{"id":455927,"date":"2026-07-16T11:41:22","date_gmt":"2026-07-16T18:41:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=455927"},"modified":"2026-07-16T11:41:25","modified_gmt":"2026-07-16T18:41:25","slug":"climate-consensus-research-is-the-worst-most-invalid-research-ever-published-in-journals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=455927","title":{"rendered":"Climate consensus research is the worst, most invalid research ever published in journals"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"723\" height=\"485\" data-attachment-id=\"455941\" data-permalink=\"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?attachment_id=455941\" data-orig-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/0-Climate-consensus-research-is-the-worst-most-invalid-research-ever-published-in-journals.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&amp;ssl=1\" data-orig-size=\"1168,784\" data-comments-opened=\"1\" data-image-meta=\"{&quot;aperture&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;credit&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;camera&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;caption&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;created_timestamp&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;copyright&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;focal_length&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;iso&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;shutter_speed&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;title&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;orientation&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;alt&quot;:&quot;&quot;}\" data-image-title=\"0 Climate consensus research is the worst, most invalid research ever published in journals\" data-image-description=\"\" data-image-caption=\"\" data-large-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/0-Climate-consensus-research-is-the-worst-most-invalid-research-ever-published-in-journals.jpg?fit=723%2C485&amp;ssl=1\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/0-Climate-consensus-research-is-the-worst-most-invalid-research-ever-published-in-journals.jpg?resize=723%2C485&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-455941\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/0-Climate-consensus-research-is-the-worst-most-invalid-research-ever-published-in-journals.jpg?resize=1024%2C687&amp;ssl=1 1024w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/0-Climate-consensus-research-is-the-worst-most-invalid-research-ever-published-in-journals.jpg?resize=300%2C201&amp;ssl=1 300w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/0-Climate-consensus-research-is-the-worst-most-invalid-research-ever-published-in-journals.jpg?resize=768%2C516&amp;ssl=1 768w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/0-Climate-consensus-research-is-the-worst-most-invalid-research-ever-published-in-journals.jpg?resize=640%2C430&amp;ssl=1 640w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/0-Climate-consensus-research-is-the-worst-most-invalid-research-ever-published-in-journals.jpg?w=1168&amp;ssl=1 1168w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 723px) 100vw, 723px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">From <a href=\"https:\/\/wattsupwiththat.com\/2026\/07\/14\/climate-consensus-research-is-the-worst-most-invalid-research-ever-published-in-journals\/\">Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/validscience.substack.com\/p\/climate-consensus-research-is-the?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=android&amp;r=18n5uy&amp;triedRedirect=true\">From Valid Science by Jos\u00e9 Duarte, PhD<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">And social \u201cscientists\u201d use it to mislead participants<a href=\"https:\/\/substack.com\/@validscience\"><\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/substack.com\/@validscience\">Jos\u00e9 Duarte<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"723\" height=\"394\" data-attachment-id=\"455931\" data-permalink=\"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?attachment_id=455931\" data-orig-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-127.png?fit=1110%2C605&amp;ssl=1\" data-orig-size=\"1110,605\" data-comments-opened=\"1\" data-image-meta=\"{&quot;aperture&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;credit&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;camera&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;caption&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;created_timestamp&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;copyright&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;focal_length&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;iso&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;shutter_speed&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;title&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;orientation&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;alt&quot;:&quot;&quot;}\" data-image-title=\"image\" data-image-description=\"\" data-image-caption=\"\" data-large-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-127.png?fit=723%2C394&amp;ssl=1\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-127.png?resize=723%2C394&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-455931\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-127.png?resize=1024%2C558&amp;ssl=1 1024w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-127.png?resize=300%2C164&amp;ssl=1 300w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-127.png?resize=768%2C419&amp;ssl=1 768w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-127.png?resize=640%2C349&amp;ssl=1 640w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-127.png?w=1110&amp;ssl=1 1110w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 723px) 100vw, 723px\" \/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">The March of Progress and Descent<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Consider the captivating journal article&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/rke.abertay.ac.uk\/ws\/portalfiles\/portal\/14307261\/Farrugia_AnAlternativeCarrierSolvent_Author_2017.pdf\">\u201cAn alternative carrier solvent for fingermark enhancement reagents\u201d<\/a>, published in&nbsp;<em>Forensic Science International<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It was counted as part of the purported 99% scientific consensus on human-caused climate change by&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1748-9326\/ac2966\">Lynas, et al. (2021)<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It\u2019s a paper about solvents for exposing fingerprints. It has nothing to do with climate science or the focused empirical question of human contributions to the observed warming. Why was it included?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It was included because it mentioned global warming in its abstract. I kid you notly. This obviously hints at a deeper problem. Why would a journal article be counted as part of a \u201cconsensus\u201d to begin with (since the unit of consensus is people, not articles), why is the abstract relevant, who cares if an abstract mentions global warming, and how could a paper about fingerprint solvents possibly be included? (You can read the abstract in the Appendix below.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It\u2019s not an outlier. Here are some other articles that were counted as relevant \u201cclimate science\u201d papers and included in the false 99% estimate:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s10584-015-1410-6\">\u201cClimate justice, small island developing states &amp; cultural loss\u201d<\/a>. This is a political philosophy paper that applies the leftist construct of \u201cclimate justice\u201d, written by a random political theory lecturer in Ireland.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.sciencedirect.com\/science\/article\/abs\/pii\/S0892687514002003\">\u201cCalcium leaching from waste steelmaking slag: Significance of leachate chemistry and effects on slag grain mineralogy\u201d<\/a>. This is a paper about calcium leaching from steelmaking slag.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/15567036.2019.1668883\">\u201cProperties and corrosion behaviors of mild steel in biodiesel-diesel blends\u201d<\/a>. This is a paper about steel.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/15435075.2017.1337016\">\u201cComparison of refrigerated warehouse energy demand with R-717 and R-507 using eQUEST model\u201d<\/a>. This is a paper about a refrigerant comparison test in a Cincinnati warehouse.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">None of these papers have anything to do with climate science. Some of them have nothing to do with science. What happened here?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This climate change consensus study was conducted by leftist activists who did the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Not knowing how to perform a literature search or a systematic review on pertinent climate science questions, they simply searched the academic literature for the keywords \u201cclimate change\u201d, \u201cglobal climate change\u201d, and \u201cglobal warming\u201d.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>They took a random sample of 3,000 of the resulting papers and had their team of lay activists read the abstracts \u2014 just the abstracts.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Their team of activists rated the abstracts on whether they took a position on human-caused warming and their level of endorsement of the proposition that humans are causing warming.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>They then counted the papers\/abstracts they scored as endorsing the proposition and divided that by the total that they claimed took a position on the topic. They called the resulting percentage the \u201cscientific consensus\u201d on human-caused climate change.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Why would anyone do this? It\u2019s not a method known to science and has no name. It\u2019s not a remotely valid way to measure a consensus on any topic. It\u2019s a spurious recreational activity that has no epistemic standing \u2014 it tells us nothing about anything. As \u201cresearch\u201d published in a peer-reviewed journal article, it\u2019s completely insane and marks an unprecedented collapse of scientific standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">We don\u2019t care about anyone\u2019s subjective ratings of abstracts with respect to the authors\u2019 views on a topic. That\u2019s not anything. Given that Lynas and friends counted a fingerprint solvent paper and several steelmaking papers as relevant climate science research, they lack the intelligence to even implement their invalid method properly. But even if restricted to relevant climate change attribution papers, their method would still be invalid \u2014 it would still be spurious recreational activity that has no place in a peer-reviewed journal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">We simply can\u2019t do anything with a count of papers based on someone\u2019s opinions of their abstracts, the set based on a keyword search, or any subsequent acts of division or other arithmetic. That\u2019s not anything. Yet this study was widely promoted by legacy leftist media like&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/environment\/2021\/oct\/19\/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans\">the&nbsp;<\/a><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/environment\/2021\/oct\/19\/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans\">Guardian<\/a><\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"723\" height=\"595\" data-attachment-id=\"455937\" data-permalink=\"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?attachment_id=455937\" data-orig-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-128.png?fit=1360%2C1120&amp;ssl=1\" data-orig-size=\"1360,1120\" data-comments-opened=\"1\" data-image-meta=\"{&quot;aperture&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;credit&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;camera&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;caption&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;created_timestamp&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;copyright&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;focal_length&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;iso&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;shutter_speed&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;title&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;orientation&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;alt&quot;:&quot;&quot;}\" data-image-title=\"image\" data-image-description=\"\" data-image-caption=\"\" data-large-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-128.png?fit=723%2C595&amp;ssl=1\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-128.png?resize=723%2C595&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-455937\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-128.png?resize=1024%2C843&amp;ssl=1 1024w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-128.png?resize=300%2C247&amp;ssl=1 300w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-128.png?resize=768%2C632&amp;ssl=1 768w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-128.png?resize=640%2C527&amp;ssl=1 640w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-128.png?resize=1200%2C988&amp;ssl=1 1200w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-128.png?w=1360&amp;ssl=1 1360w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 723px) 100vw, 723px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">These activists didn\u2019t come up with this on their own. They copied the method from the infamous 97% consensus&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1748-9326\/8\/2\/024024\">paper<\/a>&nbsp;by Cook, et al. (2012), which was also fraudulent in addition to being invalid. It was Cook who had the deranged idea of having lay leftist activists working from home (including the founder of Timbuk2 luggage) rate the abstracts of thousands of irrelevant journal articles they didn\u2019t understand, based on \u201cclimate change\u201d keyword matching. Cook\u2019s 97% \u201cclimate science consensus\u201d includes a welding paper by Volvo engineers, several other steelmaking papers, several diarrhea papers, an article on cooking stove use, etc. (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.joseduarte.com\/blog\/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97\">more here<\/a>) But again, the deeper issue is that the core method of rating and counting abstracts is irreparably invalid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The same journal \u2014&nbsp;<em>Environmental Research Letters<\/em>&nbsp;\u2014 published both of these papers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">To measure the consensus on human-caused warming, we\u2019d survey relevant climate scientists with smart, focused, well-written questions on human causation, the likely extent of any human contribution, confidence in various future projections and scenarios, confidence in any effects on non-warming variables like extreme weather, hurricanes, etc. The unit of consensus is&nbsp;<em>people<\/em>, not papers \u2014 papers cannot be used for several obvious reasons, and they certainly can\u2019t be assessed by lay leftist activists (and not merely through their abstracts!).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">That\u2019s how you\u2019d measure the climate science consensus. There\u2019s no other core method \u2014 you have to ask the relevant scientists directly. Such surveys are best implemented by non-leftists, people committed to rigor. Note that we\u2019d still need a reason to care about this topic and any consensus around it\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Zoom out<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Caring about a \u201cconsensus\u201d on any topic is optional and we need a fuller epistemological framework to have an informed stance on the question of consensus and in what contexts we\u2019d take it into consideration. Referring to an expert consensus is an authoritarian heuristic and we only need heuristics in emergencies or when substantive, rational methods aren\u2019t available. Recent history is full of false scientific&nbsp;<em>consensi<\/em>, especially when driven by leftist ideology, for example that abolishing the use of test scores in college admissions would be fine, that sterilizing and mutilating trans-identified children is supported by quality evidence<a href=\"https:\/\/validscience.substack.com\/p\/climate-consensus-research-is-the?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=android&amp;r=18n5uy&amp;triedRedirect=true#footnote-1\">1<\/a>, various claims about racism in policing, claims that COVID vaccines prevented infection and transmission, and that there was good evidence that masking in public reduced COVID spread (it\u2019s not clear why these random empirical COVID positions became leftist dogma, though they fit the authoritarian nature of the left).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Caring about climate change is also optional. By the somewhat abstract and computationally complex measure&nbsp;<strong>Global Mean Surface Temperature<\/strong>&nbsp;(GMST), the earth has warmed about 1.5 \u00b0C in 150 years, likely driven by human carbon emissions, at least in part. A moderate IPCC scenario might project another 1 \u00b0C of warming by 2100, an average of about 0.02 \u00b0F per year. You can care about that if you want, but there\u2019s no way you or any other biped could notice it over the course of your life \u2014 even if you stayed in the same town for 70 years and it saw the same increase as GMST (moving would yield much larger changes up or down, destroying a \u201cclimate change\u201d signal). The media can make you think you notice it, but that\u2019s just the power of earth-on-fire imagery and propaganda. Being blasted with climate change propaganda is a profoundly novel way for humans to live, and it\u2019s worth meditating on its effects. Warming is just (mild) change and we have no apparent reason to view the 19th-century baseline as optimal or to particularly care about a complex global average temperature (you live where you live), and cold is much deadlier to humans than warmth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Enter Social Psychologists<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Leftist activist and NYU social psychology professor Jay Van Bavel led a&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.science.org\/doi\/10.1126\/sciadv.adj5778\">study<\/a>&nbsp;that tried to trick participants into adopting a leftist ideological perspective on \u201cclimate change\u201d. The researchers particularly wanted to spur activism for coercive left-wing policies like carbon taxes and even taxing meat and dairy (which would harm health). Research aimed at tricking participants to be more leftist is common in social psychology \u2014 leftists control the field and activism is an explicit goal of many researchers and organizations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">How did the study approach this? It fed participants propaganda like this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u201cDid you know that 99% of expert climate scientists agree that the Earth is warming and climate change is happening, mainly because of human activity (for example, burning fossil fuels)? [Myers&nbsp;<em>et al.<\/em>, Environmental Research Letters; Lynas&nbsp;<em>et al.<\/em>, Environmental Research Letters; Doran and Zimmerman, EOS]\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Yes, they actually cited the insanely invalid Lynas study \u2014 the one that counted fingerprint solvent and steelmaking papers as quanta of climate science consensus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Van Bavel and colleagues couldn\u2019t be troubled to carefully read these journal articles. They just assumed they were valid and true, which is a huge mistake to make about academic output, but of course they\u2019re academics and are unlikely to approach journal articles with the necessary exogenous intelligence and rigor, especially those that advance their political ideology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">They misled their participants by citing one false study (Lynas), one rigged study (Myers), and an old study that asked if human activity was a \u201csignificant\u201d factor in warming, not whether warming was&nbsp;<em>mainly<\/em>&nbsp;due to human activity (Doran and Zimmerman, 2009).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">And they didn\u2019t cite any of the higher quality climate consensus research that gave lower estimates than these three cherry-picked papers. As I reported&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.joseduarte.com\/blog\/the-climate-science-consensus-is-78-84-percent\">here<\/a>, high quality studies by professional survey researchers had the consensus at 78-84%. Van Bavel and colleagues showed no rigor or real interest in the topic by not citing the much more valid Farnsworth and Lichter (2012), Bray and von Storch (2014), or Stenhouse, et al. (2014) and using their estimates instead of the 99%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Key to these numbers was asking if human activity was responsible for&nbsp;<em>most or all<\/em>&nbsp;of the observed warming. In that case, the results were 78-84%. If asked simply if human activity was a factor or a significant factor, the results are in the high-90s, as with Doran and Zimmerman.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">At this point it might not matter. In the decade since the 78-84% studies, the climate scientists who would say human activity is a factor but not the only or primary factor have probably been driven out of the field or retired, so it wouldn\u2019t surprise me if a high-quality survey in 2026 resulted in a 95% or higher estimate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Note that Van Bavel purports to study \u201cmisinformation\u201d and yet he misled his participants citing an insane study that treated fingerprint solvent and philosophy papers as quanta of climate science consensus. Like every academic \u201cmisinformation researcher\u201d, he spews a remarkable volume of misinformation into his host civilization. I\u2019ve addressed some of his other false claims&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/validscience.substack.com\/p\/nyu-social-psychologists-make-false\">here<\/a>&nbsp;and social psychologist Nathaniel Bork checked my work&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/nathanialbork2.substack.com\/p\/ceteris-paribus-red-states-blue-states\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Zoom In<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Lynas team are activists at an NGO called Alliance for Science\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Yes, sadly we\u2019ve gotten used to leftists naming things the exact opposite of their true nature.&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/allianceforscience.org\/blog\/2023\/09\/climate-misinformation-in-the-media-is-dead-new-alliance-for-science-study-finds\/\">Here\u2019s<\/a>&nbsp;what the \u201cAlliance for Science\u201d had to say about climate \u201cmisinformation\u201d:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The second misinformation theme related to the claim that the ongoing climate emergency is \u2018fake\u2019 because warming so far has been \u201cmild\u201d and that \u201clife on Earth thrived (and was far greener) when CO2 levels were at least 5X higher than today\u2019s\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">They refer to \u201cthe ongoing climate emergency\u201d as an inarguable descriptive fact. Whether 1.5 \u00b0C of warming in the last 150 years amounts to an emergency is a subjective judgment, an opinion on a matter of opinion. Leftist dogma is rife with this conversion of subjective appraisals on complex topics into inarguable descriptive facts, and the appraisals are often that something is an \u201cemergency\u201d or \u201ccrisis\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">They don\u2019t just convert neurotic opinions on matters of opinion into facts. They treat this dissent as \u201cmisinformation\u201d and then try to censor it, using government, social media companies, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">That this organization talks this way gives the lie to their mission being about \u201cscience\u201d. This is ideology, not science. You can think climate change is an emergency or that it\u2019s mild \u2014 that\u2019s an opinion, an appraisal, and it isn\u2019t a matter settled by science. The way different people even approach the question will vary, including the extent to which science is an input, and which science they refer to.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Lynas also said \u201cthe debate about whether climate change is real is well and truly over and is now almost entirely relegated to the lunatic fringe\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This is a familiar formulation on the left \u2014 that \u201cclimate change is real\u201d. Van Bavel also traffics in that phrase and seems to think that saying \u201cclimate change is real\u201d says something important and makes the case for the whole leftist totalitarian policy package, from taxing energy to taxing or banning food that leftists have long targeted, especially meat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Climate change is real? Okay\u2026 Yes, I\u2019m real, you\u2019re real, komodo dragons are real, and climate change is real. Now what?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The climate has always changed and always will. So what? Let\u2019s tighten it up: I assume they mean that human-caused climate change is real.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Sure, though that\u2019s awkward wording and \u201cclimate change\u201d is too broad and vague. Let\u2019s fix it to: human activity has contributed to the recent warming of \u2248 1.5 \u00b0C since the 1800s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">And let\u2019s finish the thought by saying we\u2019ll see more warming through 2100, maybe another 1.0 \u00b0C, and this will be partly or mostly driven by human activity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">All good? Now what?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Why would we care about warming? Well, we might care if 1) it affected us or humanity generally in significant, harmful ways, and 2) we could prevent these future harms, or reverse any harms we think are currently playing out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Point #1 alone unfolds into a complex, highly variable topic. I myself have no climate harms to refer to. That is, I don\u2019t know of any harms to me or to anyone I know. Nor do I anticipate any. Leftists increasingly group all bad weather, storms, hurricanes, even wildfires as human-caused \u201cclimate change\u201d, but that\u2019s not scientifically rigorous and it\u2019s straightforwardly false in many cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Even if I wanted to do that, I wouldn\u2019t be able to detect any impact on my life, say of 0.2 more extreme weather events per year where I live. I don\u2019t know how to notice something like that, and the leftist lifestyle of consuming daily climate change propaganda that attributes so many random climate phenomena to an \u201congoing climate emergency\u201d is deeply irrational, unscientific, and unhealthy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For Point #2, we\u2019d need to be confident that there\u2019s something we could do to prevent or reverse harmful climate change. I\u2019m not sure why we\u2019d believe that. Note that this proposition is far beyond the core proposition for which there is a documented 78-84% consensus \u2014 that human activity is the main driver of the observed warming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Assuming you care about a consensus of academics working in the relevant fields, I\u2019m not aware of any published consensus surveys on questions like whether we could prevent another 1 \u00b0C of warming with specific policies or what have you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The science of mitigation is extremely complex and we need a serious epistemic framework capable of evaluating climate science and its long-term projections and modeling. We don\u2019t have that framework. That is, we don\u2019t have any validated way of assessing climate science at that level of rigor. We might have climate scientists claiming that we can dial back warming with such and such reduction of carbon emissions, but we have no way of evaluating such claims. As a society, we\u2019re not yet operating at that level of rigor and intelligence, and climate science itself might not be operating at the needed level of rigor to satisfy such an epistemic framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Now, if we had the necessary exogenous framework and tools, it wouldn\u2019t logically imply support for the totalitarian policies of the left. No one has to support anything. You might not think it\u2019s appropriate or ethical to ban or tax meat in order to cut a 1 \u00b0C increase in GMST to a 0.5 \u00b0C increase, for example. Or to make energy more expensive for the same purpose. Energy is critical to life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">You might have all sorts of values, principles, and concerns that trump GMST, sea levels, or storm counts. That\u2019s your prerogative as a sentient being. No one is obligated to be a climate-focused utilitarian\/totalitarian. You might not think that optimizing the climate of 2100 is a valid government function, or that the premise that a 1-2 degree cooler world is in fact optimal is unfounded, or that even the idea of an optimal GMST is invalid. You might also be aware that climate propaganda has been full of false and inherently implausible scenarios like the&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/rogerpielkejr.substack.com\/p\/the-real-costs-of-implausible-scenarios\">recently retracted RCP8.5<\/a>, which many legacy\/leftist media outlets presented as serious science without disclosing its absurd assumptions and methodology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Leftists aren\u2019t cognizant of the myriad valid reasons why someone might not care about climate change or support their coercive policy agenda. Their way of being on this issue consists of a handful of simple formulations like \u201cclimate change is a real\u201d and \u201cclimate emergency\u201d, with an eagerness to believe any and all claims that climate change is causing {insert harm}. Nothing is rejected and no claims of harm are seriously examined. Legacy media routinely makes false claims about climate science, from promoting or mischaracterizing junk like RCP8.5 and the Lynas 99.9 percent consensus study, to calling people who approach the issue with rigor \u201cclimate deniers\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I\u2019ve never seen anything like the consensus studies by Cook (2012) and Lynas (2021) \u2014 measuring consensus by having conflicted political activists read the abstracts of irrelevant journal articles from an amateur keyword search, followed by deranged arithmetic? Ours was supposed to be a scientific civilization, and this is tantamount to pulling out a Ouija board and crystals. This whole topic is begging for a massive epistemic and scientific upgrade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Joe Duarte grew up in small copper mining towns in Southern Arizona, earned his PhD in social psychology, and focuses on political bias in media and academic research. You can find him on X&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/ValidScience\">here<\/a>&nbsp;and contact him at gravity at protonmail.com.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Appendix: The fingerprint solvent abstract<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Here\u2019s the abstract for \u201cAn alternative carrier solvent for fingermark enhancement reagents\u201d:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Solstice\u00ae Performance Fluid (PF), trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene, is presented as an alternative to HFE7100, methoxy-nonafluorobutane, as a carrier solvent in a number of chemical formulations used for the visualisation of latent fingermarks. The supply of HFE7100 may be at risk due to a recent European Union regulation to control global warming. Laboratory trials using split depletions and a pseudo-operational trial of 1000 porous samples have shown that Solstice\u00ae PF is a viable alternative to HFE7100 for the chemical formulations of ninhydrin and 1,2-indanedione. Other preliminary trials have also indicated that Solstice\u00ae PF can be used as a carrier solvent for the zinc toning of marks found using ninhydrin as well as the \u03b1-naphtholflavone fixative solution for iodine developed marks. Results from the pseudo-operational trial demonstrate that the number of marks detected by ninhydrin and 1,2-indanedione formulations for each carrier solvent is comparable. When compared to HFE7100, advantages of Solstice\u00ae PF include a very low global warming potential and atmospheric lifetime in addition to a higher wetting index and lower costs. This study also provides a validation study that supports the potential replacement of DFO with 1,2-indanedione.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Lynas team read this abstract and thought it counted as input into the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. It merely mentions EU regulations regarding global warming and touts the lower \u201cglobal warming potential\u201d of a new fingerprint solvent, a product category that cannot possibly significantly impact the earth\u2019s surface temperature. This paper has nothing to do with climate science or climate change attribution, but even if it did, no one\u2019s opinions of the abstract are relevant to an estimate of a climate science consensus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/validscience.substack.com\/p\/climate-consensus-research-is-the?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=android&amp;r=18n5uy&amp;triedRedirect=true#footnote-anchor-1\">1<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As though the question of whether we should chemically sterilize and\/or surgically mutilate children is a legitimate scientific question, rather than an instantly answered ethical one. See my report&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/open.substack.com\/pub\/wesleyyang\/p\/rigging-the-science\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Use simple keyword searches (&#8220;climate change,&#8221; &#8220;global warming&#8221;) on academic databases.<\/p>\n<p>Sample thousands of papers and have (often non-expert) raters evaluate only the abstracts for &#8220;endorsement&#8221; of human-caused warming.<\/p>\n<p>Count papers as part of the &#8220;consensus&#8221; even if unrelated to climate attribution (e.g., fingerprint solvents mentioning warming in passing, steel corrosion, biodiesel blends, refrigerated warehouses, political philosophy on &#8220;climate justice&#8221;).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":455941,"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":"Use simple keyword searches (\"climate change,\" \"global warming\") on academic databases.\n\nSample thousands of papers and have (often non-expert) raters evaluate only the abstracts for \"endorsement\" of human-caused warming.\n\nCount papers as part of the \"consensus\" even if unrelated to climate attribution (e.g., fingerprint solvents mentioning warming in passing, steel corrosion, biodiesel blends, refrigerated warehouses, political philosophy on \"climate justice\").\n\n","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":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691831457,691844108,691842585,691844107,691842348,691829997,691818056,691818152,691818087,691844109,691819727],"class_list":["post-455927","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-97-consensus-2","tag-99-scientific-consensus","tag-consensus-2","tag-research-2","tag-scientific-consensus-2","tag-carbon-dioxide-co","tag-climate-change","tag-climate-emergency","tag-global-warming","tag-leftist-activists","tag-social-scientists-2","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1UBF","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":276549,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=276549","url_meta":{"origin":455927,"position":0},"title":"\u201c97% Consensus\u201d \u2014 What Consensus?","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"08\/31\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"If those promoting man-made climate fear need to resort to an obviously flawed consensus opinion, rather than argue the merits of the science, haven\u2019t they already conceded that their argument cannot be won through open debate?","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\/2023\/08\/00yTTaXqVEGkU.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/00yTTaXqVEGkU.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/00yTTaXqVEGkU.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/00yTTaXqVEGkU.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/00yTTaXqVEGkU.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":282181,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=282181","url_meta":{"origin":455927,"position":1},"title":"A Conversation with Google Bard on the Consensus","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/06\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Google Bard Ai Presentation From\u00a0Watts Up With That? By Andy May It turns out it is trivially easy to get Google\u2019s AI product \u201cBard\u201d to admit it is biased about climate change. Others, like Jonathan Cohler have managed to get \u201cBard\u201d to admit it lied. I didn\u2019t get that far,\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\/2023\/10\/0google-bard-chatgpt.jpg?fit=1200%2C706&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0google-bard-chatgpt.jpg?fit=1200%2C706&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0google-bard-chatgpt.jpg?fit=1200%2C706&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0google-bard-chatgpt.jpg?fit=1200%2C706&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0google-bard-chatgpt.jpg?fit=1200%2C706&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":286214,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=286214","url_meta":{"origin":455927,"position":2},"title":"Mark Lynas \u201899% Consensus\u2019 on Climate Change \u2013 Busted in Peer Review.","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"11\/02\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature? A study which claims over 99% consensus appears to be unsupported by the evidence, because neutral papers were misclassified, and skeptic papers were ignored. From Watts Up With That? From email:My name is Yonatan Dubi, I\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"99% Consensus\"","block_context":{"text":"99% Consensus","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=99-consensus"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/OIG.WHu4q98jGip.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/OIG.WHu4q98jGip.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/OIG.WHu4q98jGip.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/OIG.WHu4q98jGip.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":273428,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=273428","url_meta":{"origin":455927,"position":3},"title":"The Fake Climate Consensus","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"08\/14\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"We are told climate change is a crisis, and that there is an \u201coverwhelming scientific consensus.\u201d \u201cIt\u2019s a manufactured consensus,\u201d says climate scientist Judith Curry in my\u00a0new video. She says scientists have an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue \u201cfame and fortune.\u201d","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\/2023\/08\/0fdrzdpxbjrpy.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0fdrzdpxbjrpy.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0fdrzdpxbjrpy.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0fdrzdpxbjrpy.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0fdrzdpxbjrpy.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":288086,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=288086","url_meta":{"origin":455927,"position":4},"title":"A bad recipe for science","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"11\/18\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"From Climate Etc. by Judith Curry Politically-motivated manufacture of scientific consensus corrupts the scientific process and leads to poor policy decisions An essay with excerpts from my new book Climate Uncertainty and Risk. In the 21st\u00a0century, humankind is facing a myriad of complex societal problems that are characterized by deep\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\/2023\/11\/fdrzdpxbjrpy.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/fdrzdpxbjrpy.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/fdrzdpxbjrpy.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/fdrzdpxbjrpy.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/fdrzdpxbjrpy.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":252349,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=252349","url_meta":{"origin":455927,"position":5},"title":"Artificial unintelligence and global warming","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/11\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Dumb and true-believing. Intelligence?","rel":"","context":"In \"2050\"","block_context":{"text":"2050","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=2050"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0artificial-intellegence.jpeg?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0artificial-intellegence.jpeg?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0artificial-intellegence.jpeg?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0artificial-intellegence.jpeg?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0artificial-intellegence.jpeg?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/0-Climate-consensus-research-is-the-worst-most-invalid-research-ever-published-in-journals.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/455927","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=455927"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/455927\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":455945,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/455927\/revisions\/455945"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/455941"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=455927"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=455927"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=455927"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}