policy aligned with observed trends. That combination can temper panicked responses while still allowing sensible planning for genuine risks.
Zeldin also pushed back on the culture of instant scientific branding, arguing dissent is not the same as denial. “I don’t think it’s a good idea that if someone disagrees with someone else’s prediction of exactly what the temperature’s gonna be in the year 2100, that all of a sudden that person is just automatically some science denier,” Zeldin said, urging patience with alternate viewpoints. From a policy perspective, listening to competing analyses prevents ideological lock-in and encourages better outcomes.
“Hear them out,” he advised. “Maybe they have an opinion on some other study that they looked on, or other studies they looked on, because there really is a range of predictions, especially when you look further in the future.” That plea for open-mindedness is also political: conservatives have long argued that independent scrutiny of models and assumptions helps protect jobs and livelihoods from overreaching mandates. Zeldin framed the conversation as one about scientific method and fairness, not hostility to data.
The administration has signaled it will revisit a number of climate-related regulations, including the foundational 2009 Endangerment Finding that underpins many federal greenhouse gas rules. Since taking the helm at the EPA, Zeldin has launched reviews of regulations adopted under prior Democratic administrations, aiming to align regulatory burdens with current evidence. Those moves reflect a broader Republican stance favoring regular review, clearer cost-benefit analysis, and policies that adapt as new information arrives.
