{"id":417224,"date":"2025-12-13T13:01:38","date_gmt":"2025-12-13T12:01:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=417224"},"modified":"2025-12-17T22:21:45","modified_gmt":"2025-12-17T21:21:45","slug":"government-bodies-humiliated-by-promoting-junk-climate-scares-from-retracted-nature-paper","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=417224","title":{"rendered":"Government Bodies Humiliated by Promoting Junk Climate Scares from Retracted Nature Paper"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

From The Daily Sceptic<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Chris Morrison<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

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

The old academic putdown \u2018it\u2019s not even wrong\u2019 comes to mind in considering the disgraced and now retracted science paper Kotz et al<\/em><\/a>. The science writer Jo Nova has speculated on how the paper was even published in Nature,<\/em> \u201cgiven how awful it was<\/a>\u201d. With its unfalsifiable claims of $38 trillion of global damage<\/a> each year by 2050 due to human-caused climate change, Kotz was patent nonsense. It was not even within touching distance of other extravagant claims of climate damage. Yet Kotz was avidly picked up by government agencies around the world seemingly desperate to use any old gobbledegook to push the Net Zero fantasy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Being wrong assumes that something is within a ballpark of being right. The Kotz authors tried that and made some adjustments to the figures after initial criticism when the paper was published in April 2024. But in the end the task was hopeless and Nature <\/em>retracted the work this month. But not before its conclusions on climate impacts have cascaded through numerous governmental operations tasked with determining and regulating public policy. A great deal of rewriting now looks to be in order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Earlier this month, the Bank of England used \u201cplausible\u201d scenarios<\/a> derived from Kotz to go into full climate catastrophising overdrive with suggestions that asset and bond markets could face stresses similar to the 2008 global crash. On Monday, the Daily Sceptic<\/em> looked in detail<\/a> at the Horlicks made by the UK\u2019s Office for Budget Responsibility, which used Kotz to divest itself of the opinion that the country\u2019s GDP would fall by nearly 8% unless humans stopped the weather changing. Annual state borrowing was forecast to rise by \u00a350 billion by 2050 unless the Net Zero rain dance was successful. In a report to the British Parliament, the Climate Change Committee referenced Kotz in a section discussing economic damage arising from climate risk. Meanwhile, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) appears to have been a keen fan of Kotz<\/a> and all its downstream impact works such as NGFS Phase V. Over the last year there are many references with the FCA keen to emphasise non-linear economic losses and the need for conservative assumptions in financial stress testing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What might be considered surprising is that all of this work closely connected to Kotz was produced at a time when serious doubts about the paper were raised in science circles. From the start of this year, concerns started to mount about data quality and extrapolation methods. It became apparent there were problems over an Uzbekistan economic database from 1995-1999 that led to model estimates of temperature impacts on growth inflating global projections by a factor of three. Attempts were made to revise the original paper but in the end the task was too great, and\u00a0Nature<\/em>\u00a0finally retracted it. It is hardly an exaggeration to observe that dodgy data from Uzbekistan cascaded through the paper out into the real world where it led the Bank of England just a few days ago to publish scares of climate-induced global crashes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

\u201cThis study was used to justify all kinds of economic decisions that otherwise make no sense. Ka-ching. Ka-ching,\u201d notes Jo Nova. This is emblematic of the whole field of climate research, she observed, adding: \u201cMonopsonistic research always finds what the one sole customer (the Blob) pays it to find. Thus the government-funded establishment loved it. Look how popular this junk research was.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Kotz paper arose from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), a known nest of hard-line climate activists with substantial past climate catastrophising form. This is the number one place to go for disappearing sea ice, an overturning Gulf Stream and bazillion-dollar falls in global wealth. Needless to say, it is backed by copious amounts of\u00a0Government money<\/a>\u00a0from the European Union as well as private foundations. Considerable money appears to flow from individual project grants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interestingly, few US government bodies appear to have been caught out by the damage impacts model produced by Kotz that was later integrated into the NGFS catastrophising scenarios. The Trump Administration has been cleaning house of all the federal climate catastrophising BS this year. It didn\u2019t take long for the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Treasury Department to withdraw from the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), an international body of regulators and banks set up at the height of the Green Mania in 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Earlier this year, President Trump signed an\u00a0executive order<\/a>\u00a0that said the results of federal scientists must be falsifiable, computer models must be explainable and negative results\u00a0available. Not all activist-scientists were happy with this return to the \u201d gold standard\u201d, with a group including Michael \u2018Hockey Stick\u2019 Mann\u00a0writing in the\u00a0Guardian<\/em><\/a>\u00a0\u2013 seemingly without irony \u2013 that it will \u201cdestroy American science as we know it\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It certainly destroyed the ability of the American Central Bank to tout global financial collapse on the basis of a Government-funded science paper so bad even ideologically-captured Nature <\/em>has been forced to retract it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Morrison is the<\/em> Daily Sceptic\u2019s Environment Editor. Follow <\/em>him on X<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

The old academic putdown \u2018it\u2019s not even wrong\u2019 comes to mind in considering the disgraced and now retracted science paper Kotz et al. The science writer Jo Nova has speculated on how the paper was even published in Nature, \u201cgiven how awful it was\u201d. With its unfalsifiable claims of $38 trillion of global damage each year by 2050 due to human-caused climate change, Kotz was patent nonsense. It was not even within touching distance of other extravagant claims of climate damage.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":417232,"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":true,"token":"eyJpbWciOiJodHRwczpcL1wvaTAud3AuY29tXC9jbGltYXRlLXNjaWVuY2UucHJlc3NcL3dwLWNvbnRlbnRcL3VwbG9hZHNcLzIwMjVcLzEyXC9BUU1LT0ZxZlIxb1dXVjVVZGo3MVROai1BQWw2aE9yUkNlXzBsZE1nbnJZUDZpaXJHTE9CT1kyeFNPQ2g2dlRMX3Rjc05kNElXSzU4ZnpnLTlBeFhveFVCMEZSeTNEdERETFBIbUI5clU4dGMzYWh1VkQzSkJRMUJlY3puYVFFLmpwZWc_Zml0PTcyMyUyQzQxOSZzc2w9MSIsInR4dCI6IkdvdmVybm1lbnQgQm9kaWVzIEh1bWlsaWF0ZWQgYnkgUHJvbW90aW5nIEp1bmsgQ2xpbWF0ZSBTY2FyZXMgZnJvbSBSZXRyYWN0ZWQgTmF0dXJlIFBhcGVyIiwidGVtcGxhdGUiOiJoaWdod2F5IiwiZm9udCI6IiIsImJsb2dfaWQiOjE1NTgxMjQ0OX0.xpHII43uNEAaPitfKeWtTL_6eos-tQaoW-FeaDmjcrkMQ"},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691820165,691819134,691818056,691819224,691819743,691819960,691822122,691818154,691830913,691827856,691820151],"class_list":{"0":"post-417224","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-bank-of-england","9":"tag-climate-alarmism","10":"tag-climate-change","11":"tag-climate-change-committee","12":"tag-climate-propaganda","13":"tag-european-union","14":"tag-nature","15":"tag-net-zero","16":"tag-potsdam-institute-for-climate-impact-research-pik","17":"tag-the-blob","18":"tag-the-science","20":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQMKOFqfR1oWWV5Udj71TNj-AAl6hOrRCe_0ldMgnrYP6iirGLOBOY2xSOCh6vTL_tcsNd4IWK58fzg-9AxXoxUB0FRy3DtDDLPHmB9rU8tc3ahuVD3JBQ1BecznaQE.jpeg?fit=2520%2C1460&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1Kxq","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":416664,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=416664","url_meta":{"origin":417224,"position":0},"title":"EXCLUSIVE: UK Office of Budget Responsibility\u2019s Latest Climate Fear Mongering Claims Based on Junk Findings from Retracted Nature Paper\u00a0","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/12\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"One of the biggest scandals so far in climate science publishing has suckered in a number of government policy advisers around the world including the UK Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). Last July, the British Budget-leaking bunglers estimated that the country\u2019s Gross National Product (GNP) would be 7.8% less in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"climate activists\"","block_context":{"text":"climate activists","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-activists"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0Firefly_A-dramatic-composite-showing-a-cracked-dry-earth-globe-juxtaposed-with-a-blurred-re-493234.webp?fit=1200%2C933&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0Firefly_A-dramatic-composite-showing-a-cracked-dry-earth-globe-juxtaposed-with-a-blurred-re-493234.webp?fit=1200%2C933&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0Firefly_A-dramatic-composite-showing-a-cracked-dry-earth-globe-juxtaposed-with-a-blurred-re-493234.webp?fit=1200%2C933&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0Firefly_A-dramatic-composite-showing-a-cracked-dry-earth-globe-juxtaposed-with-a-blurred-re-493234.webp?fit=1200%2C933&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0Firefly_A-dramatic-composite-showing-a-cracked-dry-earth-globe-juxtaposed-with-a-blurred-re-493234.webp?fit=1200%2C933&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":362000,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=362000","url_meta":{"origin":417224,"position":1},"title":"Paper Showing Earth\u2019s Atmosphere Has Become \u2018Saturated\u2019 With Carbon Dioxide and More Carbon Emissions Won\u2019t Make Any Difference Is Retracted Following Positive Coverage in the Daily Sceptic","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"14\/01\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Another important paper taking issue with the \u2018settled\u2019 climate narrative\u00a0has been cancelled\u00a0following a report in the\u00a0Daily Sceptic\u00a0and subsequent reposts that went viral across social media. The paper discussed the atmospheric \u2018saturation\u2019 of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and argued that higher levels will not cause temperatures to rise. 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\/01\/0greennewdeal.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0greennewdeal.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0greennewdeal.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0greennewdeal.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0greennewdeal.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":339568,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=339568","url_meta":{"origin":417224,"position":2},"title":"Roger Pielke Jr. details \u2018The Top Five Climate Science Scandals\u2019: Study claiming no \u2018climate crisis\u2019 retracted \u2018for not for being wrong\u2026but instead for expressing views that are politically unhelpful\u2019","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"14\/08\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The science community has shown a willingness to retract a climate science paper \u2014 in this case not for being wrong in any substantive way, but instead for expressing views that are politically unhelpful. In 2022, a group of Italian scientists published a paper that summarized the IPCC\u2019s conclusions on\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0Screenshot-2024-08-14-152601.png?fit=1200%2C699&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0Screenshot-2024-08-14-152601.png?fit=1200%2C699&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0Screenshot-2024-08-14-152601.png?fit=1200%2C699&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0Screenshot-2024-08-14-152601.png?fit=1200%2C699&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0Screenshot-2024-08-14-152601.png?fit=1200%2C699&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":399516,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=399516","url_meta":{"origin":417224,"position":3},"title":"Noble Climate Cause Corruption: PIK\u00a0exemplar","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/09\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Critics of climate policy have long pointed to the\u00a0problematic dominance of politics in climate science.\u00a0A recent study from the\u00a0Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research\u00a0(PIK),\u00a0which\u00a0systematically exaggerated the economic consequences of climate change, has reignited the debate over scientific standards and political manipulation in the field.","rel":"","context":"In \"\u201cNetwork for Greening the Financial System\u201d\u00a0(NGFS)\"","block_context":{"text":"\u201cNetwork for Greening the Financial System\u201d\u00a0(NGFS)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=network-for-greening-the-financial-system-ngfs-2"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQMn853GbdjAJDnwtuuoEcAFo9mHR8OIMBesMxDVGe0MTcoY1uwfNItC3tsY_IOE6cqqEavwKYokwJPq0B4MnV7QcFolJDpFOqg0modj0jXX6cvRYjluRf6zxkH4B1t61xfaWpdeay9l1MirldCBio9dyUx_vg.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQMn853GbdjAJDnwtuuoEcAFo9mHR8OIMBesMxDVGe0MTcoY1uwfNItC3tsY_IOE6cqqEavwKYokwJPq0B4MnV7QcFolJDpFOqg0modj0jXX6cvRYjluRf6zxkH4B1t61xfaWpdeay9l1MirldCBio9dyUx_vg.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQMn853GbdjAJDnwtuuoEcAFo9mHR8OIMBesMxDVGe0MTcoY1uwfNItC3tsY_IOE6cqqEavwKYokwJPq0B4MnV7QcFolJDpFOqg0modj0jXX6cvRYjluRf6zxkH4B1t61xfaWpdeay9l1MirldCBio9dyUx_vg.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQMn853GbdjAJDnwtuuoEcAFo9mHR8OIMBesMxDVGe0MTcoY1uwfNItC3tsY_IOE6cqqEavwKYokwJPq0B4MnV7QcFolJDpFOqg0modj0jXX6cvRYjluRf6zxkH4B1t61xfaWpdeay9l1MirldCBio9dyUx_vg.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQMn853GbdjAJDnwtuuoEcAFo9mHR8OIMBesMxDVGe0MTcoY1uwfNItC3tsY_IOE6cqqEavwKYokwJPq0B4MnV7QcFolJDpFOqg0modj0jXX6cvRYjluRf6zxkH4B1t61xfaWpdeay9l1MirldCBio9dyUx_vg.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":301387,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=301387","url_meta":{"origin":417224,"position":4},"title":"The Tip of the\u00a0Iceberg","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/02\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"In September last year, John Ridgway published here at Cliscep a piece titled\u00a0Burn the Witch!, about an article written by climate scientist Patrick T Brown in which he (Dr Brown) suggested \u201cthat journals such as Nature and Science were biased towards articles that are focussed upon a particular narrative.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate\u00a0Science\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate\u00a0Science","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-science-2"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/01_LaLO33fk1d-WYMPCs8MgvQ.jpg?fit=1200%2C555&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/01_LaLO33fk1d-WYMPCs8MgvQ.jpg?fit=1200%2C555&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/01_LaLO33fk1d-WYMPCs8MgvQ.jpg?fit=1200%2C555&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/01_LaLO33fk1d-WYMPCs8MgvQ.jpg?fit=1200%2C555&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/01_LaLO33fk1d-WYMPCs8MgvQ.jpg?fit=1200%2C555&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":303884,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=303884","url_meta":{"origin":417224,"position":5},"title":"Met Office Fails to Retract False Claim of \u201cMore Intense\u201d Storms Due to Climate Change","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"23\/02\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Met Office is refusing to retract a claim made by a senior meteorologist on BBC Radio 5 Live that storms in the U.K. are becoming \u201cmore intense\u201d due to climate change. This is despite admitting in Freedom of Information (FOI) documents that it had no evidence to back up\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"BBC\"","block_context":{"text":"BBC","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=bbc"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0dataset-card.jpg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0dataset-card.jpg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0dataset-card.jpg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0dataset-card.jpg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0dataset-card.jpg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/417224","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=417224"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/417224\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":417235,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/417224\/revisions\/417235"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/417232"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=417224"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=417224"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=417224"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}