{"id":388141,"date":"2025-07-11T08:46:44","date_gmt":"2025-07-11T06:46:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=388141"},"modified":"2025-07-11T08:46:46","modified_gmt":"2025-07-11T06:46:46","slug":"energy-policy-vs-climate-dogma-why-the-voters-arent-marching-to-the-green-revolutions-tune","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=388141","title":{"rendered":"Energy Policy vs. Climate Dogma: Why the Voters Aren\u2019t Marching to the Green Revolution\u2019s Tune"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

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

By Charles Rotter<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This analysis draws on the recent survey research conducted and published by Roger Pielke Jr. and Ruy Teixeira in their report, The Science vs. the Narrative vs. the Voters: Clarifying the Public Debate Around Energy and Climate<\/em>,<\/a> released through the American Enterprise Institute. Pielke and Teixeira\u2014well known for their commitment to empirical rigor over popular narrative\u2014commissioned the AEI 2024 Energy\/Climate Survey to cut through the confusion surrounding American attitudes on climate and energy. Their work, summarized and discussed here, sheds light on the true state of public opinion\u2014grounding the debate in data, not dogma. For further details and direct commentary from the authors, see Roger Pielke Jr.\u2019s discussion on his Substack: What Americans Really Think About Energy and Climate<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This survey is a much-needed injection of empirical reality into a debate that has veered off into the land of magical thinking, group hysteria, and, frankly, wishful technocratic authoritarianism. The survey cuts through the fog of talking points and exposes the gaping chasm between what actual voters think, what the science technically claims, and the overwrought narrative hawked daily by politicians, media, and green activists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s begin by examining the survey\u2019s core findings. Over 3,000 registered voters were asked about their views on extreme weather, climate projections, energy priorities, willingness to bear the costs of fighting climate change, and their own consumer behavior. The findings are, to put it charitably, an embarrassment for central planners who fancy themselves philosopher-kings of the energy transition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the American public does not support a \u201crapid elimination of fossil fuels.\u201d In fact, the majority backs an \u201call-of-the-above\u201d energy policy\u2014one that includes not just solar and wind, but also natural gas, oil, and even nuclear energy. This is not some fluke. It is the consistent preference of nearly every demographic group. According to the survey, \u201ca majority of each group prefers an energy strategy characterized as \u2018all of the above\u2019 versus a \u2018rapid green transition\u2019 or opposition to \u2018green energy projects\u2019\u201d. Even among Democrats, the appetite for ditching fossil fuels entirely is, at best, lukewarm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cnarrative,\u201d as the authors describe it, is the high-octane stuff peddled by politicians, NGOs, and a media industry that has made a business model out of catastrophe. It is the belief that, unless we immediately decarbonize everything, humanity will plunge off a \u201cclimate tipping point\u201d into apocalypse. The problem, as the survey finds, is that this is not only unsupported by the scientific consensus (yes, even the IPCC steers clear of doomsday language), but it\u2019s also not shared by the voters whom these activists and bureaucrats claim to represent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consider the disconnect: \u201cWhen asked, \u2018Does the IPCC think there is a tipping point beyond which temperature rise from the current day will produce catastrophic results for human civilization?,\u2019 most respondents answered yes. This finding clearly indicates that most people believe there is a point beyond which the IPCC has identified catastrophic outcomes for humanity (Figure 3)\u201d. In reality, the IPCC\u2014ever careful in its language\u2014explicitly does not<\/em> link warming to existential catastrophe or define such a tipping point. The catastrophe narrative, it turns out, is mostly a work of fiction\u2014a Hollywood production in search of facts.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
The Science vs. the Narrative vs. the Voters: Clarifying the Public Debate Around Energy and Climate | American Enterprise Institute – AEI<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

The blame for this state of confusion, the authors argue, lies with decades of hyperbolic activism and media repetition. Since Al Gore\u2019s An Inconvenient Truth<\/em> in 2006, the climate movement has pushed worst-case scenarios and ignored nuance. The mainstream media, \u201cpressured by organizations such as Gore\u2019s Climate Reality Project, Greenpeace, and the Sunrise Movement,\u201d has \u201cformally adopted such language and align[ed] their perspective with that of the activists\u201d. At this point, news outlets have been browbeaten into swapping out \u201cclimate change\u201d for \u201cclimate emergency\u201d\u2014a rhetorical sleight of hand designed to nudge public opinion, not to reflect sober scientific assessment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s talk energy sources. Despite the fever dreams of the anti-fossil fuel lobby, Americans are far from ready to embrace a quick end to oil and gas. Table 2 of the survey ranks energy preferences: solar and wind do well, but so does natural gas, and nuclear hangs in there too. The only real loser is coal, but the real story is the persistence of support for a mixed portfolio. The report notes, \u201cA significant amount of support for each energy source\u2014except coal\u2014helps to explain why an all-of-the-above approach to overall energy policy finds strong support across groups\u201d. Demonizing natural gas may be trendy among activists, but voters aren\u2019t buying it. In fact, the survey points out that the much-vaunted reduction in U.S. emissions was \u201cdriven primarily by substituting natural gas for coal,\u201d with renewables playing second fiddle.<\/p>\n\n\n

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

Now, it would be one thing if the general public was simply uneducated on the science. But the survey finds that, even where Americans misunderstand the technical details\u2014like the IPCC\u2019s projections of temperature rise\u2014their instincts are more grounded than the fevered imagination of the political class. While only 10 percent could accurately quote the IPCC\u2019s topline temperature projection, this knowledge gap has little to do with public skepticism. The truth is that voters just don\u2019t view projected temperature increases as particularly salient to their daily lives.<\/p>\n\n\n

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

If there is a consensus, it\u2019s around priorities: Americans care about energy cost and reliability, not about satisfying the moral preening of climate activists. Given four choices, \u201c37 percent of voters said the cost of the energy they use was most important to them, and 36 percent said the availability of power when they need it was most important. Just 19 percent thought the effect on climate of their energy consumption was most important\u201d. Among working-class voters, the emphasis on affordability and reliability is even more stark: \u201c41 percent\u2026said the cost of the energy they use was most important, and 35 percent said the availability of power when they need it was most important.\u201d The notion that the U.S. public is ready to sacrifice comfort and prosperity for planetary salvation simply does not withstand scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is reflected in willingness to pay for climate action, which collapses the moment real costs are introduced. A measly $1 monthly surcharge to \u201cfight climate change\u201d garners support from less than half of voters. Raise that to $20 or $40, and support plummets into the teens, with opposition swelling to 70 percent or more. As for expensive household retrofits or electric vehicles? Voters overwhelmingly reject the idea. \u201cVoters by 17 percentage points (52 percent to 35 percent) say they are opposed to phasing out new gasoline cars and trucks by 2035. \u2026 Many more voters are upset (48 percent) than excited (21 percent) by the idea of phasing out production of gas-powered cars and trucks\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n

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

For the climate policy establishment, this must feel like heresy. After all, they have spent years attempting to manufacture public support by promoting every hurricane, flood, or heat wave as proof of impending doom. Yet the AEI survey shows that the public isn\u2019t as easily manipulated as the central planners hoped. For most, their day-to-day needs far outweigh the green utopian promises of a carbon-free world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fundamental lesson here is a simple one: reality bites. The dream of a rapid \u201cgreen transition\u201d\u2014net-zero by 2050, complete decarbonization, and the abolition of fossil fuels\u2014remains just that: a dream. The technical, economic, and political hurdles are immense. As energy expert Vaclav Smil (quoted in the report) says, \u201cPeople toss out these deadlines without any reflection on the scale and the complexity of the problem. \u2026 What\u2019s the point of setting goals which cannot be achieved? People call it aspirational. I call it delusional\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The AEI survey\u2019s conclusion is a harsh but necessary corrective. Americans do not share the catastrophist worldview of the climate priesthood. They are not eager to immolate their standard of living on the altar of planetary salvation. They want abundant, cheap, reliable energy, and they have little patience for schemes that threaten that reality in service to speculative fears. Policymakers ignore this at their peril.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If there is any hope for sensible policy, it lies not in ever more hysterical appeals to \u201ccrisis,\u201d but in aligning with the public\u2019s desire for prosperity, freedom, and security. As the authors put it: \u201cClimate policy will be much more effective if it works in the direction of public opinion, rather than against it. Simple. And also true\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s a message the architects of net-zero schemes and top-down green revolutions might want to ponder before issuing their next set of commandments. The voters, after all, have other priorities\u2014and, for once, they are right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

his analysis draws on the recent survey research conducted and published by Roger Pielke Jr. and Ruy Teixeira in their report, The Science vs. the Narrative vs. the Voters: Clarifying the Public Debate Around Energy and Climate, released through the American Enterprise Institute. Pielke and Teixeira\u2014well known for their commitment to empirical rigor over popular narrative\u2014commissioned the AEI 2024 Energy\/Climate Survey to cut through the confusion surrounding American attitudes on climate and energy. Their work, summarized and discussed here, sheds light on the true state of public opinion\u2014grounding the debate in data, not dogma. For further details and direct commentary from the authors, see Roger Pielke Jr.\u2019s discussion on his Substack: What Americans Really Think About Energy and Climate.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":388154,"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":[691818608,691830165,691818056,691818228,691836505,691820111,691818154,691836504],"class_list":["post-388141","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-climate-activists","tag-climate-and-energy","tag-climate-change","tag-fossil-fuels","tag-hyperbolic-activism","tag-mainstream-media","tag-net-zero","tag-roger-pielke-jr-and-ruy-teixeira","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/ChatGPT-Image-19.-Mai-2025-17_07_44.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1CYl","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":350356,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=350356","url_meta":{"origin":388141,"position":0},"title":"Fossil Fuel Political Backfire (AEI\u2019s Teixeira explains)","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"11\/06\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"In his Free Press article \u201cHow Progressives Blew It,\u201d Ruy Teixeira of the American Enterprise Institute, explained how the anti-fossil-fuel narrative of the Left backfired. \u201cTelling people fossil fuels are evil and they must stop using them was a terrible idea, and voters hate it,\u201d he began.","rel":"","context":"In \"anti-energy positions\"","block_context":{"text":"anti-energy positions","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=anti-energy-positions"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/0fossilfuelsu.jpg?fit=1200%2C781&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/0fossilfuelsu.jpg?fit=1200%2C781&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/0fossilfuelsu.jpg?fit=1200%2C781&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/0fossilfuelsu.jpg?fit=1200%2C781&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/0fossilfuelsu.jpg?fit=1200%2C781&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":289743,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=289743","url_meta":{"origin":388141,"position":1},"title":"Climate \u201cLoss and Damage\u201d: Political, Not Scientific\u00a0Notion","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/03\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Draft resolution on a \u2018loss and damage fund\u2019 has attracted more than $400 million, but climate-vulnerable countries say more cash is needed. DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES - NOVEMBER 30: Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber (C), President of the UNFCCC COP28 Climate Conference, attends the opening session of the conference shortly after\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\/12\/0countries-establish-historic-loss-and-damage-fund-on-first-day-of-cop28-ecowatch-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0countries-establish-historic-loss-and-damage-fund-on-first-day-of-cop28-ecowatch-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0countries-establish-historic-loss-and-damage-fund-on-first-day-of-cop28-ecowatch-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0countries-establish-historic-loss-and-damage-fund-on-first-day-of-cop28-ecowatch-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0countries-establish-historic-loss-and-damage-fund-on-first-day-of-cop28-ecowatch-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":261117,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=261117","url_meta":{"origin":388141,"position":2},"title":"Ep93: Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. “The Inconvenient Truth about Climate Science”","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/07\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Roger Pielke, Jr. has been on the faculty of the University of Colorado Boulder since 2001, where he teaches and writes on a diverse range of policy and governance issues related to science, technology, environment, innovation and sports. Roger is a professor in the Environmental Studies Program. Roger is currently\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\/06\/00Screenshot-2023-06-07-184427.png?fit=898%2C506&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/00Screenshot-2023-06-07-184427.png?fit=898%2C506&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/00Screenshot-2023-06-07-184427.png?fit=898%2C506&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/00Screenshot-2023-06-07-184427.png?fit=898%2C506&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":438563,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=438563","url_meta":{"origin":388141,"position":3},"title":"No, BBC, Disaster Losses Can\u2019t Be Tied to Climate Change","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/10\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Better journalism would distinguish modeling from measurement and highlight what we can control: smarter land-use, resilient infrastructure, and adaptation. That\u2019s far more immediate and effective than blaming every insurance claim on \u201cclimate change.\u201d The data, not the headlines, supports the ClimateRealism headline.","rel":"","context":"In \"British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)\"","block_context":{"text":"British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=british-broadcasting-corporation-bbc"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-No-BBC-Disaster-Losses-Cant-Be-Tied-to-Climate-Change.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-No-BBC-Disaster-Losses-Cant-Be-Tied-to-Climate-Change.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-No-BBC-Disaster-Losses-Cant-Be-Tied-to-Climate-Change.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-No-BBC-Disaster-Losses-Cant-Be-Tied-to-Climate-Change.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-No-BBC-Disaster-Losses-Cant-Be-Tied-to-Climate-Change.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":278013,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=278013","url_meta":{"origin":388141,"position":4},"title":"Free Speech Fears Grow After Springer Nature \u201cMeekly Obeys\u201d Activist Demands For Alimonti Climate Paper Retraction","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/09\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Free speech is under attack in the politicised world of climate science and disgust at the recent cancellation of\u00a0Alimonti\u00a0et al. by Springer Nature continues to grow. Readers will\u00a0recall\u00a0that the paper written by four Italian scientists led by Physics Professor Gianluca Alimonti said past data did not point to a \u201cclimate\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Censorship\"","block_context":{"text":"Censorship","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=censorship"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":251912,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=251912","url_meta":{"origin":388141,"position":5},"title":"How Climate Reductionism is Itself Causing Bad Science . . .","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/09\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Great example of how climate reductionism is itself causing bad science . . .","rel":"","context":"In \"Bad Science\"","block_context":{"text":"Bad Science","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=bad-science"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0home-run-clipart-14.jpg?fit=1200%2C942&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0home-run-clipart-14.jpg?fit=1200%2C942&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0home-run-clipart-14.jpg?fit=1200%2C942&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0home-run-clipart-14.jpg?fit=1200%2C942&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0home-run-clipart-14.jpg?fit=1200%2C942&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/388141","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=388141"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/388141\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":388155,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/388141\/revisions\/388155"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/388154"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=388141"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=388141"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=388141"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}