{"id":367209,"date":"2025-02-22T10:55:21","date_gmt":"2025-02-22T09:55:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=367209"},"modified":"2025-02-22T10:55:23","modified_gmt":"2025-02-22T09:55:23","slug":"debunking-the-2023-hike-in-the-social-cost-of-carbon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=367209","title":{"rendered":"Debunking the 2023 hike in the Social Cost of Carbon"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

From Climate Etc.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

by Ross McKitrick<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have a new paper<\/a> out in the journal Nature Scientific Reports<\/em> in which I re-examine some empirical work regarding agricultural yield changes under CO2<\/sub>-induced climate warming. An influential 2017 study had argued that warming would cause large losses in agricultural outputs on a global scale, and this played a large role in an upward revision to the Biden Administration\u2019s Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) estimate, which drives regulatory decision in US climate rulemaking. I show that a lot of data had been left out of the statistical modeling, and once it is included there was no evidence of yield losses even out to 5 C warming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2023 a team of economists working for the Biden Administration concluded the SCC needed to be increased by a considerable amount. The higher the SCC, the costlier the regulatory burden that can be justified by the agency. This not only affected US regulations but Canada\u2019s as well since our own environment ministry adopted the new US values when justifying a sweeping set of new greenhouse gas regulations. I wrote an op-ed<\/a> about the SCC change in May 2023 in which I drew attention to the important role played by a revision to projected agricultural yield damages. While it is difficult to trace where, precisely, all the changes came from, I estimate about $50 of an approximately $100 increase in the 2030 value of the SCC (holding the discount rate constant) was attributable to the revised agricultural yield damage estimates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These revisions were attributed to estimates of crop yield losses from a 2017 paper<\/a> published in Nature Communications<\/em> by Frances Moore et al. called \u201cNew science of climate change impacts on agriculture implies higher social cost of carbon.\u201d I\u2019ll call that paper M17. I was familiar with this paper because Kevin Dayaratna and I had studied it while preparing a response to a comment<\/a> by Philip Meyer on a paper of ours on the SCC. I knew, for instance, that M17 used a data set originally developed for a 2014 paper<\/a> published in Nature Climate Change<\/em> by Andy Challinor et al. called \u201cA meta-analysis of crop yield under climate change and adaptation.\u201d I\u2019ll refer to that one as C14. But C14 and M17 had different implications about the impact of CO2<\/sub>-induced warming on crop yields. In the C14 model CO2<\/sub> fertilization offsets the damage from warming, whereas in M17 the combined effect is negative for most crops across most warming paths. So why the difference?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was not possible to tell simply by reading the papers. Neither one provided a detailed explanation of its regression analysis. M17, in particular, did not report its regression results nor was its model directly comparable to C14. So in 2023 I decided to get the data and try to replicate both sets of findings. While both papers said the data was available online at a website called http:\/\/www.ag-impacts.org<\/a> no such site currently exists, and the Wayback machine entries did not include any data. I emailed Moore to ask for her data, but she was at that time working for the Biden Administration and her university email was inactive. I then reached out to Challinor who replied promptly and sent me his data set.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The C14 Dataset<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The data was a compilation of results from many crop yield simulations done by other authors around the world. The file was an Excel spreadsheet with 1,722 rows each containing numerous variables drawn from the underlying studies including the crop type, study location, change in CO2<\/sub> level (dC), change in temperature (dT), change in precipitation (dP), change in yield (dY), whether adaptation was included, and various other details. It was immediately apparent that many of the dC entries were missing. In fact only half of the data set appeared usable for regression modeling, which Challinor confirmed had been the case. It was a straightforward matter to replicate the Challinor results since they were based on a simple linear regression. The number of usable data rows in the version I received was slightly different from that reported in C14 and my replication was not exact, but it was close enough.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The M17 regression model was much more ornate than C14 since they included all possible cross-product terms plus some additional temperature data Moore\u2019s coauthor Tom Hertel sent me. My coefficient estimates were similar to those reported in M17 but again not exact. I then used the M17 regression results to construct yield projections by crop type. I was able to compare my estimates to some unpublished calculations sent to me by Moore after she had finished her secondment in Washington. My replications were again not exact but pretty close so I was satisfied I was on the right track.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many of the differences between M17 and C14 came down to different choices in setting up the regression equation. C14 allowed the CO2<\/sub> fertilization effect to be linear as concentrations rose, whereas M17 imposed diminishing returns. In one version of my analysis I employed a flexible regression model that allowed the data to determine the response and it turned out to be close to linear, supporting the C14 version. But a referee later objected to my approach and while I didn\u2019t agree with the objections I removed that discussion since it wasn\u2019t necessary for the paper\u2019s main point. M17 also restricted the role of adaptation so that if no climate change happened (dC = dT = 0) adaptation alone could not boost yields. This was a reasonable assumption to impose since the model is attempting to track climate change-induced yield responses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But I was also curious about all those missing dC entries. I started checking the underlying source papers and found that in many cases either the number was available or could be recovered by consulting the documentation for the climate scenario being simulated. I recovered 360 missing dC entries which allowed me to do the regressions on a much larger data set. And that made a very large difference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reanalysis on the Expanded Dataset<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the following figure, showing yield changes versus warming for four crop types, the original data set is called \u201cC14\u201d. On the expanded data set (\u201cAll\u201d) the regression coefficients changed such that the yield simulations net of CO2<\/sub> fertilization showed no output losses, even out to 5 C warming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Even without doing the economic modeling I could therefore conclude that the M17 analysis did not justify any revision to the SCC estimate (except perhaps downwards).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I wrote up the results and submitted them to the journal in which C14 had been published: Nature Climate Change<\/em>. This was about a year ago (end of February 2024). NCC<\/em> declined even to review the paper, telling me \u201cwe are not persuaded that your findings will be of sufficiently immediate interest to the broader climate change community\u201d. And I totally agree\u2014I think my findings will be of no interest at all to the climate change community, since they don\u2019t advance the cause! NCC<\/em> suggested I submit my paper instead to Nature Scientific Reports<\/em> which I did.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NSR<\/em> had the paper reviewed and in early June I was told it was rejected. The reviewers argued that my equation connecting dC to dT was wrong and that my empirical analysis depended on choosing two key parameter values (baseline CO2<\/sub> and climate sensitivity) but if I varied these slightly my overall results would fall apart. However, while there was a typo in my dC-dT equation it didn\u2019t carry over to the code, and it was easy to show (since I submitted my data and code) that my results were invariant to the proposed parameter changes. So I decided to write the editor contesting the decision. A managing editor contacted me and said there is a formal appeal process and explained how to use it, but also cautioned me that it typically takes a long time to process an appeal request and they are rarely accepted. Nonetheless on a Friday in June I submitted all the documents. On Monday morning I was told my appeal had been accepted, and I was advised to submit a revised version of the manuscript, which I did right away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I then waited a long time. In October I queried the journal and was told they were reaching out to new reviewers but so far had not received any responses. I queried again in December and was told they had found new reviewers but had not received the reviews. But in early January the new reviews came through and they were supportive. The requested revisions were mainly editorial but the analysis and conclusions were upheld. From that point on publication was routine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whither the SCC?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course the topic has now been rendered somewhat moot by the Trump Administration\u2019s January 20 Executive Order<\/a> suspending the SCC on the grounds that it is \u201cmarked by logical deficiencies, a poor basis in empirical science, politicization, and the absence of a foundation in legislation.\u201d The EPA has until mid-March to issue guidance on how to address these problems including possibly scrapping the use of the SCC altogether. I have had no contact with people working on that undertaking but if any of them were to ask me I would tell them the following.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Measuring the SCC is not a scientific procedure akin to measuring the weight of an atom or the speed of light. The SCC is based on so-called Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) that contain countless assumptions and yield complicated \u201cif-then\u201d statements. If<\/em> the following assumptions are true, then<\/em> a ton of CO2<\/sub> emissions will cause $X worth of damage to the world. Whoever gets to pick the \u201cIf\u201d statements determines what the \u201cthen\u201d statement will be. And you can pick studies that guarantee any SCC value you like, although some are more plausible than others. Ultimately the SCC is determined by the political and social process of choosing who gets to write the report. The Biden-era SCC report was written by people whose antennae were up for any reasons whatsoever to boost the SCC estimate, and who ignored evidence pointing in the other direction. The report even warns the reader that they probably overlooked many reasons why the SCC is even higher than they have estimated because surely<\/em> there are many other damages associated with CO2<\/sub> that they have not yet thought of. (They claimed to have taken account of the benefits associated with CO2<\/sub> fertilization in one of their two IAMs, but they did so based on the M17 analysis. Which means, in effect, they didn\u2019t take it into account.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From an economic perspective, the dirty little secret of climate policy is that CO2<\/sub> emission reductions are so costly, even if the US government accepted the Biden SCC estimate very few climate policies would survive a cost-benefit test, and if the SCC were lowered to something more reasonable none of them would. So in that sense climate activists will get no joy from hanging onto the SCC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But beyond the question of what the magic SCC number should be, the bigger question is how you convince a bureaucracy not to rig the report-writing process. The 2013 Interagency Working Group SCC report boasted of consulting 11 separate government agencies, and the 2023 report additionally boasted of input from the National Academies of Science and outside expert reviewers. Yawn. The more agencies involved the less scrutiny a report gets. It is all but certain that no one checked any underlying data or undertook any replication work. And I know from experience in the IPCC and other bureaucratic processes that review comments going against a chapter author\u2019s biases are ignored or argued away, while comments confirming an author\u2019s biases are welcomed at face value. The scientific establishment has resisted all attempts to fix climate assessment processes because they always got to pick the authors. But now a very different team is going to do the picking. If the establishment grandees suddenly decide they don\u2019t like the process, they should have said something sooner.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

I have a\u00a0new paper\u00a0out in the journal\u00a0Nature Scientific Reports\u00a0in which I re-examine some empirical work regarding agricultural yield changes under CO2-induced climate warming. An influential 2017 study had argued that warming would cause large losses in agricultural outputs on a global scale, and this played a large role in an upward revision to the Biden Administration\u2019s Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) estimate, which drives regulatory decision in US climate rulemaking. I show that a lot of data had been left out of the statistical modeling, and once it is included there was no evidence of yield losses even out to 5 C warming.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":367214,"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":[691818336,691833472,691829997,691818056,691820949,691827068],"class_list":{"0":"post-367209","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-biden-administration","9":"tag-c14-dataset","10":"tag-carbon-dioxide-co","11":"tag-climate-change","12":"tag-co2-fertilization","13":"tag-social-cost-of-carbon-scc","15":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0Screenshot-2025-02-22-105426.png?fit=1282%2C717&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1xwJ","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":366674,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=366674","url_meta":{"origin":367209,"position":0},"title":"The Social Cost of Carbon: A Bureaucratic Boondoggle Exposed","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"18\/02\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Biden administration put in a lot hard at work inflating the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), using exaggerated agricultural damage estimates to justify sweeping climate policies. But in a new study, economist Ross McKitrick\u2014one of the sharpest minds in climate policy skepticism\u2014has taken apart the foundations of these inflated\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"bureaucratic fantasy\"","block_context":{"text":"bureaucratic fantasy","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=bureaucratic-fantasy"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0harvest-164458970-505d26b04f134939a829746343346ec8.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0harvest-164458970-505d26b04f134939a829746343346ec8.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0harvest-164458970-505d26b04f134939a829746343346ec8.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0harvest-164458970-505d26b04f134939a829746343346ec8.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0harvest-164458970-505d26b04f134939a829746343346ec8.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":371202,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=371202","url_meta":{"origin":367209,"position":1},"title":"Study Destroys Basis of EPA Climate Regulations","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"21\/03\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"For two decades, the public has been bombarded with dire warnings of an impending climate-induced agricultural apocalypse. The claim is that a climate warmed excessively by the\u00a0carbon dioxide\u00a0emissions of human activity will ravage the food supply and plunge humanity into famine and chaos.","rel":"","context":"In \"Biden Administration\"","block_context":{"text":"Biden Administration","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=biden-administration"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0Massive-global-crop-yield-variations-explained-by-climate-extremes.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0Massive-global-crop-yield-variations-explained-by-climate-extremes.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0Massive-global-crop-yield-variations-explained-by-climate-extremes.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0Massive-global-crop-yield-variations-explained-by-climate-extremes.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0Massive-global-crop-yield-variations-explained-by-climate-extremes.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":366804,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=366804","url_meta":{"origin":367209,"position":2},"title":"A Biased Anti-Warming, Anti-CO2 Model Fails to Account for Profoundly Positive Effects of Rising CO2","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"19\/02\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"In 2023 US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) activists dubiously raised the \u201csocial cost of carbon\u201d (SCC) five-fold due to unsupportable forecasts of agricultural deterioration and declining crop yields resulting from doubled CO2 and consequent climate warming.","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0Global_greening_map1.png?fit=1200%2C480&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0Global_greening_map1.png?fit=1200%2C480&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0Global_greening_map1.png?fit=1200%2C480&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0Global_greening_map1.png?fit=1200%2C480&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0Global_greening_map1.png?fit=1200%2C480&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":327530,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=327530","url_meta":{"origin":367209,"position":3},"title":"GREGORY WRIGHTSTONE: Scientific Report Pours Cold Water On Major Talking Point Of Climate Activists","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"08\/05\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The purveyors of climate doom will not tolerate the good news of our planet thriving because of modest warming and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, a recent scientific paper concludes that an optimistic vision for Earth and its inhabitants is nonetheless justified.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/010xp-protests-1-1-3cdb-videoSixteenByNine3000.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/010xp-protests-1-1-3cdb-videoSixteenByNine3000.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/010xp-protests-1-1-3cdb-videoSixteenByNine3000.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/010xp-protests-1-1-3cdb-videoSixteenByNine3000.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/010xp-protests-1-1-3cdb-videoSixteenByNine3000.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":377995,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=377995","url_meta":{"origin":367209,"position":4},"title":"Nature Paper Claims to Pin Liability for \u2018Climate Damages\u2019 on Oil Companies","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/05\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The drumbeat of climate litigation has grown louder in recent years, fuelled by activists and dubious science. In this crusade against major oil and gas companies, \u2018attribution science\u2019 has been a fast-growing field of climate research which is explicitly meant to serve legal ends. According to the\u00a0World Weather Attribution\u00a0initiative, \u201cUnlike\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Attribution studies\"","block_context":{"text":"Attribution studies","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=attribution-studies"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/04232373.jpg?fit=1200%2C788&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/04232373.jpg?fit=1200%2C788&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/04232373.jpg?fit=1200%2C788&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/04232373.jpg?fit=1200%2C788&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/04232373.jpg?fit=1200%2C788&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":385177,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=385177","url_meta":{"origin":367209,"position":5},"title":"To the Mainstream Media: Quit Lying About Crop Yields, They Are Increasing, Not in Decline","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"26\/06\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"A number of mainstream media outlets carried stories claiming that climate change threatens crop yields and production, among them The Hill, Yahoo News, CNN, and The Guardian. That claim is refuted by everything botany, agronomy, data on crop yields, and the general greening of the Earth tell us about the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/image-571.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/image-571.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/image-571.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/image-571.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/367209","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=367209"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/367209\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":367215,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/367209\/revisions\/367215"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/367214"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=367209"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=367209"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=367209"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}