{"id":446940,"date":"2026-05-28T04:09:46","date_gmt":"2026-05-28T11:09:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=446940"},"modified":"2026-05-28T04:09:48","modified_gmt":"2026-05-28T11:09:48","slug":"how-can-we-persuade-climate-alarmists-to-acknowledge-there-are-two-sides-to-this-argument","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=446940","title":{"rendered":"How Can we Persuade Climate Alarmists to Acknowledge There Are Two Sides to This Argument?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

By Mike Hulme<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

his is the third in a series of 12 articles challenging climate change orthodoxy commissioned by Professor Gwythian Prins. We will be publishing the articles at a rate of one a week over the next 12 weeks (read the first article here<\/a> and the second article here<\/a>). The hope is that they can be collected into a book for Sixth Formers and university students.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In October 2023, the new Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, the American psychology professor Deborah Prentice, delivered her first Annual Address to Senate House<\/a>. Her address highlighted the imperative for university students to learn to \u201cdisagree well\u201d about difficult subjects and for universities to facilitate this learning. Prentice announced her intention to moderate a series of open \u2018dialogues\u2019 at Cambridge, in which experts challenge each other on pressing issues of the day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prentice\u2019s initiative was no doubt prompted by the lively public debate in the UK around free speech, cancel culture and academic freedom. It is a pressing issue within university life at the present time. In some instances, students and academics are being bullied into tacitly accepting viewpoint orthodoxies, fearful for their reputations and of being castigated for expressing contrarian views. A slew of books have recently appeared challenging the chilling climate of self-righteous orthodoxy that has emerged in recent years, among them Charlan Nemeth\u2019s In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business<\/em><\/a>; Andrew Doyle\u2019s The New Puritans: How the Religion of Social Justice Captured the Western World<\/em><\/a>; and Umut Ozkirimli\u2019s Cancelled: The Left Way Back from Woke<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have been arguing that we need to \u2018disagree well\u2019 for longer than the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge. In 2009, I published my first climate book, Why We Disagree About Climate Change<\/em><\/a>, which argued that unless we isolate and clarify the specific reasons why our attitudes and responses to climate change differ so markedly, we cannot truly claim to be taking the issue seriously. In the book\u2019s dedication, I noted that disagreement is always \u2013 or at least should<\/em> always be \u2013 a form of learning. Without hearing from those with whom we disagree, and without engaging them in debate and argument, we exist merely inside a partisan echo chamber rather than as part of a functioning democracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I believe this to be truer still of the politics of climate change than it was 16 years ago. There is no single correct way of interpreting and dealing with the risks and challenges of climate. Those who claim otherwise, and seek to suppress public and political debate because in their view stopping climate change matters more than respecting democracy, are dangerous ideologues with tunnel vision. This is the thrust of my more recent book, Climate Change Isn\u2019t Everything: Liberating Climate Politics from Alarmism<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Disagreement and Democracy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Disagreeing with others \u2013 whether on matters great or small, public or private \u2013 is part of the essence of what it is to be human. We each see the world differently, weigh evidence differently and hold different attitudes to risk, danger, justice and injustice. Giving space for such disagreements to be voiced and heard \u2013 and tolerating the dissenters \u2013 is a foundational principle of democracy<\/a>. Provoked by US Vice-President J D Vance\u2019s recent public criticism of Europe\u2019s fragile commitment to free speech, the Economist<\/em> conceded<\/a> that Europe really does have a problem and asked: \u201cWhat, practically, should Europeans do? They should start by returning to the old liberal ideas that noisy disagreement is better than enforced silence and that people should tolerate one another\u2019s views.\u201d A free and open society needs heterodox thinkers to be heard without fear of censorship or marginalisation. As the late Jerome Kagan, professor of developmental psychology at Harvard, noted:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Every democracy needs an opposition party to prevent the one temporarily in power from becoming despotic. And every society needs a cohort of intellectuals to check the dominance of a single perspective when its ideological hand becomes too heavy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not just in politics, but in science too. The lifeblood of science is to question, to doubt and to challenge. Criticism fulfils a necessary and positive function in science, but unlike a literary critic a scientific critic has no independent status. As Jacob Bronowski once noted, whereas literary critics carry status in their own right, to be a scientific critic is<\/em> to be a scientist. Scientific dissidents may not be popular with those who think they know the truth, but they are necessary if science is to command respect from the wider public. It is not that every heterodox thinker is correct; it is rather that, just as with a free and open society, science needs heterodox thinkers<\/a>. Their arguments should be heard without suppression; groupthink, censorship and a thought police<\/a> have no place in science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reducing Arguments to Labels<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The easiest way to avoid hard thinking on any complex problem is to silence those who disagree with you. There are different ways this might be done, but all three adopt an ad hominem<\/em> approach to winning an argument. You might call into question the integrity or sincerity of your critic; you might damn their views by associating them with discredited fellow-travellers; or you might dismiss their views as unworthy of consideration by attaching derogatory labels to their position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of these, the last is the most subtle, and this divide-and-rule tactic has been widely deployed in the climate change debate. Using a pejorative label such as \u2018climate change denier\u2019 to characterise the views of those with whom you disagree serves to isolate, exclude and dismiss their claims as unworthy of discussion. Once a pejorative label is attached to them, arguments can be waved away without further engagement. An emphasis on labels accentuates division and diverts attention from getting to the root of the disagreement \u2013 which is essential for public debate and understanding of a complex issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But this practice of \u2018marking the card\u2019 of those deemed to \u2018deny\u2019 climate science proved too narrowly drawn for those pursuing this tactic. So it is now possible to reach for an array of alliterative labels to call out those who, it is claimed<\/a>, seek to undermine or slow efforts to address the risks of climate change. One can choose from the following lexicon of additional \u2018d-words\u2019: climate \u2018delayers\u2019, \u2018dissemblers\u2019, \u2018deceivers\u2019, \u2018downplayers\u2019, \u2018dividers\u2019, \u2018deflectors\u2019, \u2018doomers\u2019 and \u2018distractors\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This strategy has been taken to its next logical step on the HotAir website<\/a>, commissioned and operated by Tortoise Media, the new owners of the Observer<\/em>. HotAir ingests a large digital corpus of so-called \u2018contrarian\u2019 claims about climate change which have been pre-classified using a deep-learning AI model. This model imposes a fivefold scheme<\/a> with further sub-categories: \u2018global warming is not happening\u2019, \u2018human greenhouse gases are not causing global warming\u2019, \u2018climate impacts are not bad\u2019, \u2018climate solutions won\u2019t work\u2019 and \u2018the climate movement\/science is unreliable\u2019. HotAir then classifies these textual fragments \u2013 speech acts emanating from individuals, organisations or websites \u2013 and \u2018marks\u2019 them as propagating either climate denial, climate delay or political coercion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But this approach seriously misleads audiences by conflating very different reasons for disagreement over climate change. Criticising certain aspects of climate science is a quite different matter from criticising certain policies or climate solutions \u2013 a distinction those advocating the new lexicon of \u2018d-words\u2019 refuse to acknowledge. Claims that \u2018mountain glaciers aren\u2019t retreating\u2019 or that \u2018atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is not rising\u2019 are, for example, entirely different from claims that \u2018green jobs don\u2019t work\u2019, \u2018nuclear energy is good\u2019 or \u2018the media is alarmist\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These latter claims cannot be determined to be scientifically correct or incorrect \u2013 either because the evidence is conflicting, the standards by which we judge them are values-based, or because they are partially true and<\/em> partially false. Some media reporting of climate change is<\/em> undoubtedly alarmist; nuclear energy is<\/em> for many part of a desirable and necessary energy mix; and whether green jobs \u2018work\u2019 depends on what that criterion means, for whom and over what time period. Creating a catch-all definition of \u2018climate delay\u2019 blurs the distinction between very different types of argument and risks proscribing legitimate public debate about climate policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legitimate Epistemic Uncertainty<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The examples above reveal the problems of policing what can or cannot be contested in respect of climate policies. But the same divide-and-rule tactic is often applied to what is or is not known scientifically about the changing climate. In science, the boundaries between \u201ctruth\u201d and \u201cuntruth\u201d are not easily drawn. The distinctions between Johann Wolfgang von Goethe\u2019s \u201cconditioned certainty\u201d, Bertrand Russell\u2019s \u201cmoderate scepticism\u201d and Robert Merton\u2019s \u201corganised scepticism\u201d<\/a> are often fuzzy. Where those boundaries lie should certainly not be determined by those external to the actual practices of science and scientific assessment; established scientific practice, processes and norms are their own policing mechanisms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is quite legitimate, for example, to read carefully the latest IPCC reports and identify what is known in climate science to varying levels of confidence. The Met Office\u2019s \u2018climate change questions<\/a>\u2019 website does a reasonable job of this. What is not legitimate is to extrapolate from a high-level claim such as \u201897% of scientists believe that human activities are changing the climate\u2019 and attach a similar level of consensus to every claim made about human influence on climate. Still less should scientists succumb to the lure of the noble lie<\/a>. There are many facets of a changing global climate where science does not speak with one voice, where we still \u2018see through a glass darkly\u2019. Scientists must be free to say so without the chilling effect of being labelled a climate \u2018doubter\u2019, \u2018delayer\u2019 or \u2018distractor\u2019. Recent examples from the peer-reviewed literature where scientific opinion remains widely divergent include: the impact of climate change on the south Asian monsoon; the effectiveness and risks of solar geoengineering technologies; the necessity of carbon capture; the future behaviour of hurricanes; and the scientific credibility of extreme weather attribution studies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Climate change is real and serious, but it is not everything<\/a>. Aiming to deliver largely arbitrary global temperature targets, or pursuing Net Zero emissions by a given date, foregrounds crude aggregated metrics that reduce the dimensionality of the climate change problem. They narrow the political field of vision<\/a> and can too easily lead to policy missteps. Sloganeering around such metrics must not foreclose political debate over the effectiveness and desirability of specific policies which, while they may help reduce climate risks, may simultaneously undermine or foreclose other legitimate policy goals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Writing in a different time and a different context, the late liberal-internationalist newspaper editor David Astor offered a trenchant defence of free speech that is worth rehearsing, whatever one\u2019s position in the climate debate. Among his private papers was one titled \u2018Memo on the Soul of a Paper\u2019, which summarised the beliefs that permeated his long editorship of the Observer<\/em> between 1948 and 1975. On Astor\u2019s watch, the paper\u2019s personality was shaped by people drawn together more by being \u2018anti-fascist\u2019 \u2013 that is, anti-Hitler \u2013 than by anything else. His beliefs are lucidly set out in the following passage, extracted from the Memo:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Treating opponents respectfully; trying to understand people and to explain them to each other; valuing differences; not exaggerating your own case; avoiding over-dramatisation or enjoyment of the sensational; practising moral courage, particularly daring to stand up to ridicule, and showing respect for that [courage] in others; discouraging herd thinking, particularly among those \u2018on our side\u2019; challenging taboos and legends, particularly those \u2018our sort\u2019 of reader usually accepts; deliberately cultivating doubt and scepticism, but not cynicism; practising self-criticism \u2013 as liberals, as internationalists, as journalists \u2013 as well as dishing it out to everyone else.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The new inheritors of Astor\u2019s legacy at the Observer<\/em> \u2013 Tortoise Media, with their HotAir website \u2013 would do well to read his Memo in full and apply it wholeheartedly to their reporting of climate change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mike Hulme is Professor of Human Geography in the Department of Geography, <\/em>University of Cambridge<\/em><\/a>, and a Fellow of <\/em>Pembroke College, Cambridge<\/em><\/a>. He was formerly Professor of Climate and Culture at <\/em>King\u2019s College London<\/em><\/a> (2013\u20132017) and of <\/em>Climate Change<\/em><\/a> in the School of Environmental Sciences at the <\/em>University of East Anglia<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In October 2023, the new Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, the American psychology professor Deborah Prentice, delivered her first Annual Address to Senate House. Her address highlighted the imperative for university students to learn to \u201cdisagree well\u201d about difficult subjects and for universities to facilitate this learning. Prentice announced her intention to moderate a series of open \u2018dialogues\u2019 at Cambridge, in which experts challenge each other on pressing issues of the day.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":446944,"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_seo_schema_type":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_wpcom_ai_launchpad_first_post":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":[691829989,691843321,691818956,691818951,691818056,691843324,691821918,691843323,691843322],"class_list":["post-446940","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-academic-freedom","tag-disagree-well","tag-cancel-culture","tag-censorship","tag-climate-change","tag-climate-change-debate","tag-free-speech","tag-groupthink","tag-noisy-disagreement","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1SgI","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":367826,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=367826","url_meta":{"origin":446940,"position":0},"title":"Claim: Standard of Living to Soar by 176% by 2100 if No Climate Action","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/27\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Professor\u00a0Dennis Wesselbaum\u00a0thinks we should act on climate change \u2013 but economic harm is not a good justification for doing so.","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\/2025\/02\/0money.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0money.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0money.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0money.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0money.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":262230,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=262230","url_meta":{"origin":446940,"position":1},"title":"Unraveling the Enigma: Canadian Wildfires, a Stroke of Misfortune","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/15\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The weather conditions in Quebec preceding the wildfire event were largely normal, and the high pressure over southern Canada, responsible for the warming, has no proven association with climate change.","rel":"","context":"In \"Canadian wildfires\"","block_context":{"text":"Canadian wildfires","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=canadian-wildfires"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0prothomalo-english_2023-06_21ff7ab1-e53a-4240-83da-d71ac73b0c63_CANADA_WILDFIRES_FORESTRY.webp?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0prothomalo-english_2023-06_21ff7ab1-e53a-4240-83da-d71ac73b0c63_CANADA_WILDFIRES_FORESTRY.webp?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0prothomalo-english_2023-06_21ff7ab1-e53a-4240-83da-d71ac73b0c63_CANADA_WILDFIRES_FORESTRY.webp?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0prothomalo-english_2023-06_21ff7ab1-e53a-4240-83da-d71ac73b0c63_CANADA_WILDFIRES_FORESTRY.webp?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0prothomalo-english_2023-06_21ff7ab1-e53a-4240-83da-d71ac73b0c63_CANADA_WILDFIRES_FORESTRY.webp?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":430926,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=430926","url_meta":{"origin":446940,"position":2},"title":"University of East Anglia: Climate Science is like the Invention of Steam Power, Electricity and Vaccines","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/13\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"But \u201c\u2026 The recognition of the value of science for society can no longer be taken for granted \u2026\u201d","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\/03\/0Screenshot-2026-03-13-193442.png?fit=1200%2C602&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/0Screenshot-2026-03-13-193442.png?fit=1200%2C602&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/0Screenshot-2026-03-13-193442.png?fit=1200%2C602&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/0Screenshot-2026-03-13-193442.png?fit=1200%2C602&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/0Screenshot-2026-03-13-193442.png?fit=1200%2C602&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":237455,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=237455","url_meta":{"origin":446940,"position":3},"title":"SCMP: Labelling Beef \u201cHigh Climate Impact\u201d Could Reduce CO2 Emissions","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/03\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"As the professors admit, the study was not a very realistic test of their ideas.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/132b0bb7e35748270.jpg?fit=1080%2C976&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/132b0bb7e35748270.jpg?fit=1080%2C976&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/132b0bb7e35748270.jpg?fit=1080%2C976&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/132b0bb7e35748270.jpg?fit=1080%2C976&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/132b0bb7e35748270.jpg?fit=1080%2C976&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":241837,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=241837","url_meta":{"origin":446940,"position":4},"title":"Resignation Due to Academia’s Climate Corruption","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/27\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"This week on Twitter, there was an openly raw admission of why academia has descended into little more than intellectual tribalism. Climate change was at the center of the issue.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/0Screenshot-2023-01-27-173917.png?fit=899%2C506&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/0Screenshot-2023-01-27-173917.png?fit=899%2C506&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/0Screenshot-2023-01-27-173917.png?fit=899%2C506&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/0Screenshot-2023-01-27-173917.png?fit=899%2C506&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":245675,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=245675","url_meta":{"origin":446940,"position":5},"title":"Climate models and\u00a0the Holocene global temperature conundrum","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/26\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cOur review suggests that climate models are underestimating important climate feedbacks that can amplify global warming.\u201d Is this another way of saying long-term natural variation is being underestimated by the models?","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/image-826.png?fit=1200%2C720&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/image-826.png?fit=1200%2C720&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/image-826.png?fit=1200%2C720&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/image-826.png?fit=1200%2C720&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/image-826.png?fit=1200%2C720&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/0-ChatGPT-How-Can-we-Persuade-Climate-Alarmists-to-Acknowledge.png?fit=1536%2C1024&ssl=1","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/446940","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=446940"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/446940\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":446949,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/446940\/revisions\/446949"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/446944"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=446940"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=446940"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=446940"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}