{"id":381234,"date":"2025-06-03T16:20:34","date_gmt":"2025-06-03T14:20:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=381234"},"modified":"2025-06-03T16:20:36","modified_gmt":"2025-06-03T14:20:36","slug":"mckibbens-math-misstep-exposing-alarmisms-historic-innumeracy-in-rolling-stone","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=381234","title":{"rendered":"McKibben\u2019s Math Misstep: Exposing Alarmism\u2019s Historic Innumeracy in Rolling Stone"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
ChatGPT<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

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

By Joe Duarte<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate activism has a long history of innumeracy and gaps in baseline scientific knowledge (ask an activist how much warming is projected from now to 2100 in a moderate IPCC scenario \u2013 the flagship warming phenomenon). Some years ago, I came upon something so stupid that it paralyzed me. It locked my brain when I tried to write about it, and I let it sit for years like a Horcrux I dare not touch. Just knowing that it was out there bothered me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s the opening paragraph of a 2012 Rolling Stone<\/em> article<\/a> by Bill McKibben \u2013 \u201cGlobal Warming\u2019s Terrifying New Math\u201d. It\u2019s a remarkable artifact that I\u2019ve come to use as a test of applied intelligence and reading ability. Only one person has ever passed, and every climate scientist I\u2019ve tried has failed, including Gavin Schmidt and Katharine Hayhoe:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven\u2019t convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change<\/a>: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere \u2013 the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The final, bolded clause is the test. Focus on his claim \u2013 the 327th consecutive month that the temperature of the globe exceeded the 20th-century average, on which he performs some sort of probability calculation. (From now on, I\u2019ll abbreviate the 20th-century average as the 20C average, not to be confused with the actual value, which was 13.9 \u00b0C.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pause here and ponder his sentence. Do you understand what he\u2019s saying? What does he mean by his \u201codds\u201d claim? Is his statement valid? Is it true? What do you need to know to evaluate it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Take your time, come back tomorrow, or keep reading as you wish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You might\u2019ve noticed his error in calling 3.7 \u00d7 10\u207b\u2079\u2079 a large number (and implicitly an integer). It\u2019s an infinitesimal number, a fractional decimal that starts with 0.00000\u2026 That\u2019s not the core problem, so set that aside. (Note that Rolling Stone<\/em> hasn\u2019t corrected this obvious error in 13 years.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Focus on his core claim \u2014 the 327th consecutive month that the temperature of the globe exceeded the 20C average, on which he performs some sort of probability calculation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s clarify that his span of months covers 27\u00bc years, running from March, 1985 through May, 2012.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He\u2019s saying that this span was warmer than the 20C average. Clear?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s odd, since of course it was<\/em>. That\u2019s what warming means. If the earth warmed throughout the 20th century, then of course the late 20th and early 21st centuries will be warmer than the 20C average, unless it cooled significantly during that period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What about his odds statement? Well, not all strings of words are meaningful, and his is not. Before we proceed, let\u2019s ground ourselves with this graph of global temperatures from 1901-2012.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

McKibben is essentially looking at this warming trend and saying \u201cWow, the monthly temperatures starting in 1985 are always above the 20C average, and isn\u2019t that incredibly fishy?\u201d His span starts at 0.22 \u00b0C above that average (March, 1985) per the NOAA global land and ocean data<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is about as stupid as humans get.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

McKibben doesn\u2019t provide any sources or identify the dataset he used, but they\u2019re all similar enough for our purposes. It wasn\u2019t the NOAA data, or his span would\u2019ve started in 1979, adding 72 months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NOTE:<\/strong> All temperatures here are Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST), a complex statistic that draws from thousands of stations and involves various corrections and weights. I\u2019m not confident in its validity or utility as a construct, but let\u2019s grant it for present purposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, let\u2019s note that the earth is a planet, not a sidewalk, and as such it rarely cools by more than 0.22 \u00b0C in a month. As you can see, by the late 1990s, temperatures would have to drop by at least 0.4 \u00b0C to dip below the 20C average. The graph is annual, not monthly, but it gives us the gist, and no month from 1901 to 2012 cooled by 0.4 \u00b0C or more. The average monthly change from 1901 \u2013 2012 was 0.00071 \u00b0C of warming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Back to his odds statement. What is this 3.7 x 10\u207b\u2079\u2079 number? It\u2019s a probability \u2013 which he incorrectly calls odds \u2013 and he says it\u2019s the probability of every month in that span remaining above the 20C average \u201cby simple chance\u201d. That statement has no meaning, but let\u2019s pause to figure out how he computed this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For some reason he thinks monthly averages are important and he performed some sort of calculation regarding this string of 327 months. What calculation? It must be this:<\/p>\n\n\n

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

So what was his x<\/em>? Well, we need to solve an exponential equation, child\u2019s play for the American man. We can take the log of both sides and work the steps or just invert and switch the exponent. Therefore:<\/p>\n\n\n

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

Which equals 0.5<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When I discovered this a few years ago, I wanted to go on walkabout. We won\u2019t have a civilization for long if this savagery is normalized. McKibben treated a planetary climate system as a monthly coin flip, such that global temperatures had even odds of landing on either side of his arbitrary baseline, even though the planet was well above that baseline at the start<\/em>. If in one month the earth was, say, 0.4 \u00b0C above the 20C average, he\u2019s saying there are even odds that the next month it would either:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Cool by more than 0.4 \u00b0C.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Cool by less than 0.4 \u00b0C, warm by any amount, or stay the same.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    In reality, Option 2 was certain \u2014 the earth has never<\/em> cooled \u2265 0.4 \u00b0C in any month from 1901 \u2013 2012.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    He took 0.5, treated it as an independent probability, and multiplied it by itself over and over \u2014 326 times \u2014 thinking that he was computing the \u201codds\u201d of every month in that 1985-2012 span remaining above the 20C average by \u201csimple chance\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    That formulation has no meaning. There\u2019s no such thing as \u201cthe odds of every month from 1985 to 2012 remaining above the 20C average by simple chance\u201d. The earth is a planet \u2014 its surface temperature and energy balance are physical, empirical realities, it doesn\u2019t randomly reset every month, and his span starts at a temperature that is already well above his arbitrary 20C baseline. The earth won\u2019t shed such massive amounts of energy in a month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It\u2019s like asking for the odds that the earth remains a planet from 1985 to 2012, as opposed to turning into a dog or something, \u201cby simple chance\u201d. This string of words has no meaning. You could<\/em> compute some probabilities of a monthly average \u2013 or a string of them \u2013 being above or below a baseline, but if you use a baseline well below normal fluctuation, and during a warming trend, you know the answer without needing to compute anything. In any case, there is no \u201csimple chance\u201d \u2013 it\u2019s an empirical question that would be powered by empirical data and modeling. You can\u2019t do anything with a calculator and a fixed, independent probability like 0.5 or any other value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    By \u201csimple chance\u201d, McKibben might means \u201cif not for global warming\u201d. But the earth did<\/em> warm, he started with the earth 0.22 \u00b0C above his baseline, and again the earth is a planet, not a coin. He thinks his probability calculation is new information<\/em>, that it adds to the evidence for warming and cause for alarm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    McKibben found a way to take the observed warming \u2014 the recent past that we already knew about \u2014 and turn it into a \u201cterrifying\u201d new development. He made the past terrifying.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    That is truly remarkable and highlights the profound neuroticism, emotion dysregulation, and innumeracy that drives so much leftist climate panic. This is not a scientifically serious movement or belief system. A major media outlet published this \u2013 what might be the most savagely stupid misinformation we\u2019ll ever see, and in thirteen years has not noticed or corrected it. It\u2019s not just a failure of baseline intelligence, but of cognitive activation. The people at Rolling Stone<\/em> are not able to read his opening paragraph and understand what he did. In fact, I\u2019m not sure they could follow this explainer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Similarly, partisan media outlets are not able to read fraudulent or invalid climate science consensus papers and notice that they\u2019re fraudulent or invalid. We have a broad and deep problem with getting people to read attentively<\/em> across topics, especially when they\u2019re politicized. We\u2019re just not getting adequate {baseline IQ + attention} focused on media articles and claims. So much nonsense is flowing into our brains \u2014 collectively, we\u2019re not operating at a sufficient level of consciousness. It shouldn\u2019t be possible for McKibben to have published his claim, nor for it to remain uncorrected for 13 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Testing the Experts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    I mentioned that I use McKibben\u2019s paragraph as a test.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In 2022, I asked two climate scientist-activists a basic question: Starting now, what\u2019s the probability of any given month\u2019s GMST being higher than the 20th<\/sup> century average?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Gavin Schmidt got the answer right straight away \u2013 100%. He stumbled in understanding what McKibben did, saying that it was \u201cthe likelihood of the observed trend assuming no external forcing\u201d, but no trend is needed for monthlies to not drop below the 20C average when you start 0.22 \u00b0C above it. I don\u2019t think Schmidt realized that the period started in 1985. More fundamentally, taking an imagined probability to the 327th<\/sup> power does not yield the likelihood of anything, much less the likelihood of the observed trend assuming no external forcing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    I also asked Katharine Hayhoe. I never got her to understand the question. It\u2019s an unusual question, but trivially easy if you just take a second to think about it. It takes a certain versatility and rigor to be able to reason about novel questions and step outside the scripted cognition that can dominate our daily lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Worse, Hayhoe didn\u2019t seem to know the 20C average offhand or where we were relative to it. It was awkward for me to know more about basic climate science facts than a purported climate scientist \u2013 I\u2019m a social psychologist. The red flags on Hayhoe\u2019s website<\/a> proved prescient \u2013 she very awkwardly brags about honors she\u2019s received, including \u201cWorld\u2019s Greatest Leaders\u201d, \u201c100 Most Influential People\u201d, and even wrote \u201cIn 2019 I was honoured to be named to Foreign Policy\u2019s list of 100 Global Thinkers<\/a> for the second<\/em> time\u201d (emphasis hers).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    I would be so embarrassed to disclose that anyone had named me one of the \u201c100 Most Influential People\u201d or a \u201cWorld\u2019s Greatest Leader\u201d \u2013 I can\u2019t imagine putting it on my own website. I knew Hayhoe was a political partisan committed to stoking fear and hatred over mild climate change, but I hoped she would at least understand the barbarism of what McKibben did. I wanted leftists like her and Schmidt to be the voices of reason and get Rolling Stone<\/em> to correct, but I couldn\u2019t even get her to understand basic climate science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In any case, the full test is to present McKibben\u2019s opening paragraph, highlighting the clause about the 327 months, and see if people can identify the problem. They\u2019ll need to solve for his x<\/em> and know the basic background fact that the earth warmed over the course of the 20th<\/sup> century. It will help if they have a sense of how much the earth warmed and what monthly fluctuation looks like. It\u2019s a fascinating test because it requires a level of attention and exogenous intelligence that people rarely apply to what they read[1]<\/a>. Try it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Joe Duarte grew up in copper mining towns in Southern Arizona, earned his PhD in social psychology, and focuses on political bias in media and academic research. His website<\/a> features more of his work and you
     can reach him at gravity at     protonmail.com<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n\n\n\n

    [1]<\/strong> I\u2019m curious to see if the popular AIs can see the problem. In fact, it might be an excellent formal test for them, depending on the prompt.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Climate activism has a long history of innumeracy and gaps in baseline scientific knowledge (ask an activist how much warming is projected from now to 2100 in a moderate IPCC scenario \u2013 the flagship warming phenomenon). Some years ago, I came upon something so stupid that it paralyzed me. It locked my brain when I tried to write about it, and I let it sit for years like a Horcrux I dare not touch. Just knowing that it was out there bothered me.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":381238,"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":[691821050,691818056,691831096,691818087,691835536,691835535],"class_list":{"0":"post-381234","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-bill-mckibben","9":"tag-climate-change","10":"tag-global-mean-surface-temperature-gmst","11":"tag-global-warming","12":"tag-noaa-global-land-and-ocean-data","13":"tag-rolling-stone-article","15":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/0ChatGPT-Image-3.-Juni-2025-16_19_07.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1BaW","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":180021,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=180021","url_meta":{"origin":381234,"position":0},"title":"Manchin\u2019s Not the Climate Problem","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"28\/12\/2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Manchin\u2019s Not The Climate Problem Patrick J. Michaels, Senior Fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the CO2\u00a0Coalition. Senator Joe Manchin, who killed Biden\u2019s Build Back Better plan live on Fox News, is being vilified throughout the legacy press because BBB\u2019s climate plans are now similarly moribund. Somehow, the story\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/051917721_s.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/051917721_s.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/051917721_s.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/051917721_s.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":332652,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=332652","url_meta":{"origin":381234,"position":1},"title":"Vaclav Smil On The Two Cultures And Our \u201cFully Post-Factual World\u201d","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/06\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"In 1959, British novelist and physical chemist C.P. Snow gave a now-famous lecture called \u201cThe Two Cultures.\u201d Snow argued that there was a growing disconnect between the culture of the sciences and the culture of the humanities and that bridging that gap was critical to understanding and addressing the world\u2019s\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"\u201cThe Two Cultures.\u201d\"","block_context":{"text":"\u201cThe Two Cultures.\u201d","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=the-two-cultures"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0107173973-unity1.jpg?fit=1200%2C836&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0107173973-unity1.jpg?fit=1200%2C836&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0107173973-unity1.jpg?fit=1200%2C836&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0107173973-unity1.jpg?fit=1200%2C836&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0107173973-unity1.jpg?fit=1200%2C836&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":385343,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=385343","url_meta":{"origin":381234,"position":2},"title":"Scafetta: Climate Models Have\u00a0Issues","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"27\/06\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) global climate models\u00a0(GCMs) assess\u00a0that nearly\u00a0100% of global surface warming\u00a0observed\u00a0between 1850\u20131900 and 2011\u20132020 is attributable to\u00a0anthropogenic drivers like\u00a0greenhouse gas emissions.\u00a0These models\u00a0also generate future climate projections based on shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs), aiding in risk assessment and the development of costly \u201cNet-Zero\u201d climate mitigation strategies.","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\/06\/0-CMIP6-climate-models.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0-CMIP6-climate-models.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0-CMIP6-climate-models.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0-CMIP6-climate-models.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0-CMIP6-climate-models.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":250080,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=250080","url_meta":{"origin":381234,"position":3},"title":"UN\u2019s climate panic is more politics than science","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"29\/03\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The IPCC Reports have become \u201cbumper sticker\u201d climate science \u2013 making a political statement while using the overall reputation of science to give authority to a politically manufactured consensus.","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\/0e6c5ec4137a2831befad7e6d46559451_XL.jpg?fit=1200%2C887&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/0e6c5ec4137a2831befad7e6d46559451_XL.jpg?fit=1200%2C887&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/0e6c5ec4137a2831befad7e6d46559451_XL.jpg?fit=1200%2C887&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/0e6c5ec4137a2831befad7e6d46559451_XL.jpg?fit=1200%2C887&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/0e6c5ec4137a2831befad7e6d46559451_XL.jpg?fit=1200%2C887&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":411187,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=411187","url_meta":{"origin":381234,"position":4},"title":"Hiding the Endangerment Finding\u2019s Systemic Biases \u2013 Politico\u2019s Failed Attack on DOE\u2019s Climate Science Report","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/11\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Politico\u00a0recently published an article by Benjamin Storrow, Chelsea Harvey, Scott Waldman, and Paula Friedrich titled \u201cHow a major DOE report hides the whole truth on climate change.\u201d The reporters\u2019 objective is obvious and their strategy simple. They aim to discredit the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s\u00a0proposal to repeal\u00a0the December 2009\u00a0Greenhouse Gas Endangerment\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\/11\/AQNz-3v_GUn7bhBqsq0byriNLYF6ycCo45QH7ELe2ZWCrgWn-ySePgmhDfB21nb3nn7qfa_7RgBKE8ObxFA7LNI8u44gTkbN1qUhL2K-YkoWfCG0psr_sRcVRJf8wA.jpeg?fit=1080%2C720&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/AQNz-3v_GUn7bhBqsq0byriNLYF6ycCo45QH7ELe2ZWCrgWn-ySePgmhDfB21nb3nn7qfa_7RgBKE8ObxFA7LNI8u44gTkbN1qUhL2K-YkoWfCG0psr_sRcVRJf8wA.jpeg?fit=1080%2C720&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/AQNz-3v_GUn7bhBqsq0byriNLYF6ycCo45QH7ELe2ZWCrgWn-ySePgmhDfB21nb3nn7qfa_7RgBKE8ObxFA7LNI8u44gTkbN1qUhL2K-YkoWfCG0psr_sRcVRJf8wA.jpeg?fit=1080%2C720&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/AQNz-3v_GUn7bhBqsq0byriNLYF6ycCo45QH7ELe2ZWCrgWn-ySePgmhDfB21nb3nn7qfa_7RgBKE8ObxFA7LNI8u44gTkbN1qUhL2K-YkoWfCG0psr_sRcVRJf8wA.jpeg?fit=1080%2C720&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/AQNz-3v_GUn7bhBqsq0byriNLYF6ycCo45QH7ELe2ZWCrgWn-ySePgmhDfB21nb3nn7qfa_7RgBKE8ObxFA7LNI8u44gTkbN1qUhL2K-YkoWfCG0psr_sRcVRJf8wA.jpeg?fit=1080%2C720&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":227087,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=227087","url_meta":{"origin":381234,"position":5},"title":"The climate \u2018crisis\u2019 isn\u2019t what it used to be","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/11\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The world has always suffered from weather and climate extremes, and it always will; this will not change with further warming or with emissions reductions.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/1a00climatedeaths.png?fit=1200%2C922&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/1a00climatedeaths.png?fit=1200%2C922&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/1a00climatedeaths.png?fit=1200%2C922&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/1a00climatedeaths.png?fit=1200%2C922&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/1a00climatedeaths.png?fit=1200%2C922&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381234","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=381234"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381234\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":381240,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381234\/revisions\/381240"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/381238"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=381234"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=381234"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=381234"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}