{"id":424954,"date":"2026-02-06T18:18:51","date_gmt":"2026-02-06T17:18:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=424954"},"modified":"2026-02-06T18:18:54","modified_gmt":"2026-02-06T17:18:54","slug":"would-you-trust-the-national-academies-of-science-to-tell-you-how-science-works","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=424954","title":{"rendered":"Would You Trust the National Academies of Science to Tell You How Science Works?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"A<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

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

Francis Menton’s February 5, 2026, post specifically critiques the “How Science Works” chapter in the newly released Fourth Edition of the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, a document co-developed with NASEM input.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Professor Michael Weisberg \u00b4s work focuses on philosophy of science, particularly models and idealization in scientific practice, philosophy of biology, and related areas like simulation and global climate issues. He has also taken on administrative roles and advisory positions on climate-related topics.<\/p>\n\n\n

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

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

From The Manhattan Contrarian<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Francis Menton<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

My last two posts have been about the new Federal Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, just out (December 31) from the Federal Justice Center. The Chair of that Center is U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts. The latest version of the Manual is the Fourth Edition<\/a>. The prior version in 2011 was the Third Edition<\/a>; and there were also two prior Editions from 2000 and 1994.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In those previous two posts, I principally criticized a newly- added chapter in the Fourth Edition titled \u201cReference Guide on Climate Science.\u201d Today, I want to take a look at another chapter titled \u201cHow Science Works.\u201d There was no such chapter in the First Edition, but a chapter by that title, written by a guy named David Goodstein (an Emeritus Professor at Caltech), was added in the Second Edition. In the Third Edition, Goodstein\u2019s chapter was somewhat modified and slightly expanded (from 16 pages to 18). Goodstein died in 2024, and in the Fourth Edition he has been replaced by Michael Weisberg and Anastasia Thanukos, who have now produced a chapter with the same title, but now running to some 61 pages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my January 31 post<\/a>, my comment on the Weisberg\/Thanukos work product was that it was \u201cnot too terrible,\u201d but that it was \u201cway longer than it needs to be\u201d and \u201cthe most important points are buried.\u201d Further comparing this chapter to the chapter on (so-called) \u201cclimate science\u201d (which is entirely hoakum) I continue the view that there are some good points here. However, there are also some serious flaws, and I don\u2019t want to move on without pointing some of those out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s start with the identity of the lead author. Weisberg is said to be a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania. One part of that gives great pause, and it\u2019s not that Weisberg is a Professor of Philosophy rather than of some field of science. I think that the nature of the scientific method and of the development of scientific knowledge is actually a bona fide part of philosophy, namely logic. So, the part of Weisberg\u2019s resume that gives me pause is instead that he works at the University of Pennsylvania. That is the institution that in 2022 hired the single biggest charlatan pseudoscientist in the entire country, namely Michael \u201cHockey Stick\u201d Mann, and gave him a top University Professorship. Has Weisberg ever spoken out against Mann, or criticized him in any way? Not that I can find. So, for starters, here we have a guy who is willing to look past and excuse the worst of the worst in the way of politicized pseudoscience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As I said in the previous post, there are many things here to which I can subscribe, and I should start with those. As the most important example, the section on \u201cKey Traits of Science,\u201d beginning at page 60, basically has it right. Subsections include: \u201cScience Investigates the Natu\u00adral World and Natu\u00adral Explanations\u201d; \u201cScience Investigates Testable Hypotheses\u201d; and \u201cScience Responds to Evidence.\u201d So far, so good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But in the process of generating a way-too-long 60+ pages, Weisberg veers badly off track from time to time. There are too many examples to cover them all in a short blog post, but here are a several of the more important:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is Science a method of inquiry or a body of accepted knowledge (or both)?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Weisberg gets this one completely wrong. From page 50:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Science is both a body of knowledge and the \u00ad process for building that knowledge based on evidence acquired through observation, experiment, and simulation. The term is accurately applied to knowledge on a wide variety of topics and to diverse lines of inquiry.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

I completely disagree. The idea that Science can be a body of knowledge is where we get pronouncements from a priestly class that \u201cThe Science\u201d has established such and so, and therefore we mere laymen and peons are not allowed to question it. That is the opposite of the scientific method. So, science cannot be both the method that questions all allegedly accepted propositions, and also a body of accepted knowledge. Richard Feynmann\u2019s definition of science is the one I subscribe to: \u201cScience is the belief in the ignorance of experts.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Confused treatment of the concept of falsification.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the beginning of a subsection titled \u201cScience Does Not Prove<\/em> Hypotheses,\u201d Weisberg states \u201cNo \u00ad matter how much evidence supports or refutes it, a hypothesis cannot be absolutely proven true or false.\u201d<\/em> I agree that a hypothesis cannot absolutely be proven true, but how about false? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

After making that statement, Weisberg goes through a series of examples, all of which are instances of how a hypothesis can still turn out to be false even after much accumulation of corroborating evidence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes. But he gives no examples of the opposite circumstance, where a hypothesis could turn out to be true after falsified by definitive evidence. In discussing the subject, he confuses the logic of advancing knowledge through a process of falsification with a very separate concept, which is the practical difficulty of accumulating unambiguous evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sloppy statements about \u201caccepted science\u201d and \u201cconsensus.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the midst of otherwise sensible sub-sections and paragraphs, sloppy sentences repeatedly appear about things deemed to be \u201caccepted science\u201d and \u201cconsensus.\u201d For example, from page 64:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Despite its tentative nature, accepted scientific knowledge is reliable.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Well, Michael, which<\/em> \u201caccepted\u201d scientific knowledge is \u201creliable\u201d? All of it? And, \u201caccepted\u201d by whom? By your friends? By my friends? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

By the orthodox climate clique? How can someone make such a statement after the \u201caccepted science\u201d Covid debacle of lock- downs and masking and \u201csocial distancing\u201d that we have just been through, not to mention the endless and ongoing climate scam?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Weisberg continues:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Such [\u201caccepted science\u201d] explanations generate predictions that hold true in many differ\u00adent contexts and at many diff er\u00ad ent scales, allowing us to figure out how entities in the natu\u00adral world are likely to behave and how we can harness that understanding to solve prob\u00adlems and dispense justice.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Well, \u201caccepted science\u201d explanations do generate useful predictions in some circumstances, and in other circumstances they prove to be completely wrong. The only thing significant about real science (the method) is providing a method to distinguish between those two categories. Weisberg does not do that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Correlation and causation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From page 92:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

While the often-\u00adstated maxim that correlation does not imply causation is true, in fact, correlation is the only means that we have of establishing causation in science.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s just completely wrong. We absolutely have a way of \u201cestablishing causation\u201d \u2014 or at least of progressively ruling out causes other than our hypothesized cause \u2014 which is by disproof of the null hypothesis. In the most common example with which almost everyone is familiar, pharmaceutical companies seeking approval of a drug are required to (at least tentatively) prove its efficacy by disproving the null hypothesis that a placebo is as good or better.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Weisberg follows the statement I quote above with a long example about how the causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer was established through a long series of studies proving correlation. Yes, in part. But those studies also disproved the null hypothesis that people or animals not exposed to inhaled tobacco smoke got lung cancer at the same rate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, the operating hypothesis is that Professor Weisberg wrote this chapter in complete good faith to give the courts a neutral guide to science, and the flaws I have identified are just a few innocent mis-steps attributable to short deadlines or sloppiness. But then there\u2019s the null hypothesis that what I say are flaws were actually very intentionally inserted to give support to the litigation efforts of the most politicized consensus \u201cscience\u201d scams going on these days, starting with the climate alarm scam. I kind of think that we are close to having to reject the original operating hypothesis in favor of the null hypothesis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Francis Menton’s February 5, 2026, post specifically critiques the “How Science Works” chapter in the newly released Fourth Edition of the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, a document co-developed with NASEM input.<\/p>\n

Professor Michael Weisberg \u00b4s work focuses on philosophy of science, particularly models and idealization in scientific practice, philosophy of biology, and related areas like simulation and global climate issues. He has also taken on administrative roles and advisory positions on climate-related topics.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":424961,"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":"Explore Francis Menton's critique of the new Federal Judicial Center's chapter on 'How Science Works' and its implications for scientific integrity.","jetpack_seo_html_title":"Critiquing the New Federal Manual on Scientific Evidence","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":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":true,"token":"eyJpbWciOiJodHRwczpcL1wvY2xpbWF0ZS1zY2llbmNlLnByZXNzXC93cC1jb250ZW50XC91cGxvYWRzXC8yMDI2XC8wMlwvMC1wb2xpdGljaXplZC1wc2V1ZG9zY2llbmNlLTY4M3gxMDI0LmpwZyIsInR4dCI6IldvdWxkIFlvdSBUcnVzdCB0aGUgTmF0aW9uYWwgQWNhZGVtaWVzIG9mIFNjaWVuY2UgdG8gVGVsbCBZb3UgSG93IFNjaWVuY2UgV29ya3M_IiwidGVtcGxhdGUiOiJoaWdod2F5IiwiZm9udCI6IiIsImJsb2dfaWQiOjE1NTgxMjQ0OX0.GRGxhWNWU4wpHL-2zVIgf7y-Mod5Xj_Pm2L1Bv8zGFYMQ"},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691819140,691841229,691841228,691841230,691841156],"class_list":{"0":"post-424954","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-climate-science","9":"tag-federal-judicial-centers-reference-manual-on-scientific-evidence","10":"tag-fourth-edition","11":"tag-michael-weisberg-professor-of-philosophy","12":"tag-reference-guide-on-climate-science","14":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0-politicized-pseudoscience.jpg?fit=832%2C1248&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1My6","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":440411,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=440411","url_meta":{"origin":424954,"position":0},"title":"The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must act to restore real science to judicial oversight","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"19\/04\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Judges are not scientists, and the Supreme Court has never claimed they should resolve scientific debates. Their role is procedural and evidentiary: to demand that proffered \u201cscience\u201d in court meets basic standards of reliability before it influences outcomes in toxic torts, regulatory challenges, or mass litigation. Post-Loper Bright, this gatekeeping\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"\u201cScientific consensus\u201d\"","block_context":{"text":"\u201cScientific consensus\u201d","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=scientific-consensus-2"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-The-Chief-Justice-of-the-Supreme-Court-must-act-to-restore-real-science-to-judicial-oversight.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-The-Chief-Justice-of-the-Supreme-Court-must-act-to-restore-real-science-to-judicial-oversight.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-The-Chief-Justice-of-the-Supreme-Court-must-act-to-restore-real-science-to-judicial-oversight.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-The-Chief-Justice-of-the-Supreme-Court-must-act-to-restore-real-science-to-judicial-oversight.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":425574,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425574","url_meta":{"origin":424954,"position":1},"title":"Federal Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Climate Science Chapter – Withdrawn!","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/02\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"On January 29, a coalition of state Attorneys General from red states, led by the AG of West Virginia (JB McCuskey), had sent a letter to Judge Robin Rosenberg, the Director of the Center, asking for immediate withdrawal of the offending chapter.","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\/2026\/02\/0AQMVgOuqu12iybNbN6fYNRnvW2UNsiRszz4jw_HUV2G4hLSYEXfwmcXuXHvkaQ_HiiRpPPsRcyjeNUyH9JGwSkJQkcp4nBxNbxFfda8Cbl66Ynr2j-cmbvHcVx7-GtV5-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C564&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0AQMVgOuqu12iybNbN6fYNRnvW2UNsiRszz4jw_HUV2G4hLSYEXfwmcXuXHvkaQ_HiiRpPPsRcyjeNUyH9JGwSkJQkcp4nBxNbxFfda8Cbl66Ynr2j-cmbvHcVx7-GtV5-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C564&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0AQMVgOuqu12iybNbN6fYNRnvW2UNsiRszz4jw_HUV2G4hLSYEXfwmcXuXHvkaQ_HiiRpPPsRcyjeNUyH9JGwSkJQkcp4nBxNbxFfda8Cbl66Ynr2j-cmbvHcVx7-GtV5-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C564&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0AQMVgOuqu12iybNbN6fYNRnvW2UNsiRszz4jw_HUV2G4hLSYEXfwmcXuXHvkaQ_HiiRpPPsRcyjeNUyH9JGwSkJQkcp4nBxNbxFfda8Cbl66Ynr2j-cmbvHcVx7-GtV5-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C564&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0AQMVgOuqu12iybNbN6fYNRnvW2UNsiRszz4jw_HUV2G4hLSYEXfwmcXuXHvkaQ_HiiRpPPsRcyjeNUyH9JGwSkJQkcp4nBxNbxFfda8Cbl66Ynr2j-cmbvHcVx7-GtV5-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C564&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":424306,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=424306","url_meta":{"origin":424954,"position":2},"title":"The New Federal Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: All the Smartest People Get Hoodwinked by the Climate Charlatans","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/02\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"It is truly remarkable how easy it is to fool the smartest people. And especially when you tell them they are helping to save the world. So, something called the Federal Judicial Center has just come out with a new edition, the 4th, of something called the Reference Manual on\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\/2026\/02\/0-Climate-Charlatans-1.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0-Climate-Charlatans-1.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0-Climate-Charlatans-1.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0-Climate-Charlatans-1.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":439470,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=439470","url_meta":{"origin":424954,"position":3},"title":"Happer, Lindzen, Koonin Letter to the Federal Judicial Center","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"14\/04\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"The Happer, Lindzen, and Koonin letter (dated April 1, 2026) is an open letter addressed to Chief Justice John G. Roberts in his role as Chair of the Federal Judicial Center (FJC). It critiques aspects of the Fourth Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, a long-standing resource used\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"climate lawsuits\"","block_context":{"text":"climate lawsuits","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-lawsuits"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Happer-Lindzen-Koonin-Letter-to-the-Federal-Judicial-Center-1.jpg?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Happer-Lindzen-Koonin-Letter-to-the-Federal-Judicial-Center-1.jpg?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Happer-Lindzen-Koonin-Letter-to-the-Federal-Judicial-Center-1.jpg?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Happer-Lindzen-Koonin-Letter-to-the-Federal-Judicial-Center-1.jpg?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":434217,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=434217","url_meta":{"origin":424954,"position":4},"title":"Climate Science Is Creeping Into Courtrooms","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"26\/03\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"The inadequacies of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (Fourth Edition) extend far beyond the chapter on climate science you discuss in your editorial \u201cA Judicial Climate Science Scandal\u201d (Review & Outlook, March 14). Another chapter, \u201cHow Science Works,\u201d has earned sharp criticism from Jessica Weinkle, an associate professor of\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\/2026\/03\/A-Turning-Point-for-Litigation-Campaig-SCOTUS-Takes-Up-Boulder-Climate-Lawsuit.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/A-Turning-Point-for-Litigation-Campaig-SCOTUS-Takes-Up-Boulder-Climate-Lawsuit.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/A-Turning-Point-for-Litigation-Campaig-SCOTUS-Takes-Up-Boulder-Climate-Lawsuit.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/A-Turning-Point-for-Litigation-Campaig-SCOTUS-Takes-Up-Boulder-Climate-Lawsuit.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":425456,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425456","url_meta":{"origin":424954,"position":5},"title":"Process Wins One: Federal Judicial Center Deletes Climate Chapter from Judicial Manual","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/02\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"The Federal Judicial Center (FJC), the research and education arm of the U.S. federal judiciary, has removed a chapter on climate science from the fourth edition of its Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.","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\/2026\/02\/0AQMVgOuqu12iybNbN6fYNRnvW2UNsiRszz4jw_HUV2G4hLSYEXfwmcXuXHvkaQ_HiiRpPPsRcyjeNUyH9JGwSkJQkcp4nBxNbxFfda8Cbl66Ynr2j-cmbvHcVx7-GtV5-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C564&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0AQMVgOuqu12iybNbN6fYNRnvW2UNsiRszz4jw_HUV2G4hLSYEXfwmcXuXHvkaQ_HiiRpPPsRcyjeNUyH9JGwSkJQkcp4nBxNbxFfda8Cbl66Ynr2j-cmbvHcVx7-GtV5-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C564&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0AQMVgOuqu12iybNbN6fYNRnvW2UNsiRszz4jw_HUV2G4hLSYEXfwmcXuXHvkaQ_HiiRpPPsRcyjeNUyH9JGwSkJQkcp4nBxNbxFfda8Cbl66Ynr2j-cmbvHcVx7-GtV5-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C564&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0AQMVgOuqu12iybNbN6fYNRnvW2UNsiRszz4jw_HUV2G4hLSYEXfwmcXuXHvkaQ_HiiRpPPsRcyjeNUyH9JGwSkJQkcp4nBxNbxFfda8Cbl66Ynr2j-cmbvHcVx7-GtV5-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C564&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0AQMVgOuqu12iybNbN6fYNRnvW2UNsiRszz4jw_HUV2G4hLSYEXfwmcXuXHvkaQ_HiiRpPPsRcyjeNUyH9JGwSkJQkcp4nBxNbxFfda8Cbl66Ynr2j-cmbvHcVx7-GtV5-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C564&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/424954","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=424954"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/424954\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":424965,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/424954\/revisions\/424965"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/424961"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=424954"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=424954"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=424954"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}