{"id":253982,"date":"2023-04-21T17:40:21","date_gmt":"2023-04-21T15:40:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=253982"},"modified":"2023-04-21T17:40:32","modified_gmt":"2023-04-21T15:40:32","slug":"what-about-whataboutism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=253982","title":{"rendered":"What About Whataboutism?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

From Climate Scepticism<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

BY\u00a0JIT<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

In comments under his article How to destroy the claim that the west must cut CO<\/a><\/em>2<\/em><\/a><\/sub> emissions<\/a><\/em>, Robin draws our attention to an article in The Conversation<\/a>, claiming:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate change: multi-country media analysis shows scepticism of the basic science is dying out<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Well, maybe it is dying out, or maybe it is being wiped out. For there is a difference between changing your mind and not being willing\/allowed to speak your mind, I think you\u2019ll agree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article gets off on the wrong foot as far as I am concerned with its reckless use of the pejorative \u201cdenialism\u201d. It even has \u201cclimate change denial\u201d as one of its tags. The author, James Painter, describes how he and his team watched TV, scouring news coverage for any sign of climate scepticism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, they found some, although the spin they are putting on it is that the deniers have given up arguing that climate change is not real, happening now, and human-caused (note to Painter:\u00a0this<\/em>\u00a0denier has never denied that). Instead they\/we have switched to denying that the proposed actions to \u201ctackle\u201d climate change have any merit. The deniers argue that such actions will have marginal benefit and eye-watering costs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

With good reason in my estimation. And in particular they engage in \u201cwhataboutism\u201d by pointing to China and making the claim that, since China is refusing to join the decadent West on its self-destructive path, we ought to pull on the reins a little. In the realm of the climate enthusiasts, this rejoinder is considered a logical fallacy, which can therefore be summarily dismissed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

We found a wide variety of claims, but the most common concerned the high cost of taking action and \u201cwhataboutism\u201d (typically questioning the need to take action when other countries such as China were not doing enough).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In the source article<\/a> that Painter is promoting, this is said (quotes below are also from this paper or its SI):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The two main discourses on right-wing channels were economic cost (6 out of 11 programs\u201455%) and questioning the need to take action when other countries such as China were not doing enough (6 out of 11 programs\u201455%), often described colloquially as \u201cwhataboutism\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Don\u2019t get me started on \u201cright-wing\u201d channels. OK, do. In the UK, four channels were surveyed. Three in the \u201cmainstream\u201d \u2013 BBC, ITV, and Channel 4 \u2013 and one \u201cright-wing\u201d \u2013 GB News. There is apparently no such thing as a \u201cleft-wing\u201d broadcaster. In the article\u2019s SI<\/a>, of the mainstream channels, it is said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The three stations are regulated by Ofcom for impartiality.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

No such disclaimer is applied to GB News, a potentially misleading omission. This \u201cright-wing\u201d channel employed some guy called Farage and had some denialist organisation called the GWPF on one day:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

In March 2022 Farage called for a referendum on the UK\u2019s Net Zero Policy. In its first week, the channel gave space to groups exhibiting climate skepticism including representatives of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, who stressed the costs rather than the benefits of taking climate action.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Wow. On one rainy Tuesday, someone stressed the costs of climate action. How very farouche of them. How about every channel regularly discussing the costs AND benefits of climate action rather than ignoring the former and exaggerating the latter?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I could go on, but I won\u2019t. I will close this part of my diatribe by clipping out a frankly hilarious development in denialism \u2013 the denialism of silence:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

<\/a>It is also worth highlighting that Fox News unexpectedly displayed a relative absence of coverage [of IPCC AR6 WG1]. This finding is supported by other research, which suggests that other right-wing media outlets in the USA were unusually quiet on the report. Qualitative (interview) work would be needed to corroborate whether this \u201cdenialism by silence\u201d was an intentional editorial policy.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

LOL, as the young folk have it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyway, back to whataboutism. Enthusiasts do like to accuse sceptics of this, often puffing out their chests, having scored a telling rhetorical point. Unfortunately for them, \u201cwhataboutism\u201d is not always<\/em> a logical fallacy. Take the climate sceptics\u2019 favourite proposal\/whatabout pair:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWe should be doing more on climate change.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhat about China?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Is the rejoinder valid? This is an important question, since the sceptics\u2019 reference to China is typically labelled as whataboutism as an attempt to invalidate their argument without having to actually discuss it. The result sceptics fear is irrational policies crashing through with all opposition silenced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s another, similar couplet, proposal and whataboutism response:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWe should be doing more on workers\u2019 rights.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhat about the slavery of the Uyghurs in China?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Valid retort, or not valid?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, since we can do nothing about the Uyghurs, it sounds like the sceptic here is arguing that it is right that we should do nothing for our<\/em> workers\u2019 rights either. That is clearly nonsense, because we (as a nation) can only benefit from improved workers\u2019 rights as they apply to our workers. In other words, our actions benefit us in this example if they are good. Our<\/em> workers\u2019 rights can be discussed in isolation of the workers\u2019 rights of any other country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now back to the climate whataboutism. Here, the sceptic\u2019s rejoinder is valid \u2013 obviously so. This is because our action on climate does not\u00a0only<\/em>\u00a0benefit ourselves, but the\u00a0cost<\/em>\u00a0is all ours. Whatever (I think hardly measurable) climate benefit our individual action achieves, it will be spread across the surface of the globe. Thus China will benefit from our actions, and we will benefit from China\u2019s. (In fact, it\u2019s obvious that China will benefit more from our actions than we will!) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is therefore valid to demand either that similar actions to ours are taken globally, or that we reduce our own ambition to match that of the international community. If we take radical action to reduce a small part of humanity\u2019s carbon dioxide emissions, this will result in a tiny and probably too-small-to-measure climate benefit, which will nevertheless be distributed among all peoples, whether they are the subset suffering the concomitant pain of these actions or not. It is obviously only fair if we all move together to the same target at a similar pace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Taking a third example, whatabout local pollution, like phosphorus? Phosphorus is mined and used in fertilisers and then for one reason or another ends up polluting watercourses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWe should take action on phosphorus pollution in our rivers.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhat about China?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

In this case the criticism is not valid, because we benefit from our own actions<\/em> to reduce pollution locally. We both bear the cost, and reap the rewards, of our policy. Therefore, if the policy offers a net benefit, we should adopt it. The retort makes no sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps you are wondering, why didn\u2019t Jit use the example of CFCs? They spread generally, like CO2<\/sub>, and yet they were banned under the terms of the Montreal Protocol, so would our sceptic have been right in 1986 to respond to the proposal:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWe should take action on the ozone layer.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

With the whatabout:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWhat about China?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Well, yes: if<\/em> China was planning on greatly increasing its use of CFCs while the UK was planning on adopting the ban unilaterally. But even if that had<\/em> been the case, the sceptic\u2019s whataboutism would still have been weak here, because there are adequate replacements for refrigerants like freon, so that unilateral adoption by the UK would not have mortally wounded us. But China, like all countries, signed the Protocol<\/em>, and CFCs were banned, and the ozone hole disappeared, and Greenpeace members hung up their placards and took up gardening, or something.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words, it will always be legitimate to point out the slackers in a communal effort, no matter the scale. The closer to a \u201ctragedy of the commons\u201d situation we get, the more valid the whataboutism. At the other extreme, if we bear all the costs and reap all the benefits of a policy, whataboutism is not at all valid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, whataboutism is a valid criticism of policy under some conditions. To fail to see that takes some effort by the climate enthusiasts. Wielding the term as a pejorative feels to me to be an attempt to dismiss an argument with an arm-wave, to declare it not valid, and move on as if the criticism had never been made. I have the sense that for some folk, there is no possibility that a criticism of climate policy can ever <\/em>be a valid one. That does not make for good policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An entire branch of science seems to have sprung up, devoted to rubbishing the arguments of climate denialists by hook or by crook. One only has to skim through Painter et al\u2019s references to see that. One does wonder whether perhaps the denialologists could be doing something more useful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Do let me know in comments if my reasoning is faulty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Featured Image<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The featured image is what Dall.e came up with for \u201ctragedy of the commons.\u201d One might also see it as a portent about what life might be like in the UK in 2050 if we stay on the Net Zero course.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The closer to a \u201ctragedy of the commons\u201d situation we get, the more valid the whataboutism. At the other extreme, if we bear all the costs and reap all the benefits of a policy, whataboutism is not at all valid.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":253986,"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":[691818341,691818056,691818823,691818154,691818824],"class_list":{"0":"post-253982","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-china","9":"tag-climate-change","10":"tag-economic-cost","11":"tag-net-zero","12":"tag-ozone-layer","14":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0apocalypse.jpeg?fit=1680%2C1050&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-144u","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":256219,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=256219","url_meta":{"origin":253982,"position":0},"title":"Read It And Weep","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/05\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"If Impact Assessments relating to UK legislation are to mean anything, then some years after the passage of the legislation in question, Ministers should be charged with considering the impact of the legislation in terms of its Impact Assessment.","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\/05\/0Uk-Net-Zero-2-1024x640-1.webp?fit=1024%2C640&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0Uk-Net-Zero-2-1024x640-1.webp?fit=1024%2C640&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0Uk-Net-Zero-2-1024x640-1.webp?fit=1024%2C640&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0Uk-Net-Zero-2-1024x640-1.webp?fit=1024%2C640&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":303670,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=303670","url_meta":{"origin":253982,"position":1},"title":"A Climate Science Team Report on the Scientific Validity of EPA\u2019S 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"21\/02\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Unfortunately, this Supreme Court decision denied scrutiny to the one regulation in the U.S. that is not only the single most economically significant, but also the single most scientifically flawed, of all of the regulations on the Federal books.","rel":"","context":"In \"climate modeling\"","block_context":{"text":"climate modeling","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-modeling"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/010_Insights_in_Climate_Science_pillars.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/010_Insights_in_Climate_Science_pillars.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/010_Insights_in_Climate_Science_pillars.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/010_Insights_in_Climate_Science_pillars.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/010_Insights_in_Climate_Science_pillars.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":304022,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=304022","url_meta":{"origin":253982,"position":2},"title":"The CO2 Dilemma – Climate Change Roundtable #99","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"24\/02\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"On episode 99 of Climate Change Roundtable, The Heartland Institute\u2019s Anthony Watts, H. Sterling Burnett, and Linnea Lueken Examine this issue as well as look at two new reports that have just been released: 1. A Climate Science Team Report on the Scientific Validity of EPA\u2019S 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO2)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO2)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co2"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0Screenshot-2024-02-24-124246.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0Screenshot-2024-02-24-124246.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0Screenshot-2024-02-24-124246.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0Screenshot-2024-02-24-124246.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0Screenshot-2024-02-24-124246.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0Screenshot-2024-02-24-124246.png?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":351127,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=351127","url_meta":{"origin":253982,"position":3},"title":"Climate Litigation: The Dutch Case and a Pattern of Vexatious Lawsuits","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"13\/11\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"A recent Dutch court decision has highlighted yet another chapter in the ongoing saga of climate litigation. These lawsuits, often celebrated by environmental groups as heroic stands against alleged corporate or governmental indifference, more frequently reveal themselves to be little more than vexatious attempts to impose ideological agendas through the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"climate activism\"","block_context":{"text":"climate activism","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-activism"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/01622037641795-1.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/01622037641795-1.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/01622037641795-1.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/01622037641795-1.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/01622037641795-1.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":380921,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=380921","url_meta":{"origin":253982,"position":4},"title":"Climate Realism Gains Ground in Europe \u2013 Live from Budapest!","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"30\/05\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"In Episode #159 of The Heartland Institute\u2019s The Climate Realism Show, Anthony Watts, Linnea Lueken, H. Sterling Burnett, and Jim Lakely cover the rise of climate realism in Europe and the Crazy Climate News of the Week. That includes: an alarmist imploring us not to \u201cshatter the climate,\u201d climate clergy\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"big green agenda\"","block_context":{"text":"big green agenda","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=big-green-agenda"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0Screenshot-2025-05-30-171850.png?fit=1200%2C679&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0Screenshot-2025-05-30-171850.png?fit=1200%2C679&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0Screenshot-2025-05-30-171850.png?fit=1200%2C679&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0Screenshot-2025-05-30-171850.png?fit=1200%2C679&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0Screenshot-2025-05-30-171850.png?fit=1200%2C679&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":380677,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=380677","url_meta":{"origin":253982,"position":5},"title":"New Analysis: IPCC\u2019s Emissions-Based Climate Model Errors So Massive They Eliminate Predictive Validity","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"29\/05\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"A new evidence-based\u00a0study\u00a0provides compelling evidence that for decades the IPCC has been engaged \u201cadvocacy research,\u201d or the \u201cantiscientific practice of undertaking research designed to support a given hypothesis.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In \"antiscientific practice\"","block_context":{"text":"antiscientific practice","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=antiscientific-practice"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0climate-models-epic-fail-1.png?fit=1200%2C931&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0climate-models-epic-fail-1.png?fit=1200%2C931&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0climate-models-epic-fail-1.png?fit=1200%2C931&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0climate-models-epic-fail-1.png?fit=1200%2C931&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0climate-models-epic-fail-1.png?fit=1200%2C931&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253982","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=253982"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253982\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":253987,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253982\/revisions\/253987"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/253986"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=253982"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=253982"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=253982"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}