{"id":429638,"date":"2026-03-05T09:46:35","date_gmt":"2026-03-05T08:46:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=429638"},"modified":"2026-03-05T09:46:38","modified_gmt":"2026-03-05T08:46:38","slug":"muddling-the-judiciarys-understanding-of-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=429638","title":{"rendered":"Muddling the Judiciary\u2019s Understanding of Science"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

From CO2 COATITION<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

by Sharon Camp<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While an educational manual for federal judges was improved when a biased representation of climate change was removed, a remaining chapter on the fundamentals of science would poison the judiciary with quackery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cHow Science Works\u201d chapter of the \u201cReference Manual on Scientific Evidence\u201d allows for an overreliance on the unproven assumptions of computer models and an acceptance of \u201cconsensus\u201d as proof even when contradicted by empirical evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This violates tenets of the hundreds-year-old Scientific Method that require data obtained through experimentation or observation of the physical world as the means of supporting scientific conclusions. The undue regard for models and consensus is emblematic of climate alarmists whose claims fail scrupulous examination and whose views are shared by at least one of the chapter\u2019s authors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In defining the concepts of hypothesis, theory and scientific law, the writers exclude the elements of testing, observation and experimentation. Neither is it acknowledged that all three can be disproven, even though the ability to demonstrate the falseness of a conclusion has long been recognized as the path to advancing scientific knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Along these lines, the chapter even says that science cannot \u201cdisprove hypotheses,\u201d although science has done so many times. A famous example is geocentricism that was supplanted in the 1500s by the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. Others include phrenology, eugenics, spontaneous generation and miasma theory of disease. All were embraced by much of the scientific community of their time \u2013 a consensus \u2013 until proven false. German scientist Alfred Wegener was dead for 30 years \u2013 and rejected by a consensus of his peers \u2013 before his theory of plate tectonics gained support in the last half of the 20th<\/sup> century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors may misunderstand the Scientific Method. Or perhaps they believe that computer models relying on unproven assumptions that fail to explain or predict outcomes should be accepted over the extensive experimentation and observation required by the Scientific Method.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The chapter also misses the mark with this statement: \u201cIn the context of testing hypotheses, the term prediction refers to a logical consequence of a hypothesis, not necessarily what will happen in the future.\u201d On the contrary, a prediction is all about what will happen in the future. Either objects of different weights dropped from the same height in a vacuum hit the ground at the same time or don\u2019t. (They do.) A hypothesis also can be tested by determining whether it can explain something that has happened in the past.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Are the authors saying that a hypothesis paired with a model is sufficient confirmation, even when they fail to predict the future or explain the past? Or perhaps they believe that computer models predicting the climate 50-100 years in the future are more accurate than weather models that are reliable less than a week in advance \u2014 and sometimes failing that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apparently, there is no need to fret about such failures because the authors say: \u201cThe fact that there is room for improvement in the process of science does not necessitate distrust of hypotheses that have gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community and about which consensus has been achieved.\u201d This is a justification for using consensus as a defense against evidence that challenges a popular narrative \u2013 a common ploy of climate alarmists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In places, the chapter is self-contradictory. For example, the writers seem to embrace key elements of the Scientific Method when they say that a testable hypothesis must ultimately predict a set of observations that could or could not be made. This suggests a less cavalier relationship with traditional science than exhibited elsewhere, such as when key features of hypotheses and theories are omitted from their definitions. Unfortunately, the contradiction conveys a desire \u201cto have it both ways\u201d more than a commitment to rigorous scientific inquiry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, the chapter\u2019s confusions and inordinate 62-page length muddy a reader\u2019s understanding of the Scientific Method. More problematic, the writers introduce wrongheaded practices like the overuse of models and consensus in settling important questions. Such departures from the empirical tradition of Isaac Newton and Marie Curie make for superficial and specious investigations of reality known as pseudoscience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having received objections from state attorneys general and others, U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg excised the offending chapter on climate change from the reference manual. This is a remedy that needs to be applied by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, which still includes the chapter on its website<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the meantime, as head of the Federal Judicial Center, the manual\u2019s publisher, Judge Rosenberg should do the same with \u201cHow Science Works.\u201d The judiciary and the public it serves deserve nothing less.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Originally published in The Blaze<\/a> on March 3, 2026.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sharon Camp, senior education advisor for the CO2 Coalition<\/a>, Fairfax, Virginia, has a Ph.D. in analytical chemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology, and has worked for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and as an advanced placement science teacher.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s New!<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The CO2<\/sub><\/em> Coalition has released its new episode of the Climate Debrief<\/em> Podcast<\/em> featuring Ron Stein. Watch the full video here<\/a><\/em>!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

While an educational manual for federal judges was improved when a biased representation of climate change was removed, a remaining chapter on the fundamentals of science would poison the judiciary with quackery.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":429644,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691818721,691818056,691819102,691818427,691822686,691841734,691830237,691841374],"class_list":{"0":"post-429638","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-climate-alarmists","9":"tag-climate-change","10":"tag-computer-models","11":"tag-consensus","12":"tag-hypothesis","13":"tag-scientific-law","14":"tag-scientific-method","15":"tag-u-s-federal-judges","17":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/02a8bce31-97cb-452a-b3d2-3f3a84bd77ce_1280x853.jpg?fit=1280%2C853&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1NLE","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":425456,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425456","url_meta":{"origin":429638,"position":0},"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":[]},{"id":426787,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=426787","url_meta":{"origin":429638,"position":1},"title":"Judge Rejects Climate Dogma, Begins to Restore Integrity","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"17\/02\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"In a bold stroke against the pseudoscience of climate alarmism, U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg has removed a deeply flawed discussion on climate change from the fourth edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.","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-Federal-Reference-Manual-on-Scientific-Evidence1.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-Federal-Reference-Manual-on-Scientific-Evidence1.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0-Federal-Reference-Manual-on-Scientific-Evidence1.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0-Federal-Reference-Manual-on-Scientific-Evidence1.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":440411,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=440411","url_meta":{"origin":429638,"position":2},"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":429638,"position":3},"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":430017,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=430017","url_meta":{"origin":429638,"position":4},"title":"Ghostwriters for the Courts: The Climate Litigation Network Behind a Withdrawn Judicial Manual","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"07\/03\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Late last year the federal judiciary quietly released a document that almost nobody outside legal circles normally notices: the fourth edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Within weeks one section of that manual vanished. The reason it vanished reveals something deeply troubling about how climate science, academic institutions,\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\/AQOtPlj-twVkVNbjMFxg1FfGA2qhjRHqHhEv1jkG_xP2c3_Q-pJlBktiaHEfpipmIiMwHUIqTP_zFBNrxftyKPXc_AXVTtgjjcEcgwOylKHQSRMrkZg9UjlFnntzFx5aUuNQdF0qrxWoVMEYa8D25eVwetWT.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/AQOtPlj-twVkVNbjMFxg1FfGA2qhjRHqHhEv1jkG_xP2c3_Q-pJlBktiaHEfpipmIiMwHUIqTP_zFBNrxftyKPXc_AXVTtgjjcEcgwOylKHQSRMrkZg9UjlFnntzFx5aUuNQdF0qrxWoVMEYa8D25eVwetWT.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/AQOtPlj-twVkVNbjMFxg1FfGA2qhjRHqHhEv1jkG_xP2c3_Q-pJlBktiaHEfpipmIiMwHUIqTP_zFBNrxftyKPXc_AXVTtgjjcEcgwOylKHQSRMrkZg9UjlFnntzFx5aUuNQdF0qrxWoVMEYa8D25eVwetWT.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/AQOtPlj-twVkVNbjMFxg1FfGA2qhjRHqHhEv1jkG_xP2c3_Q-pJlBktiaHEfpipmIiMwHUIqTP_zFBNrxftyKPXc_AXVTtgjjcEcgwOylKHQSRMrkZg9UjlFnntzFx5aUuNQdF0qrxWoVMEYa8D25eVwetWT.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/AQOtPlj-twVkVNbjMFxg1FfGA2qhjRHqHhEv1jkG_xP2c3_Q-pJlBktiaHEfpipmIiMwHUIqTP_zFBNrxftyKPXc_AXVTtgjjcEcgwOylKHQSRMrkZg9UjlFnntzFx5aUuNQdF0qrxWoVMEYa8D25eVwetWT.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":434217,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=434217","url_meta":{"origin":429638,"position":5},"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":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/429638","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=429638"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/429638\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":429646,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/429638\/revisions\/429646"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/429644"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=429638"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=429638"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=429638"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}