{"id":418941,"date":"2025-12-28T17:25:12","date_gmt":"2025-12-28T16:25:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=418941"},"modified":"2025-12-28T19:02:06","modified_gmt":"2025-12-28T18:02:06","slug":"how-a-pnas-study-confuses-institutional-authority-with-truth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=418941","title":{"rendered":"How a PNAS Study Confuses Institutional Authority with Truth"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A<\/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

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

Every so often an academic paper appears that claims to analyze a problem while quietly defining the outcome in advance. The recent PNAS<\/em> paper by Mosleh et al., \u201cDivergent patterns of engagement with partisan and low-quality news across seven social media platforms<\/a>,\u201d<\/em> is a textbook example.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Abstract<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In recent years, social media has become increasingly fragmented, as platforms evolve and new alternatives emerge. Yet most research studies a single platform\u2014typically X\/Twitter, or occasionally Facebook\u2014leaving little known about the broader social media landscape. Here, we shed light on patterns of cross-platform variation in the high-stakes context of news sharing. We examine the relationship between user engagement and news domains\u2019 political orientation and quality across seven platforms: X\/Twitter, BlueSky, TruthSocial, Gab, GETTR, Mastodon, and LinkedIn. Using an exhaustive sample, we analyze all (over 10 million) posts containing links to news domains shared on these platforms during January 2024. We find that news shared on platforms with more conservative user bases is significantly lower quality on average. Turning to engagement, we find\u2014contrary to hypotheses of a consistent \u201cright-wing advantage\u201d on social media\u2014that the relationship between political lean and engagement is strongly heterogeneous across platforms. Conservative news posts receive more engagement on platforms where most content is conservative, and vice versa for liberal news posts, consistent with an \u201cecho platform\u201d perspective. In contrast, the relationship between news quality and engagement is strikingly consistent: Across all platforms examined, a given user\u2019s lower-quality news posts received higher average engagement, even though higher-quality news is substantially more prevalent and garners far more total engagement across posts. This pattern holds when accounting for poster-level variation and is observed even in the absence of ranking algorithms, suggesting that user preferences\u2014not algorithmic bias\u2014may underlie the underperformance of higher-quality news.

https:\/\/www.pnas.org\/doi\/10.1073\/pnas.2425739122<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The authors announce, right up front, that they are studying \u201cnews quality,\u201d political lean, and engagement across seven platforms. What they never seriously do is justify what \u201cquality\u201d means. Instead, they import it wholesale from an ideological ecosystem that has already decided which voices are acceptable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Their own description is telling:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWe measure the quality of the news source linked to in each post using a \u2018wisdom of experts\u2019 approach in which ratings from a variety of fact-checkers, journalists, and academics are aggregated\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This sentence does nearly all the work in the paper. It sounds neutral, technocratic, and authoritative. It is none of those things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is no definition of ideological diversity among these \u201cexperts,\u201d no attempt to measure disagreement, and no adversarial testing. The paper simply assumes that journalists, professional fact-checkers, and academics constitute a politically neutral reference class. Anyone familiar with the modern media-academic complex knows that assumption is indefensible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Worse, the authors openly admit that they are not measuring accuracy at all. Instead, they rely on reputation as a stand-in:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWe followed a standard practice in the literature and used the reliability of the publisher as a proxy for accuracy of content.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

A proxy is not a measurement. And this proxy commits a fundamental category error: individual claims are judged not by whether they are true, but by whether the institution publishing them has been blessed by the correct set of gatekeepers. A factual article from a disfavored outlet is permanently \u201clow quality.\u201d A false article from a prestige outlet remains \u201chigh quality\u201d by definition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accuracy never enters the model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the primary sources feeding these domain ratings is NewsGuard, an organization that has moved well beyond fact-checking into open policy advocacy, government partnerships, and content policing. Treating NewsGuard scores as an epistemic baseline is not neutral. It is ideological outsourcing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet the paper anticipates this criticism and waves it away:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe strong correlation between political leaning and source quality we observe\u2026 is unlikely to be the result of ideological bias among fact-checkers\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This is not an empirical conclusion. It is a declaration of trust.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors argue that \u201cpolitically balanced crowds\u201d produce similar ratings, implying this somehow proves neutrality. But political balance does not equal epistemic independence. A Democrat and a Republican who both consume the same legacy media, trust the same institutions, and defer to the same authorities do not magically cancel out shared priors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once \u201cquality\u201d has been defined this way, the paper\u2019s headline results become tautological. The authors report:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cLower-quality news domains are shared more on right-leaning platforms\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Translated into plain English, this means: platforms populated by people skeptical of mainstream institutions tend to link to outlets disliked by mainstream institutions. That is not a discovery. It is a restatement of the setup.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Political lean itself is classified using GPT-4:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cTo measure political lean, we used GPT-4o and asked it to rate domains\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

A large language model trained primarily on mainstream journalism and academic literature is being used to label ideological bias. The authors then \u201cvalidate\u201d these labels against other commonly used measures\u2014measures built from the same institutional inputs. This is not validation; it is ideological echo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paper\u2019s central behavioral claim is that users engage more with \u201clow-quality\u201d content than \u201chigh-quality\u201d content, even when controlling for the user:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cAcross all platforms examined, a given user\u2019s lower-quality news posts received higher average engagement\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This is framed as evidence that misinformation is inherently more engaging. But the authors quietly concede a far less flattering explanation for the institutions they favor:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cAn important contributor appears to be comparatively low engagement rates of posts linking to The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, USA Today, and Reuters\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In other words, elite legacy outlets perform poorly. Users are not stampeding toward fringe conspiracy sites; they are disengaging from institutions that have become repetitive, moralizing, and predictably wrong on too many major issues to count.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rather than take this as evidence of institutional fatigue or earned distrust, the authors reach for familiar psychological clich\u00e9s:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThis pattern suggests an underlying reason simply might be user preference\u2014e.g., for novel, negative, or moralizing content\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Notice what is never considered: that some content labeled \u201clow quality\u201d might be accurate, insightful, or correct earlier than elite consensus allowed. That possibility would require interrogating the rating system itself, which the paper treats as sacrosanct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study\u2019s confidence in its framework is further undercut by its funding disclosure:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWe acknowledge funding support from the Open Society Foundation.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This is not a moral indictment. It is contextual information. The Open Society Foundation has invested heavily in misinformation research, platform governance, and content moderation. A paper that defines quality via activist-aligned institutions, finds dissent engaging, and frames that engagement as a problem fits neatly within that agenda.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the paper actually demonstrates\u2014despite its intentions\u2014is that institutional authority no longer guarantees attention. Users are selective. They are skeptical. They are increasingly uninterested in being told what is true by organizations that spent years insisting certainty where uncertainty reigned, and silence where debate was warranted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A genuinely skeptical study would have examined claim-level accuracy. It would have tracked which \u201clow-quality\u201d claims later proved correct. It would have tested ideological variance among raters rather than asserting neutrality by credential. It might even have entertained the heretical notion that elite consensus is sometimes wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This paper does none of that. Instead, it constructs a closed epistemic loop, defines disagreement as low quality, and then expresses concern that disagreement is popular.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The real finding is not about misinformation. It is about the collapse of deference\u2014and the quiet panic of institutions that mistook authority for truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Every so often an academic paper appears that claims to analyze a problem while quietly defining the outcome in advance. The recent PNAS paper by Mosleh et al., \u201cDivergent patterns of engagement with partisan and low-quality news across seven social media platforms,\u201d is a textbook example.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":418945,"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":true,"token":"eyJpbWciOiJodHRwczpcL1wvaTAud3AuY29tXC9jbGltYXRlLXNjaWVuY2UucHJlc3NcL3dwLWNvbnRlbnRcL3VwbG9hZHNcLzIwMjVcLzEyXC9BUU5TdFN5YXZiX3Jzc3hMdkxVa19uemNCalotSVhsLWxZbnkwRmstbjB0WDFZVzdMX2pQS1Nucko0dW5mdXNKdnhRNW1rUV8ycmlEUVlvXzhhVkRrVi1LQnhGTTF1SjZJSEpxZFo5NFJfR21MdUJQR0tocHdrTjBxbmFobWM3MS5wbmc_Zml0PTcyMyUyQzcyMyZzc2w9MSIsInR4dCI6IkhvdyBhIFBOQVMgU3R1ZHkgQ29uZnVzZXMgSW5zdGl0dXRpb25hbCBBdXRob3JpdHkgd2l0aCBUcnV0aCIsInRlbXBsYXRlIjoiaGlnaHdheSIsImZvbnQiOiIiLCJibG9nX2lkIjoxNTU4MTI0NDl9.Q_4d2pllUNT-xO4hw8uHMVU_uV4HZRsaFtW_Cbd8nLkMQ"},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691826435,691840375,691840378,691840377,691832390],"class_list":["post-418941","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-facebook","tag-news-quality","tag-pnas-study","tag-political-lean","tag-social-media-platforms","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQNStSyavb_rssxLvLUk_nzcBjZ-IXl-lYny0Fk-n0tX1YW7L_jPKSnrJ4unfusJvxQ5mkQ_2riDQYo_8aVDkV-KBxFM1uJ6IHJqdZ94R_GmLuBPGKhpwkN0qnahmc71.png?fit=1280%2C1280&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1KZ7","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":300680,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=300680","url_meta":{"origin":418941,"position":0},"title":"Hurricane Category 6?","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/08\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The\u00a0PNAS\u00a0reasoning was that a few Pacific Hurricanes (aka tropical cyclones) have exceeded SF level 5. True, sort of. All 5 cited by PNAS only temporarily exceeded Cat 5. For example, quoting from the new paper, \u201cThe most intense of these hypothetical Cat 6 storms, Patricia, hit landfall in Jalisco, Mexico\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\/02\/0hurricane-patricia.jpg?fit=1200%2C674&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0hurricane-patricia.jpg?fit=1200%2C674&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0hurricane-patricia.jpg?fit=1200%2C674&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0hurricane-patricia.jpg?fit=1200%2C674&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0hurricane-patricia.jpg?fit=1200%2C674&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":330571,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=330571","url_meta":{"origin":418941,"position":1},"title":"The Ideological Capture of Academia: Scientific Censorship Motivated by Prosocial Concerns","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/30\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"An article published last November from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) titled \u201cProsocial Motives Underlie Scientific Censorship by Scientists: A Perspective and Research Agenda\u201d exposes a profound issue within the scientific community\u2014censorship driven by ideological motives under the guise of prosocial concerns. This phenomenon has far-reaching\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\/2024\/05\/Screenshot-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\/2024\/05\/Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":339568,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=339568","url_meta":{"origin":418941,"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":"08\/14\/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":348644,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=348644","url_meta":{"origin":418941,"position":3},"title":"New Paper: Methane Concentration Increase Not Related to Fossil Fuels","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/24\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"A new paper just published in the PNAS identifies different culprits. This is unlikely to mollify climate zealots as agriculture is listed among the potential causes.","rel":"","context":"In \"CO2 fertilization\"","block_context":{"text":"CO2 fertilization","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=co2-fertilization-2"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0see-vogel-sonnenuntergang-himmel.jpg?fit=1200%2C803&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0see-vogel-sonnenuntergang-himmel.jpg?fit=1200%2C803&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0see-vogel-sonnenuntergang-himmel.jpg?fit=1200%2C803&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0see-vogel-sonnenuntergang-himmel.jpg?fit=1200%2C803&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0see-vogel-sonnenuntergang-himmel.jpg?fit=1200%2C803&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":389785,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=389785","url_meta":{"origin":418941,"position":4},"title":"Storm Chasing with Michael Mann: How to Stay in the Climate Spotlight","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"07\/19\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"It\u2019s hard not to notice when Michael Mann\u2019s name appears in the author list of a climate paper\u2014after all, he\u2019s about as synonymous with climate alarm as Al Gore is with PowerPoint slides. One could say spotting his name in a paper about \u201cintensification of the strongest nor\u2019easters\u201d is like\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate fearmongering\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate fearmongering","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-fearmongering"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/0pnas.2510029122fig02.jpg?fit=1200%2C713&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/0pnas.2510029122fig02.jpg?fit=1200%2C713&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/0pnas.2510029122fig02.jpg?fit=1200%2C713&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/0pnas.2510029122fig02.jpg?fit=1200%2C713&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/0pnas.2510029122fig02.jpg?fit=1200%2C713&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":394935,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=394935","url_meta":{"origin":418941,"position":5},"title":"Surprise! Study says Late Jurassic CO2 was 1,200 ppm, dipped to 750 ppm in the Cretaceous","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"08\/13\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Press release from University of G\u00f6ttingen:\u00a0T-Rex Dinosaur teeth give glimpse of early Earth\u2019s climate","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\/08\/0AQOuE8OlD7vJRv-nBoRiBgfbusoT_ZpcXNMQmjbaxZ2TuRBpYEwIulvldBWhhVgXrDAr4GUwiqBAvbvOUwnDBXq1F9-XZgfDnsdO2EhTWXtDkS8gaARyCswtJlVyTQu6gmhkyQtMYKvJemJ1qG-QVIahDHIBAQ-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/0AQOuE8OlD7vJRv-nBoRiBgfbusoT_ZpcXNMQmjbaxZ2TuRBpYEwIulvldBWhhVgXrDAr4GUwiqBAvbvOUwnDBXq1F9-XZgfDnsdO2EhTWXtDkS8gaARyCswtJlVyTQu6gmhkyQtMYKvJemJ1qG-QVIahDHIBAQ-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/0AQOuE8OlD7vJRv-nBoRiBgfbusoT_ZpcXNMQmjbaxZ2TuRBpYEwIulvldBWhhVgXrDAr4GUwiqBAvbvOUwnDBXq1F9-XZgfDnsdO2EhTWXtDkS8gaARyCswtJlVyTQu6gmhkyQtMYKvJemJ1qG-QVIahDHIBAQ-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/0AQOuE8OlD7vJRv-nBoRiBgfbusoT_ZpcXNMQmjbaxZ2TuRBpYEwIulvldBWhhVgXrDAr4GUwiqBAvbvOUwnDBXq1F9-XZgfDnsdO2EhTWXtDkS8gaARyCswtJlVyTQu6gmhkyQtMYKvJemJ1qG-QVIahDHIBAQ-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/0AQOuE8OlD7vJRv-nBoRiBgfbusoT_ZpcXNMQmjbaxZ2TuRBpYEwIulvldBWhhVgXrDAr4GUwiqBAvbvOUwnDBXq1F9-XZgfDnsdO2EhTWXtDkS8gaARyCswtJlVyTQu6gmhkyQtMYKvJemJ1qG-QVIahDHIBAQ-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/418941","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=418941"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/418941\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":418947,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/418941\/revisions\/418947"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/418945"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=418941"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=418941"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=418941"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}