{"id":340658,"date":"2024-08-26T08:04:28","date_gmt":"2024-08-26T06:04:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=340658"},"modified":"2024-08-26T08:04:31","modified_gmt":"2024-08-26T06:04:31","slug":"being-properly-skeptical-of-expert-consensus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=340658","title":{"rendered":"Being Properly Skeptical of Expert\u00a0Consensus"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
Abstract word cloud for Scientific community with related tags and terms<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

From Science Matters <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Solvay conference 1927, probably the most intelligence ever photographed. 17 of the 29 attendees were or became Nobel Prize winners.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Miriam Solomon writes at  iai news Scientific consensus needs dissent. <\/strong><\/a> Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We place high epistemic value on expert opinion and when it reaches a consensus, we may view this as settled science. But, writes Miriam Solomon, we should not equate expert opinion with certainty.<\/strong> While expertise is a valuable guide to decision-making, experts can be prone to human error too. Laypeople can, and should, critically evaluate how expert consensus is reached.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

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

We live in an immense, complex world, and\u00a0frequently benefit<\/strong>\u00a0from guidance\u00a0from those with more information and experience<\/strong>\u2014people we regard as experts\u2014to make sense<\/strong>\u00a0of it. Along these lines, we often use\u00a0expert consensus as an indicator of what is known, and expert disagreement as an indicator of what is uncertain.<\/strong>\u00a0So, for example, earth scientist and historian\u00a0Naomi Oreskes appeals to<\/strong>\u00a0the record of\u00a0peer-reviewed scientific publications<\/strong>\u00a0on climate change to argue that the\u00a0public should listen to the expert consensus that there is anthropogenic climate change<\/strong>. Oreskes identified that\u00a0those who publicly disagree<\/strong>\u00a0with this consensus have not contributed to the peer-reviewed scientific literature on climate science, and in this way they are\u00a0not experts<\/strong>\u00a0with regard to the relevant subject matter, although they may have PhDs and even university positions in unrelated sciences.\u00a0<\/em>[Note that position ignores many expert climatologists who disagree, but who are dismissed as \u201cdeniers\u201d because they dissent.]<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Survey starting the narrative \u201c97% consensus of experts agree humans are causing global warming.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Oreskes dissuades us from taking such non-expert disagreement seriously<\/strong>, especially since she also finds that it is politically motivated. The appeal to expertise encourages us to trust those who know more than we do about a particular matter and invites us to pay attention to reliable markers of expertise, such as publication in relevant peer-refereed journals.\u00a0In traditional epistemological terms, it recommends deference to epistemic authority (or authorities)<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

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

However, even experts are fallible. Expert consensus
should not be equated with certainty or truth.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But experts are more likely to be correct than non-experts, and the agreement of experts with one another can provide additional evidence for the robustness of their conclusions.  Oreskes\u2019 approach implicitly relies on the trustability of the relevant experts, not only on their expertise<\/strong>. We need to know<\/strong> not only that experts are knowledgeable but that they are acting in the best interests of furthering knowledge.<\/strong> The integrity of science\u2014its commitment to norms such as openness of inquiry, responsiveness to criticism, disinterestedness, etc<\/strong>. (see Merton (1942) and Longino (1990))\u2014is vital for its trustability.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

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

Sometimes,\u00a0this trust can be eroded.<\/strong>\u00a0Philosopher of medicine Maya Goldenberg has explored what is needed for laypersons to build justified trust in\u00a0vaccine research,<\/strong>\u00a0mentioning concerns about\u00a0Big Pharma producing biased research<\/strong>\u00a0and concerns about the historical record of medical, scientific, and governmental communities\u2019 willingness to\u00a0use untested medical technologies on marginalized groups.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

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

When experts disagree<\/strong>\u2014a common occurrence in science\u2014deference to expertise yields conflicting results. Laypersons are apt to respond to such disagreements, such as which sorts of diets<\/strong> are best for long-term health, or which vaccines<\/strong> should be mandated and for whom, with statements such as \u201ceven the experts don\u2019t know.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Knowing this, experts are aware of the need for a public
face of consensus on matters they wish to influence<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

They have become savvy about disseminating any publicly relevant consensus<\/strong> that is achieved. This thinking is behind established institutions such as the United States\u2019 NIH Consensus Development Conference Program<\/strong> (1977-2013), which issued regular reports on new clinical interventions, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change<\/strong> (1988-present), which issues regular updates on climate science.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Forcing a consensus when the science is not there rarely works.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Deferring to the consensus of trustable experts is one of the best kinds of argument based on epistemic authority. It is certainly better than the Scholastic practice of referring to the writings of just one \u201cgreat man,\u201d such as Aristotle or Aquinas. Several experts coming to the same conclusion about a matter is usually more convincing than one expert<\/strong> coming to that conclusion. However<\/strong>, as many have pointed out, the strength of the argument depends on<\/strong>:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(1) the degree of independence of these experts from each other, and<\/strong><\/em>
(2) the individual and collective interests of these experts.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

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

Scientists, like the rest of us, come to their knowledge in social context and, generally speaking,\u00a0scientists are neither independent of each other nor completely interest-free<\/strong>. They are often\u00a0trained similarly<\/strong>\u2014by the same schools, people, and educational materials\u2014and feel\u00a0pressured towards group conformity<\/strong>\u00a0as well as\u00a0towards deference to uber-experts.<\/strong>\u00a0Scientists have individual biases, such as\u00a0confirmation bias<\/strong>, that can be magnified when one scientist influences another. There are\u00a0many well-known cases<\/strong>\u00a0in the history of science and medicine in which\u00a0expert consensus has turned out to be incorrect and harmful.<\/strong>\u00a0Some examples in medicine are the traditional practice of\u00a0blood-letting<\/strong>\u00a0as a general cure-all, the use of\u00a0surgery and antacids for stomach ulcers,<\/strong>\u00a0and the practice of\u00a0radical mastectomy<\/strong>\u00a0for early stage breast cancer.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

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

Thus, while deferring to the consensus of experts is often a good practice,<\/strong> it is defeasible: there are circumstances in which that deference is not ultimately justified.<\/strong> It is worth spelling out what those circumstances are. Here are some questions to ask<\/strong> of any purported expert consensus.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

Who agrees? Is there any dissent<\/strong>\u2014if so, is it between particular groups of experts (say, family medicine practitioners disagreeing with radiologists about the effectiveness of screening mammography) or between experts and non-experts?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2666  What do the dissenters say?<\/strong> It is necessary to get at least a little \u201cinto the weeds\u201d of dissent to decide whether or not dissenters are worth taking seriously.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2666  How long has there been agreement?<\/strong> If agreement is new, what brought it about? In particular, how much of a role did new evidence play?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2666\u00a0 If agreement is longstanding,\u00a0would counterevidence be sought,<\/strong>\u00a0noticed and responded to?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

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

These kinds of questions are\u00a0a check on the processes that led to consensus.<\/strong>\u00a0There will always be some social processes such as peer pressure and graduate school training that are unrelated to relevant evidence yet play a role in expert belief formation. This does not mean that we should distrust all consensus that has any sources in \u201cbias.\u201d That is too idealistic. Instead, we should look at the complete picture of\u00a0what played a role in consensus formation<\/strong>\u00a0and try to assess\u00a0whether new evidence had a deciding role.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

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

It is also worth reflecting that\u00a0consensus is not the general end goal of science.<\/strong>\u00a0Scientific communities tolerate\u2014even benefit from\u2014lack of consensus. Already in the nineteenth century, the philosopher\u00a0John Stuart Mill<\/strong>\u00a0put things especially well in On Liberty (1859) when he argued that\u00a0consensus is an obstacle to progress, rationality and truth because it eliminates points of view<\/strong>\u00a0that may turn out to be partially or wholly correct, or at least useful for criticism and consequent refinement of the correct view.<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Dissent<\/strong>\u00a0is strategically valuable when it\u00a0leads to<\/strong>\u00a0the distribution of\u00a0cognitive labour over a variety of perspectives, hypotheses, and methods.<\/strong>\u00a0While individual experts are often over-confident about their own views, this does little harm when it does not get in the way of other experts exploring alternatives. It is best to have the scientific community\u00a0pursue all promising lines of inquiry.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Achieving consensus on a scientific matter becomes important only when there is a need for cooperative communal action and there needs to be agreement on steps to take to achieve a policy goal, such as health or sustainability. Even in such cases, there need not be agreement on all issues. The publications of the\u00a0Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change<\/strong>\u00a0are quite clear that there is plenty of disagreement between scientists on some of the details of climate science. What is\u00a0emphasized<\/strong>\u00a0is that there is\u00a0sufficient consensus on basic matters to guide important policy decisions.\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

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

Expert consensus is an important, but not infallible, guide for laypeople and decision-makers. The\u00a0strength of a consensus depends on the independence of the experts involved and the processes that shaped their agreement.<\/strong>\u00a0While deference to experts is often justified, it should be accompanied by\u00a0critical scrutiny<\/strong>, particularly when consensus is used to guide public policy.\u00a0Dissent<\/strong>\u00a0within the scientific community remains\u00a0essential<\/strong>, not only\u00a0for advancing knowledge<\/strong>\u00a0but also\u00a0for ensuring that consensus,<\/strong>\u00a0when achieved,\u00a0is robust and reliable.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

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

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We place high epistemic value on expert opinion and when it reaches a consensus, we may view this as settled science. But, writes Miriam Solomon, we should not equate expert opinion with certainty. While expertise is a valuable guide to decision-making, experts can be prone to human error too. Laypeople can, and should, critically evaluate how expert consensus is reached.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":340692,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","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_feature_clip_id":0,"_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":[691818380,691827618,691830321,691818149],"class_list":["post-340658","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change","tag-naomi-oreskes","tag-peer-reviewed-scientific-publications","tag-scientific-consensus","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0Dollarphotoclub_48618306.jpg?fit=3459%2C2453&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1qCu","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":250210,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=250210","url_meta":{"origin":340658,"position":0},"title":"Shining Light on Science Education\u2019s Dark Age","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/29\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The science teachers\u2019 bureaucracy is driving climate education into an unquestioning adherence to unscientific methodology.","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-1250.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-1250.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-1250.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-1250.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-1250.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":301367,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=301367","url_meta":{"origin":340658,"position":1},"title":"Weaponizing \u2018The Science\u2019","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/11\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"If a thing, an idea, an opinion, or a consensus is\u00a0contemporary\u00a0is just means it\u00a0\u201cexists now\u201d.\u00a0 The fact that it could or does \u201cexist now\u201d means that it could have been different in the past and might be different in the future.\u00a0","rel":"","context":"In \"consensus\"","block_context":{"text":"consensus","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=consensus"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0spaceforce_1280p.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0spaceforce_1280p.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0spaceforce_1280p.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0spaceforce_1280p.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0spaceforce_1280p.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":288086,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=288086","url_meta":{"origin":340658,"position":2},"title":"A bad recipe for science","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"11\/18\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"From Climate Etc. by Judith Curry Politically-motivated manufacture of scientific consensus corrupts the scientific process and leads to poor policy decisions An essay with excerpts from my new book Climate Uncertainty and Risk. In the 21st\u00a0century, humankind is facing a myriad of complex societal problems that are characterized by deep\u2026","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\/11\/fdrzdpxbjrpy.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/fdrzdpxbjrpy.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/fdrzdpxbjrpy.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/fdrzdpxbjrpy.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/fdrzdpxbjrpy.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":276549,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=276549","url_meta":{"origin":340658,"position":3},"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":[]},{"id":387982,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=387982","url_meta":{"origin":340658,"position":4},"title":"\u201cHigh Priests of Consensus Panic: The NYT\u2019s Meltdown Over Scientific Skepticism\u201d","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"07\/10\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The New York Times is at it again\u2014clutching pearls and reaching for the fainting couch as the Trump administration dares to let a little oxygen into the musty, tightly sealed room of government climate \u201cconsensus.\u201d If the tone of their latest lament, \u201cTrump Hires Scientists Who Doubt the Consensus on\u2026","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\/2025\/07\/5839337e-edec-4399-8a92-1a599a731f97.png?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/5839337e-edec-4399-8a92-1a599a731f97.png?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/5839337e-edec-4399-8a92-1a599a731f97.png?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/5839337e-edec-4399-8a92-1a599a731f97.png?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":328934,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=328934","url_meta":{"origin":340658,"position":5},"title":"Many of the \u2018Climate Experts\u2019 Surveyed by the Guardian in Recent Propaganda Blitz Turn Out to be Emotionally-Unstable Hysterics","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/14\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The\u00a0Guardian\u00a0last week published its survey of \u2018climate experts\u2019. The results are a predictable mush of fire-and-brimstone predictions and emotional incontinence. This stunt may have convinced those already aligned to the newspaper\u2019s ideological agenda to redouble their characteristically shrill rhetoric, but encouraging scientists to speculate and emote about the future of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"1.5\u00baC target\"","block_context":{"text":"1.5\u00baC target","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=1-5oc-target"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/08SR.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/08SR.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/08SR.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/08SR.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/08SR.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/340658","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=340658"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/340658\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":340694,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/340658\/revisions\/340694"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/340692"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=340658"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=340658"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=340658"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}