{"id":429286,"date":"2026-03-03T10:30:54","date_gmt":"2026-03-03T09:30:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=429286"},"modified":"2026-03-03T10:30:55","modified_gmt":"2026-03-03T09:30:55","slug":"if-1c-destroys-20-of-gdp-why-did-nobody-notice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=429286","title":{"rendered":"If 1\u00b0C Destroys 20% of GDP, Why Did Nobody Notice?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

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

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

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

If 1\u00b0C Destroys 20% of GDP, Why Did Nobody Notice?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A new working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research makes a rather astonishing claim. According to Adrien Bilal and Diego K\u00e4nzig in \u201cThe Macroeconomic Impact of Climate Change: Global vs. Local Temperature,<\/em><\/a>\u201d<\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201c1\u00b0C warming reduces world GDP by over 20% in the long run.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

That is not a marginal adjustment to the literature. It is a tenfold escalation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors go further:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cClimate change of 2\u00b0C by 2100 leads to a present-value welfare loss of more than 30% and a Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) in excess of $1,200 per ton.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

If these numbers are even approximately correct, the implications are staggering. Carbon pricing would not merely be prudent. It would be radically underpriced. Climate change would not be a gradual background risk; it would already rank among the largest macroeconomic shocks in modern history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And yet a simple question arises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If 1\u00b0C of warming destroys 20% of global GDP, why did nobody notice?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Hidden Great Depression<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since roughly 1960, global average temperature has risen about 1\u00b0C. Over the same period:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  • World GDP per capita has risen roughly three- to four-fold.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Global poverty rates have collapsed.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Agricultural yields have increased dramatically.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Life expectancy has surged.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Extreme weather mortality has fallen sharply.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    According to the paper\u2019s own counterfactual exercise:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    \u201cWorld GDP per capita would be more than 20% higher today had no warming occurred between 1960 and 2019.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    In other words, we are living through the equivalent of a permanent Great Depression relative to a hypothetical non-warming baseline \u2014 we just failed to detect it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This is an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Methodological Pivot: Global vs. Local Temperature<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    For decades, most empirical climate-economy research has relied on local temperature variation across countries. Those studies typically find that a permanent 1\u00b0C increase reduces GDP by about 1\u20133%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Bilal and K\u00e4nzig argue that this approach understates damages because panel regressions with time fixed effects remove global effects. They instead exploit time-series variation in global mean temperature, constructing \u201cglobal temperature shocks\u201d and tracing their impact on world GDP .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Using this approach, they estimate that a 1\u00b0C shock leads to a 14\u201318% decline in GDP within six years . They then scale these responses to infer that a permanent 1\u00b0C rise reduces long-run GDP by roughly 20\u201334% .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    But here is the quiet detail doing enormous work:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The actual shocks observed in the data are on the order of 0.1\u20130.2\u00b0C .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The authors extrapolate from these small, transitory fluctuations to a permanent 1\u00b0C structural shift \u2014 five to ten times larger than anything directly observed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    That scaling requires strong linearity assumptions and assumes that short-run natural variability is a valid proxy for long-run anthropogenic warming. That is not a trivial assumption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Identification Problem No One Can Escape<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Global temperature is a single, highly persistent time series.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    So is global GDP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Even after filtering and controlling for oil prices, recessions, and interest rates, the identifying variation remains one-dimensional and global.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    There is only one planet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Panel studies using local variation at least benefit from cross-country differences. A global time series does not. Any unobserved global shock correlated with temperature fluctuations can contaminate the estimates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Robustness checks cannot fully resolve that structural limitation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Missing Side of the Ledger: Benefits of Mild Warming<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Perhaps the most striking omission in the paper\u2019s narrative is the asymmetric treatment of potential benefits from modest warming and rising CO\u2082 concentrations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The authors argue that global temperature shocks strongly predict extreme events . That may be so. But the paper largely treats warming as a one-directional negative productivity shock.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The historical record is more complex.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1. Agricultural Productivity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Green Revolution dramatically boosted crop yields beginning in the 1960s. But yield gains did not occur in a vacuum. CO2 is not a pollutant to plants. It is a fundamental input.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Numerous agronomic experiments have shown that elevated CO2 concentrations:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    • Increase photosynthetic rates<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Improve water-use efficiency<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Raise crop yields under many conditions<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

      At moderate temperature increases \u2014 particularly in colder regions \u2014 growing seasons lengthen, frost days decline, and marginal land becomes cultivable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Global cereal yields have increased more than threefold since 1960. That does not prove warming caused it, but it does complicate the narrative that warming is a dominant macroeconomic drag.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      2. Global Greening<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Satellite observations over the past several decades show a measurable increase in global leaf area index \u2014 often referred to as \u201cglobal greening.\u201d A substantial fraction of this increase is attributed to CO2 fertilization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      More vegetation implies:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      • Greater biomass<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Enhanced carbon uptake<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Expanded agricultural potential in some regions<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

        Again, this does not negate climate risks. But if a 1\u00b0C warming were destroying 20% of global GDP, one might expect to observe broad productivity deterioration, not simultaneous global greening and rising agricultural output.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        A World That Doesn\u2019t Look Like a Collapsing Economy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The paper\u2019s structural model projects dramatic capital destruction and productivity collapse. Under a 3\u00b0C scenario, GDP per capita falls more than 50% by 2100 .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Yet the historical 1\u00b0C warming so far coincided with:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          \n
        • Rising total factor productivity<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • Massive capital accumulation<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • Rapid technological diffusion<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • Urbanization and industrialization<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

          For the 20% figure to hold, global growth absent warming would have needed to be even more explosive than the already unprecedented growth actually observed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          That is possible in theory. But it implies that climate change has already suppressed a vast, unseen economic boom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          That suppression is not evident in macroeconomic data outside the model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          The Compounding Multiplier Effect<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          The large Social Cost of Carbon \u2014 over $1,200 per ton \u2014 is not independent evidence. It is the arithmetic consequence of assuming very large productivity losses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          If you assume:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            \n
          • 20\u201330% GDP loss per 1\u00b0C<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Persistent productivity decay<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Capital destruction amplification<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

            Then a massive SCC follows automatically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            The policy conclusion depends entirely on the initial damage estimate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            What Would We Expect to See?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

            If warming of 1\u00b0C truly reduces GDP by 20%, one would expect:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              \n
            • Visible stagnation in global output growth<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            • Clear productivity deterioration in temperature-sensitive sectors<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            • Widespread agricultural decline<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            • Reduced capital formation<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            • Reversal in living standards<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

              Instead, the post-1960 world experienced the largest sustained rise in human prosperity in history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              This does not prove warming is beneficial. It does suggest that claims of massive hidden losses should face an unusually high evidentiary bar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              The Core Question Remains<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

              The paper is sophisticated. It is technically ambitious. It presents numerous robustness checks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              But at its core lies a striking empirical tension:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              A 1\u00b0C warming since 1960 allegedly reduced world GDP by roughly 20%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              Yet the observable world economy looks nothing like one operating 20% below potential due to climate deterioration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              Skepticism in its proper sense is not reflex dismissal. It is disciplined suspension of judgment pending adequate evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              When a new study multiplies climate damages by ten relative to established research, that is not a small revision. It is a paradigm shift.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              If 1\u00b0C destroys 20% of GDP, the world should look poorer than it does \u2014 not greener, more productive, and dramatically wealthier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              Before rewriting climate policy around a tenfold escalation in estimated damages, we should ensure the model explains not only filtered impulse responses \u2014 but the actual economic history of the last half-century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              Because if a Great Depression has already occurred without anyone noticing, the burden of proof rests squarely with those claiming it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

              A new working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research makes a rather astonishing claim. According to Adrien Bilal and Diego K\u00e4nzig in \u201cThe Macroeconomic Impact of Climate Change: Global vs. Local Temperature,\u201d:<\/p>\n

              \u201c1\u00b0C warming reduces world GDP by over 20% in the long run.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":429289,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691841705,691818056,691819743,691834077,691835472,691822252,691841704,691827068],"class_list":["post-429286","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-1c-warming","tag-climate-change","tag-climate-propaganda","tag-gdp","tag-global-average-temperature","tag-global-greening","tag-national-bureau-of-economic-research","tag-social-cost-of-carbon-scc","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/AQM21e8ZM2nXWDGL9UOIfCFOlIG1mPL78AHxFBVjsmg5gMqocK_dc_MNd9g4ZBAknlz19lMXI2KaEH-fC4ZqtXSm6olGOWLuMTMjjLoYdY7K2Y-B2IDyturHg7Gtw_Yz.jpeg?fit=1500%2C1016&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1NFY","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":291565,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=291565","url_meta":{"origin":429286,"position":0},"title":"From Now To 2100 Emission Reduction Policy Costs Greatly Exceed Any Net Benefit From Averted Warming","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/16\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The benefits of not meeting Paris Accord emissions-reduction targets outweigh the costs associated even with worst-case-scenario global warming throughout the 21st century.","rel":"","context":"In \"best case scenarios\"","block_context":{"text":"best case scenarios","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=best-case-scenarios"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0P_G_aims_to_have_net_zero_on_GHG_emissions_by_2040_Shutterstock.com_xfji8p.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0P_G_aims_to_have_net_zero_on_GHG_emissions_by_2040_Shutterstock.com_xfji8p.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0P_G_aims_to_have_net_zero_on_GHG_emissions_by_2040_Shutterstock.com_xfji8p.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0P_G_aims_to_have_net_zero_on_GHG_emissions_by_2040_Shutterstock.com_xfji8p.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0P_G_aims_to_have_net_zero_on_GHG_emissions_by_2040_Shutterstock.com_xfji8p.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":266203,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=266203","url_meta":{"origin":429286,"position":1},"title":"A Welcome Gaffe: White House Lets Some Climate Truth Slip Out\u201d","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"07\/08\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Predictions of further warming in the next century are treated with doomsday zeal by climate alarmists. However, our past experience should lead us to believe that any climate changes will be more a minor inconvenience than an existential threat.","rel":"","context":"In \"Biden Administration\"","block_context":{"text":"Biden Administration","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=biden-administration"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/OIG-50.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/OIG-50.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/OIG-50.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/OIG-50.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":259499,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=259499","url_meta":{"origin":429286,"position":2},"title":"Even 3\u00b0C Warming Can\u2019t Stop World\u00a0Prosperity","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/28\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Even with an extreme scenario, the world should be richer and more capable in 2050","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate warning\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate warning","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-warning"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0924696-large-sunny-day-background-1920x1080-for-4k-monitor.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0924696-large-sunny-day-background-1920x1080-for-4k-monitor.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0924696-large-sunny-day-background-1920x1080-for-4k-monitor.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0924696-large-sunny-day-background-1920x1080-for-4k-monitor.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0924696-large-sunny-day-background-1920x1080-for-4k-monitor.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":247533,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=247533","url_meta":{"origin":429286,"position":3},"title":"The Economic Case for Net Zero Is Zero","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/14\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"At the very least, political leaders backing the net zero agenda should reconsider imposing on their citizens economic damages equivalent to a war for no good result.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-402.png?fit=1200%2C887&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-402.png?fit=1200%2C887&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-402.png?fit=1200%2C887&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-402.png?fit=1200%2C887&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-402.png?fit=1200%2C887&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":248751,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=248751","url_meta":{"origin":429286,"position":4},"title":"The Sleight of Hand in the Disingenuous 4th National Climate Assessment","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/20\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The NA4 focuses on the year 2090 because the 1990 legislation that established the National Climate Assessment wanted predictions for the next century. The NA4 states that it is a \u201cthorough examination of the effects of climate change on the United States.\u201d","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-814.png?fit=1200%2C1188&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-814.png?fit=1200%2C1188&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-814.png?fit=1200%2C1188&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-814.png?fit=1200%2C1188&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-814.png?fit=1200%2C1188&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":448594,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=448594","url_meta":{"origin":429286,"position":5},"title":"The Justification for Net Zero Has Vanished with the Demise of RCP8.5","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/05\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Any justification for Ed Miliband\u2019s Net Zero climate policy, whether real or imaginary, has vanished with the official abandonment by the IPCC of the scariest concentration scenario RCP8.5. Even Tony Blair can now perceive that the pursuit of Net Zero is unwarranted and harmful to Britain.","rel":"","context":"In \"climate alarmism\"","block_context":{"text":"climate alarmism","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-alarmism"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/0-Copilot_The-Justification-for-Net-Zero-Has-Vanished-with-the-Demise-of-RCP8.5.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/0-Copilot_The-Justification-for-Net-Zero-Has-Vanished-with-the-Demise-of-RCP8.5.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/0-Copilot_The-Justification-for-Net-Zero-Has-Vanished-with-the-Demise-of-RCP8.5.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/0-Copilot_The-Justification-for-Net-Zero-Has-Vanished-with-the-Demise-of-RCP8.5.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/429286","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=429286"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/429286\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":429291,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/429286\/revisions\/429291"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/429289"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=429286"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=429286"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=429286"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}