{"id":404860,"date":"2025-09-25T12:29:04","date_gmt":"2025-09-25T10:29:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=404860"},"modified":"2025-09-25T12:29:06","modified_gmt":"2025-09-25T10:29:06","slug":"judicial-limits-on-glyphosate-and-climate-jackpot-justice-litigation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=404860","title":{"rendered":"Judicial limits on glyphosate and climate \u2018jackpot justice\u2019 litigation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

From CFACT<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Paul Driessen<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Although the U.S. Supreme Court frequently overrules it, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (covering California, eight other western states and two U.S. territories) deserves applause for its recent Engilis v. Monsanto<\/em> decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court affirmed a district court\u2019s exclusion of \u201cexpert testimony\u201d claiming a plaintiff\u2019s exposure to the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup caused his blood cancer (chronic lymphocytic leukemia). The court upheld summary judgment in favor of product manufacturer Monsanto (now owned by Bayer).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was an important victory amid numerous lawsuits against the company for allegedly knowing this chemical is carcinogenic but failing to warn consumers. In fact, by 2020, mass tort litigation firms had lined up over 22,000 \u201ccorporate victims,\u201d and San Francisco-area juries had awarded several plaintiffs $78 million to $1 billion per person<\/em> in compensatory and punitive damages!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One firm\u2019s website<\/a> even claimed the requisite exposure to Roundup could involve simply \u201cliving near a farm where the potentially dangerous herbicide is used.\u201d The victim could thereby be afflicted with lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Parkinson disease, multiple sclerosis, lung, brain or thyroid cancer, heart disease, or six other diseases. This is the war zone Monsanto had been dragged into.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The awards were subsequently reduced to \u201cmere\u201d tens of millions. However, faced with seemingly endless litigation, clever lawyers, and sympathetic jurors with limited grasp of science or medicine, in 2020, Bayer-Monsanto paid nearly $11 billion to a half-dozen law firms to settle most of the lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s hardly surprising Monsanto settled and took glyphosate out of its U.S. home lawn and garden Roundup formulation. But firms and plaintiffs not part of the settlement are still suing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Peter and Cathy Engilis were among them. Unfortunately for them, their lawyers relied on the testimony of a board-certified oncologist who reviewed various possible causes of Mr. Engilis\u2019s cancer, ruled out obesity as a contributing factor, and concluded that glyphosate was the most likely cause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

His testimony was the only evidence plaintiffs presented. The district court excluded it as unreliable, since the expert had failed to employ a scientific analysis to rule out obesity as a cause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ninth Circuit agreed, ruling that an expert\u2019s conclusions or opinions are not enough. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 72, experts must provide scientifically sound reasons for ruling out alternative causes and do so by a preponderance of actual evidence. Conclusory assertions are insufficient, unless supported by facts, data, or studies, not merely knowledge or experience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. Supreme Court underscored these points in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals<\/em><\/a>. Plaintiffs must prove the scientific evidence presented is relevant and reliable, the Court said. It must have been tested and peer-reviewed against prevailing standards; be accepted in the applicable scientific community; and show more than just circumstantial links between an injury and alleged cause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Experts must also show how they reached their conclusions and point to objective sources that demonstrate they followed scientific methods practiced by at least a recognized minority in their field.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is basic common sense and something law students learn in Evidence 101. As I argued in a medical journal article, it is especially vital in glyphosate litigation \u2013 and other complex, emotionalized cases, including lawsuits alleging damages from climate and weather events<\/a> supposedly caused by fossil fuel production, refining, or use in transportation or manufacturing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The jackpot justice Roundup cases rely on so much speculative \u201cevidence\u201d that they should all be dismissed, based on Daubert,<\/em> Engilis<\/em>, common sense, and the endless list of carcinogens we encounter during our lifetimes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Glyphosate was introduced in 1974, is licensed in 130 countries, and is used every year by millions of homeowners, gardeners, and farmers to control weeds. Studies and reviews by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, European Food Safety Authority, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Health Canada, and dozens of other experts have found it safe and non-carcinogenic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. Agricultural Health Study has followed some 52,000 licensed private pesticide applicators (mostly farmers) and more than 32,000 of their spouses for nearly three decades. More than 80% of these test subjects used glyphosate. The study has found no glyphosate-cancer link<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Only one agency, the France-based International Agency for Cancer Research, says otherwise. In 2015, IARC ruled that glyphosate is a \u201cprobable\u201d human carcinogen \u2013 based primarily on two mice studies, which multiple investigators<\/a> said manipulated data<\/a> while ignoring studies<\/a> that contradicted IARC\u2019s preferred conclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead of doing research, IARC classifies chemicals as definitely, probably, or possibly carcinogenic based on reviews of other organizations\u2019 research \u2013 and by applying \u201cexposure\u201d or \u201chazard\u201d tests that many epidemiologists view as antiquated and of limited value. Those tests use laboratory animals to determine whether a chemical might cause cancer, even if only at extremely high levels that no animal or human would be exposed to in the real world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, epidemiologists and toxicity experts say some chemicals may cause cancer or other serious health problems at extremely high doses but be harmless at levels encountered in our daily lives. Others may be harmful at high doses but beneficial or essential at low or very low doses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IARC\u2019s Group 1 carcinogens (\u201cdefinitely carcinogenic\u201d) include 120 chemicals, substances, and industrial processes: plutonium, sunlight, aflatoxin, asbestos, cadmium, tobacco, welding, processed meats, and more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Group 2A (\u201cprobably carcinogenic\u201d) lists 80+ chemicals, substances, and processes including: glyphosate, dieldrin, malathion, acetaldehyde in bread, anabolic steroids, emissions from high-temperature food frying, red meat, drinking \u201cvery hot\u201d beverages, and working as a hairdresser.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Group 2B \u201cpossibly carcinogenic\u201d materials and processes show \u201climited evidence\u201d of carcinogenicity but includes: diesel fuel, pickled vegetables, carpentry work, caffeic acid in coffee, nutritious foods like apples and broccoli, and over 300 other substances and occupations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IARC carcinogen claims seem to be such outliers, so beneath scientific norms, so tainted by conflicts of interest<\/a> and misconduct, so unrelated to actual risks, so deceptive and even fraudulent \u2013 that they should never be admitted as evidence in any glyphosate trial. But from a jackpot justice plaintiff or lawyer perspective, they are central to nearly every case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Roundup carcinogen allegations should also be excluded from evidence and testimony, because it is impossible to differentiate alleged effects of glyphosate from those of countless other chemicals, substances, occupations, and industrial processes plaintiffs may have been exposed to or engaged in over the course of their lives. The lists presented above represent a tiny sample.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The same principles apply to climate lawsuits in state<\/a> and international courts<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The lawsuits involve computer models with zero predictive capability; conclusory assertions devoid of actual supportive evidence; and refusal to recognize Earth\u2019s tumultuous climate history, powerful natural forces that caused momentous climate changes long before the fossil fuel era, written records and data over the past 200 years showing no unprecedented changes or trends in climate or weather, and an inability to separate natural from alleged human causes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evidence Rule 72, the Daubert<\/em> and Engilis<\/em> decisions, and basic scientific principles, demand summary judgments in favor of fossil fuel producers every single time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Although the U.S. Supreme Court frequently overrules it, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (covering California, eight other western states and two U.S. territories) deserves applause for its recent Engilis v. Monsanto decision.<\/p>\n

The court affirmed a district court\u2019s exclusion of \u201cexpert testimony\u201d claiming a plaintiff\u2019s exposure to the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup caused his blood cancer (chronic lymphocytic leukemia). The court upheld summary judgment in favor of product manufacturer Monsanto (now owned by Bayer).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":404865,"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":[691829604,691838286,691838287,691835404,691838288,691819926],"class_list":{"0":"post-404860","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-climate-lawsuits","9":"tag-engilis-v-monsanto-decision","10":"tag-roundup","11":"tag-scientific-evidence","12":"tag-u-s-agricultural-health-study","13":"tag-u-s-supreme-court","15":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQM3riZXTM-dlygUN4hKKiQWdulTb-R4lz8QW_keBIeHZcf2vGQOprCE6cz23OzTThvaZKyoTve8yFhCkeo7mr_NMvzBv3cL7LnFEGfpdhj4wUiCBAJ_UAwpg0iVZkFba07rXABzEFgAj-dhdNFGIrNLxC3j.jpeg?fit=1280%2C1280&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1Hk0","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":288339,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=288339","url_meta":{"origin":404860,"position":0},"title":"Green Bloodbath: Chemical company Bayer plans massive job cuts","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"21\/11\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"FILE - In this April 28, 2010 file photo a vessel passes by the plant of chemical giant Bayer AG at the rive Rhine in Leverkusen, western Germany. German drug and chemicals company Bayer AG confirmed Thursday, May 19, 2016 it has entered talks with the Monsanto Company about the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"billions of euros in write-downs\"","block_context":{"text":"billions of euros in write-downs","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=billions-of-euros-in-write-downs"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Chemical-giant-Bayer.jpeg?fit=1200%2C848&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Chemical-giant-Bayer.jpeg?fit=1200%2C848&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Chemical-giant-Bayer.jpeg?fit=1200%2C848&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Chemical-giant-Bayer.jpeg?fit=1200%2C848&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Chemical-giant-Bayer.jpeg?fit=1200%2C848&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":293364,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=293364","url_meta":{"origin":404860,"position":1},"title":"Judge Resurrects Zombie Kids\u2019 Climate Case: Expect More Eating of Brains","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/01\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Judge Aiken on the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon revived Juliana v. United States, aka the \u201cKids Climate Case,\u201d by granting the plaintiffs\u2019 motion to amend their complaint, some two years after the motion was filed.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate Case\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate Case","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-case"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/zombie-apocalypse-header-1.jpg?fit=920%2C500&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/zombie-apocalypse-header-1.jpg?fit=920%2C500&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/zombie-apocalypse-header-1.jpg?fit=920%2C500&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/zombie-apocalypse-header-1.jpg?fit=920%2C500&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":209152,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=209152","url_meta":{"origin":404860,"position":2},"title":"Washington Post \u2013 Joe Manchin Controls the Climate","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"19\/07\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The American Meteorological Society says the US Supreme Court controls the climate, but the Washington Post says it is actually controlled by Joe Manchin. U.S. plan to avoid extreme climate change is running out of time \u2013 The Washington Post \u201cThe AMS is deeply concerned by the United States\u2019 inadequate\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/0Image-2022-07-18-16-15-46.png?fit=922%2C1021&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/0Image-2022-07-18-16-15-46.png?fit=922%2C1021&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/0Image-2022-07-18-16-15-46.png?fit=922%2C1021&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/0Image-2022-07-18-16-15-46.png?fit=922%2C1021&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":206528,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=206528","url_meta":{"origin":404860,"position":3},"title":"All Eyes on SCOTUS: Supreme Court to Issue Climate Endangerment Finding Ruling \u2013 To Decide if EPA, or Congress, has authority to regulate CO2","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"30\/06\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"From Climate Depot The case before the U.S. Supreme Court is West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).The primary plaintiff of the case is West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey; he is joined by attorney generals from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/image-122.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/image-122.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/image-122.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/image-122.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":419257,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=419257","url_meta":{"origin":404860,"position":4},"title":"Climate activists v. the U.S. energy industry: Cases to watch in 2026","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"31\/12\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Anti-oil and gas advocates across the country have pursued litigation in recent years attempting to force the fossil fuel industry to pay for decades of financial damages the advocates claim were caused by climate change.","rel":"","context":"In \"\u201cwoke lawfare\u201d\"","block_context":{"text":"\u201cwoke lawfare\u201d","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=woke-lawfare"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQMEEFUnPf8HA0ymfhJf8CdrreRio04ZlHgEJ-agr4JsFSgS-Bq5VFJNWkIa2bocCBvnzRP4-3XNefuEn-ydJbLlNaSuZLx8z2G8S0qWKoe8APXcAgYHIpWfFjuZxBVDvuiysvduRVNcwc-ZTwL2OuXy2wkG.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQMEEFUnPf8HA0ymfhJf8CdrreRio04ZlHgEJ-agr4JsFSgS-Bq5VFJNWkIa2bocCBvnzRP4-3XNefuEn-ydJbLlNaSuZLx8z2G8S0qWKoe8APXcAgYHIpWfFjuZxBVDvuiysvduRVNcwc-ZTwL2OuXy2wkG.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQMEEFUnPf8HA0ymfhJf8CdrreRio04ZlHgEJ-agr4JsFSgS-Bq5VFJNWkIa2bocCBvnzRP4-3XNefuEn-ydJbLlNaSuZLx8z2G8S0qWKoe8APXcAgYHIpWfFjuZxBVDvuiysvduRVNcwc-ZTwL2OuXy2wkG.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQMEEFUnPf8HA0ymfhJf8CdrreRio04ZlHgEJ-agr4JsFSgS-Bq5VFJNWkIa2bocCBvnzRP4-3XNefuEn-ydJbLlNaSuZLx8z2G8S0qWKoe8APXcAgYHIpWfFjuZxBVDvuiysvduRVNcwc-ZTwL2OuXy2wkG.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQMEEFUnPf8HA0ymfhJf8CdrreRio04ZlHgEJ-agr4JsFSgS-Bq5VFJNWkIa2bocCBvnzRP4-3XNefuEn-ydJbLlNaSuZLx8z2G8S0qWKoe8APXcAgYHIpWfFjuZxBVDvuiysvduRVNcwc-ZTwL2OuXy2wkG.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":229329,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=229329","url_meta":{"origin":404860,"position":5},"title":"A True Progressive Top Court Takes on Climate Change: The Case of Germany","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"15\/11\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"But as to the period after 2030, the Court found that the legislature had not adopted sufficient targets for GHG reduction, and ordered it to do\u00a0so!","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\/1soylentgreen.webp?fit=1200%2C634&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/1soylentgreen.webp?fit=1200%2C634&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/1soylentgreen.webp?fit=1200%2C634&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/1soylentgreen.webp?fit=1200%2C634&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/1soylentgreen.webp?fit=1200%2C634&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/404860","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=404860"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/404860\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":404867,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/404860\/revisions\/404867"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/404865"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=404860"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=404860"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=404860"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}