{"id":252792,"date":"2023-04-14T12:07:37","date_gmt":"2023-04-14T10:07:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=252792"},"modified":"2023-04-14T12:07:40","modified_gmt":"2023-04-14T10:07:40","slug":"operation-hymn-sheet-identifying-points-on-which-skeptics-agree","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=252792","title":{"rendered":"Operation Hymn-Sheet: identifying points on which skeptics agree"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Operation Hymn-Sheet: identifying points on which skeptics agree<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The restless and eternal search for objective scientific truth is of its essence skeptical, not consensual (e.g., Aristotle, Refutations of the Sophists; <\/em>Popper: Logik der Forschung<\/em>). While the totalitarians responsible for originating and maintaining the climate-change scam and the consequent targeted economic destruction of the hated West all parrot the same Party Line, which they rebrand as an imagined \u201cconsensus\u201d of supposed \u201cexperts\u201d, skeptics do not usually sing from the same hymn-sheet, for we are no less skeptical of our own arguments than of the totalitarians\u2019 arguments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Welcome, then, to Operation Hymn-Sheet. The purpose is to identify a series of perhaps one or two dozen powerful and irrefutable climatological, economic or pragmatic propositions on which we can all or nearly all agree, so that in our interactions with governments hitherto deceived by the totalitarians we can speak as far as possible with one voice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

The following are the suggested criteria for including a proposition in our Hymn-Sheet:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First,<\/strong> each proposition should be of sufficient importance that, if it were generally known about and understood, it would materially influence the climate-change debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondly,<\/strong> each proposition should be clear enough and simple enough to be expressed, explained and justified in not more than 100 words. Complex theories have no place here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thirdly,<\/strong> for the sake of argument each proposition should be based on mainstream, midrange data and generally-accepted methods as far as possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fourthly,<\/strong> though each proposition should be simple and clear, it should be sufficiently rigorous to be unimpugnable by any legitimate method.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is where you come in, gentle reader. In comments, please put forward, explain and justify each proposition that should, in your opinion, stand part of Operation Hymn-Sheet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once the Hymn-Sheet has been compiled, we can all draw upon it in briefing our governments, so that they will no longer hear only the hysterical, endlessly-chanted mantras of the totalitarian enemies of the West and the host of useful idiots they have fooled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here are some sample propositions for the Hymn-Sheet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If it\u2019s consensus it\u2019s not science: if it\u2019s science it\u2019s not consensus<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The imagined \u201cconsensus\u201d that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic was fabricated. Police investigated and concluded that the report by Cook et al. (2013) of a 97.1% consensus constituted a \u201cdeception\u201d. In reality, Cook had marked only 0.5% of the 12,000 papers on his list as having stated that recent warming was chiefly anthropogenic. In any event, his consensus proposition does not say global warming is dangerous. Moreover, argument from consensus conflates the two shop-worn logical fallacies of mere headcount and of appeal to the imagined authority of supposed experts. Argument from consensus has no place in science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wind and solar power cannot get us anywhere near net zero<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unreliables are the currently-favored method of trying to reach net zero emissions. However, weather-dependent renewables must be backed up at all times by thermal generation capable of supplying the entire demand on a grid. Wind and solar are, therefore, a deadweight capital and operating cost. They also increase thermal-generation operating cost because spinning-reserve backup is inefficient. In any event, installing nameplate capacity of wind and solar power in excess of mean hourly grid demand cannot further reduce emissions: yet most Western nations\u2019 installed renewables\u2019 capacity already exceeds the demand limit.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Warming since 1990 is less than half the then midrange prediction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1990 IPCC presented four emissions scenarios. Scenario B predicted that the effect of annual emissions would remain constant at 1990 levels until 2025. Scenarios C-D predicted the effect would decline. Instead, emissions have increased by more than half since 1990. Thus Scenario A, the business-as-usual scenario, has proven closest to reality. It predicted 0.3 C\/decade midrange warming over the 21st<\/sup> century, but only 0.13 C\/decade, or 45% of the midrange prediction,<\/strong> has been measured in the 33 years since 1990.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even worldwide net zero would cut 2050 temperature by less than 0.1 C<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our influence on temperature has increased at 1\/30th<\/sup> unit\/year since 1990, with another 0.9 units by 2050 on business as usual. If all nations went straight to net zero by 2050, 0.45<\/u><\/strong> units<\/strong> would thus be prevented. Unit warming is the ratio 0.46 C per unit<\/u><\/strong> of 1.8 C midrange transient 21st<\/sup>-century doubled-CO2<\/sub> warming to 3.93 units midrange doubled-CO2<\/sub> forcing. Finally, adjust for the ratio 0.45 C\/C<\/u><\/strong> of 0.136 K\/decade real-world warming to the predicted 0.3 K\/decade warming since 1990. Then worldwide net zero would abate <0.463 <\/sup>C<\/u><\/strong>: that is, less than 0.1 C.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Individual nations would contribute infinitesimally to cutting warming<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since even worldwide net zero would reduce global warming by less than 1\/10 C, individual regions\u2019 or nations\u2019 contributions to that minuscule reduction in global temperature would be infinitesimal. Chinese net zero would prevent only 1\/30 C<\/strong> warming; Western net zero would also prevent only 1\/30 C;<\/strong> US net zero would prevent 1\/70 C;<\/strong> UK net zero would prevent 1\/1000 C;<\/strong> Chilean net zero would prevent 1\/10,000 C.<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Each $1 billion spent would prevent one ten-millionth C warming<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The UK\u2019s grid authority estimates that net-zeroing the grid will, on its own, cost $3.6 trillion. Electricity generation accounts for only a fifth of total UK generation. On this basis, UK net zero would cost $18 trillion<\/strong> and global net zero would cost $1800 trillion.<\/strong> McKinsey Consulting reckon the capital cost of global net zero at $275 trillion.<\/strong> Opex, at least twice capex, would raise the total cost to $900 trillion.<\/strong> Using the lesser estimate, each $1 billion <\/strong>spent on emissions abatement would prevent future warming of only one ten-millionth C<\/strong> \u2013 the worst value for money in history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Weather-related disasters are not increasing as predicted<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hurricanes, tropical cyclones, tropical storms and tornadoes show no trend in combined frequency, intensity or duration. The frequency and extent of forest fires and the frequency of record-breaking temperatures have declined since they peaked in the 1930s. The global land area under drought has decreased for several decades. Floods have not increased in frequency, intensity or duration. Global rainfall has risen beneficially: the world\u2019s longest record (UK Met Office), shows an uptrend of just 2 inches in 250 years. Sea level is rising at only 4 to 8 inches\/century<\/u>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

More <\/strong>CO<\/strong>2<\/sub><\/strong> and warmer weather have benefits<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Benefits of emitting CO2<\/sub> and warming the planet include recent planetary greening by >15% and increases in global crop yields by CO2<\/sub> fertilization; a 96% decline<\/strong> over a century in weather-related deaths; and a reduction in deaths from cold exceeding any increase in deaths from heat by an order of magnitude, both globally and in each region. In Africa, there are 40 times more deaths from cold than deaths from heat.<\/strong> Such benefits are widely unreported.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exaggerated predictions arose from an error of physics<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate feedbacks respond not only to 8 K natural and 1 K anthropogenic direct greenhouse warming but also to the dominant 260 K<\/strong> emission temperature. In 1850, final warming per 1 K direct warming was not 28 \/ 8 = 3.5 K\/K<\/u><\/strong> but (260<\/strong> + 28) \/ (260<\/strong> + 8) < 1.1 K\/K.<\/u><\/strong> But only a 10% increase in feedback strength since 1850 would hike 21st<\/sup>-century warming from 1.3 K to 3 K, since the difference between feedback strengths for 2 K and 5 K final warming is only 0.03 units per degree. Thus, feedback analysis cannot reliably predict warming.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Observational methods suggest only 1.4 C warming this century<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate scientists had thought they could omit the 260 K <\/strong>emission temperature in their feedback calculations because in control theory the base signal is usually omitted because it is tiny and the feedback-response signal is orders of magnitude larger. In climate, though, it is the other way about: the 260 K <\/strong>base signal exceeds the feedback-response signal by orders of magnitude. That is why feedback analysis cannot reliably predict warming. Yet IPCC (2021) mentions \u201cfeedback\u201d >2500 times.<\/strong> Warming since 1990 is only 1.4 C\/century equivalent. The energy-budget method, not dependent on feedback analysis, shows a similar value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Models\u2019 predictions of global warming are purely speculative<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

An elementary error of statistics in the interpretation of climate models\u2019 outputs led climatologists to assume that dangerous warming was very likely when, on correction, all predictions based on the outputs of models are proven to be no better than guesswork. Climate scientists had not realized that propagation of uncertainty in models running hourly time-steps over decades implies that any global-warming prediction falling between \u201312 and +12 C (as all do) is statistically insignificant and thus speculative.<\/strong> The paper by Dr Patrick Frank establishing this fact was published in 2019 and has not been refuted in any learned journal since.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Selectively targeting the West increases global emissions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate treaties are selectively targeted against the West on the specious pretext of purported \u201cclimate debt\u201d. Therefore, manufacturing \u2013 particularly if it is energy-intensive \u2013 is being priced out to chiefly Communist-led nations that are greatly expanding inexpensive and affordable coal-fired generation. The unintended consequence of the West\u2019s economic hara-kiri <\/em>is to transfer manufacturing to nations with far higher emissions per unit of production than the West, increasing global emissions<\/strong> \u2013 precisely the opposite of what was intended.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.o0O0o.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, gentle reader, it is your turn. What are the main points that every schoolboy would know about global warming if it were not for the outright censorship now inflicted upon nearly all media by the hate-filled, totalitarian far Left?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And have courage! The very fact that the Left now find it essential to spend so much time and effort on silencing all debate on climate (their number one topic) and on a growing range of other topics shows that the Left themselves know that if free speech were once again permitted they would lose the debate, and lose it comprehensively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recall that the execution by Robespierre of a dozen pious, habited nuns, who chanted hymns of praise and joy as the guillotine fell and the normally noisy crowd of sans-culottes <\/em>stood utterly silent, led to the execution of Robespierre himself scarcely two weeks later, ending the Reign of Terror. Perhaps, then, the climate nonsense \u2013 and, as the above instances show, it is obvious, arrant nonsense \u2013 is the last gasp of totalitarianism. Perhaps, as it dies, so will die with it the notion that free speech should be curtailed so that Communism may continue to advance, slaughter and destroy. Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit!<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

And have courage! The very fact that the Left now find it essential to spend so much time and effort on silencing all debate on climate (their number one topic) and on a growing range of other topics shows that the Left themselves know that if free speech were once again permitted they would lose the debate, and lose it comprehensively<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","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_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":[691818090,691818076,691818427,691818154,691818130,691818426],"class_list":["post-252792","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-climate-warning","tag-co2","tag-consensus","tag-net-zero","tag-renewables","tag-science","has-post-thumbnail","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-13Li","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":215115,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=215115","url_meta":{"origin":252792,"position":0},"title":"Global Warming Groupthink","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"08\/23\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"it became clear that many of\u00a0the most alarming and urgent fears about the effects of global warming were unfounded.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/image-985.png?fit=1023%2C433&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/image-985.png?fit=1023%2C433&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/image-985.png?fit=1023%2C433&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/image-985.png?fit=1023%2C433&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":332801,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=332801","url_meta":{"origin":252792,"position":1},"title":"\u2018Skeptical Science\u2019 Gets Comeuppance on Social Media","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/14\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cLet\u2019s see if Skeptical Science makes another appearance on LinkedIn. It is up to 458 follows. And see if this organization will simply prepare an entry on what \u2018skeptic\u2019 arguments are the best. With that middle ground, maybe we can have a real debate.\u201d","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\/06\/0-misinformation.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0-misinformation.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0-misinformation.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0-misinformation.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0-misinformation.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":286214,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=286214","url_meta":{"origin":252792,"position":2},"title":"Mark Lynas \u201899% Consensus\u2019 on Climate Change \u2013 Busted in Peer Review.","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"11\/02\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature? A study which claims over 99% consensus appears to be unsupported by the evidence, because neutral papers were misclassified, and skeptic papers were ignored. From Watts Up With That? From email:My name is Yonatan Dubi, I\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"99% Consensus\"","block_context":{"text":"99% Consensus","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=99-consensus"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/OIG.WHu4q98jGip.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/OIG.WHu4q98jGip.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/OIG.WHu4q98jGip.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/OIG.WHu4q98jGip.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":267633,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=267633","url_meta":{"origin":252792,"position":3},"title":"Another skeptical Nobel Laureate of Physics \u2014 \u201cClimate science has metastasized\u201d","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"07\/16\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201c\u2026climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience\u201d.","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\/07\/0in-50-anni-preso-serio-john-clauser-oggi-vinto-nobel-v3-624456.jpg?fit=1024%2C576&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0in-50-anni-preso-serio-john-clauser-oggi-vinto-nobel-v3-624456.jpg?fit=1024%2C576&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0in-50-anni-preso-serio-john-clauser-oggi-vinto-nobel-v3-624456.jpg?fit=1024%2C576&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0in-50-anni-preso-serio-john-clauser-oggi-vinto-nobel-v3-624456.jpg?fit=1024%2C576&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":248437,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=248437","url_meta":{"origin":252792,"position":4},"title":"Kryptonite for fake science preachers: 60% of voters agree Climate Change is a religion","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/18\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"From\u00a0CFACT By\u00a0Joanne Nova The expert science bubble has popped. New polling shows 60% of US voters agree that that Climate Change is a religion and has\u00a0nothing\u00a0to do with the climate. Even more shocking is that 47% of US voters\u00a0strongly agree.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It\u2019s an Exocet for the priests of Climate Science. Their\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-693.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-693.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-693.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-693.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-693.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":276549,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=276549","url_meta":{"origin":252792,"position":5},"title":"\u201c97% Consensus\u201d \u2014 What Consensus?","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"08\/31\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"If those promoting man-made climate fear need to resort to an obviously flawed consensus opinion, rather than argue the merits of the science, haven\u2019t they already conceded that their argument cannot be won through open debate?","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\/00yTTaXqVEGkU.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/00yTTaXqVEGkU.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/00yTTaXqVEGkU.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/00yTTaXqVEGkU.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/00yTTaXqVEGkU.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252792","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=252792"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252792\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":252799,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252792\/revisions\/252799"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=252792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=252792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=252792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}