Experts issue warning as entire staff of critical public information site is abruptly fired: 'I would hate to see it turn into a propaganda website'

One of the internet's most popular sources for climate science abruptly lost nearly all of its staff, The Guardian reported. The cuts to the government-funded site came as the Trump administration has engaged in sweeping efforts to censor climate science and cut funding for climate research.
Multiple government workers assigned to the Climate.gov website informed The Guardian that their contracts and those of nearly all of their colleagues had not been renewed as expected.
The only workers retained were two web developers, sparking fears that the site, which receives hundreds of thousands of views per month, might not disappear but instead transform into something much worse.
"My bigger worry, long-term, is I would hate to see it turn into a propaganda website for this administration, because that's not at all what it was," said Tom Di Liberto, a former spokesperson for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agency responsible for the Climate.gov site.
Rebecca Lindsey, the website's former program manager, echoed those sentiments, telling The Guardian of the "sinister possibility" that the administration would replace the site's climate science with anti-science propaganda, "leveraging our audience, our brand, our millions of people that we reach on social media every month."
"That's the worst case scenario," Lindsey said.
For decades, oil, gas, and coal companies — along with their legions of government lobbyists, public-relations experts, and friendly politicians — have led a massive campaign to mislead the public about the devastating impact their products have on the planet, particularly the climate.
While disagreements about what to do about climate science are understandable, the Trump administration's censorship of climate science represents the latest iteration of its half-century-long crusade to quell public outrage and quash efforts to build a clean-energy future.
Researchers at Columbia Law School put together a comprehensive list of the Trump administration's climate censorship, noting changes to the numerous agency websites, from the Department of Defense to the Department of Energy to the Environmental Protection Agency.
The attacks on climate science have not ended with the censorship of government websites. The version of Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" that passed the House of Representatives cut tax credits aimed at encouraging Americans to invest in renewable energy, electric vehicles, and energy-efficient homes.
Do you think misinformation is a major problem in America today?
Definitely
Only for some people
Only with certain issues
Not really
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Perhaps, most significantly, the administration has also taken a hatchet to funding for climate research. In one particularly impactful cut, the administration fired the staff responsible for producing the National Climate Assessment, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. The only entities that truly stand to benefit from all this are oil and gas companies.
"This assessment is so important because it lets every American know how climate change affects their community – or even their own backyard," Ticora Jones, chief science officer at NRDC, said in a statement.
"Cutting federal climate research won't eliminate threats from intense heat waves, unprecedented hurricanes, and devastating flooding," she added. "It will just make our nation far less able to prepare for them."
With the federal government taking an adversarial approach to climate science, renewable energy, and environmental regulation, it will take a team of other actors working in concert to ensure progression toward a clean-energy future.
Those who want to see efforts like these preserved can use their voice by voting for pro-climate candidates and advocating for those in office now to protect these efforts.
In addition to advocating for political action, you can make a difference by driving an EV, installing solar panels on your home, or filling your yard with native plants.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

9 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Iran has little choice but to retaliate against US - as Russia faces urgent decision on how to back Tehran

Donald Trump's decision to attack Iran could trigger a wider regional or even global war, but much will hinge on how Russia and China - Tehran's most powerful allies - respond. Abbas Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister, said he will hold "serious consultations" with Vladimir Putin on Monday morning in Moscow. His country is also in contact with Beijing. Israel-Iran live: 'Incredible success' of US strikes on Iran hailed by Hegseth Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are regarded by Western allies as a new axis of authoritarian powers, increasingly aligned and supportive of each other. Donald Trump, though, has broken ranks from his country's traditional democratic partners to forge a closer relationship with Mr Putin than any other US leader in recent years. How much that might affect the Kremlin's calculations, as Moscow weighs up how to respond to his actions in Iran, adds a new layer of unpredictability to the crisis. Another limiting factor is the Russian military's physical capacity - should it wish - to bolster Iran with military support given its war in Ukraine. Unlike the NATO alliance, there is no formal agreement between Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang to come to each other's assistance in a crisis. However, the weakening of one member of the quartet would impact on the vital national interests of the other three, making it mutually beneficial to help each other out - including with military force or at the very least by supplying weapons. Iran has little choice but to retaliate directly against the United States after three of its main nuclear facilities were struck overnight. But its ability to launch ballistic missiles and drones has been severely degraded by waves of Israeli strikes since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went to war with Iran a week and a half ago. Read more: What are Iran's options? US bases, warships, and aircraft across the region are well within range of Iranian missiles and drones, but the Pentagon has significantly strengthened its air defences in anticipation of an Iranian counterattack. There are plenty of softer targets, though, such as American embassies or other diplomatic missions. Iran could also choose to mine the Strait of Hormuz - a move that would have global ramifications by disrupting the flow of large amounts of oil and gas, as well as other trade. In addition, the military assets of American allies could be viewed as legitimate targets. The UK has said it played no part in the US attack. But Britain's Ministry of Defence has further increased "force protection" measures for its military bases and personnel in the Middle East to their highest level in the wake of the US strikes, it is understood. What was hit in US attack? In an operation that has been in the planning for years, American B-2 stealth bombers dropped enormous bunker-busting bombs - the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator - on the Fordow nuclear fuel enrichment plant, around 70 miles (110km) southwest of Tehran. It was built under a mountain - about 80 to 90 metres beneath the ground - to be beyond the reach of Israel's armed forces. Only the US Air Force carries munitions large enough to penetrate the rock, earth and concrete to inflict meaningful damage. Also targeted with the enormous munitions was Iran's main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, 155 miles (250km) southeast of the Iranian capital. In addition, US submarines launched TLAM cruise missiles against Natanz and at a site outside the city of Isfahan, which is 260 miles (420km) south of Tehran. Near-bomb-grade nuclear fuel is thought to be stored here. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, however, said the six buildings at Isfahan that were hit contained little or no nuclear material. Mr Trump has said he ordered the attack to destroy Iran's ability to enrich uranium to a level that could be used to make a nuclear bomb. Tehran has always insisted its nuclear programme is purely for civilian purposes. Analysts warn, though, that it would be very difficult to stop the Iranian nuclear programme through military action alone and that such a move may spur Iran to accelerate efforts to make a bomb if it has managed to protect key components. The Russian foreign ministry on Sunday strongly condemned the American strikes against Iranian nuclear sites as a "dangerous escalation" that could further undermine "regional and global security". "The risk of an escalation of conflict in the Middle East already beset by multiple crises, has increased significantly," it said in a statement. Last week, the Russian government warned the US against joining Israel's war in Iran, saying this "would be an extremely dangerous step with truly unpredictable negative consequences". The remarks came after Mr Putin held a call with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping. It means the Russian government in particular - given Tehran's military support to Moscow in the Russian invasion of Ukraine - faces an urgent decision about how to support Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, whose very existence is under threat from Israel.

Fox News

10 minutes ago

• Fox News

AOC, other angry Democrats, call for Trump impeachment over attack on Iran

Progressive champion Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a handful of other Democrats quickly floated the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump for launching a military strike on Iran without Congressional authorization. "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," the four-term congresswoman from New York wrote on social media Saturday night, soon after the president announced the attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Ocasio-Cortez charged that Trump "has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." Democrat Rep. Sean Casten of Illinois also argued that the president's order to bomb Iran's nuclear sites without seeking Congressional approval could be considered an "unambiguous impeachable offense." Casten, a four-term representative whose district covers southwestern Chicago and surrounding suburbs, wrote Saturday night on social media that "this is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program….to be clear, I do not dispute that Iran is a nuclear threat." But he highlighted that "no president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense." "I'm not saying we have the votes to impeach," Casten added. "I'm saying that you DO NOT do this without Congressional approval." The calls for impeachment are the most visible, and furthest reaching, representation of the party's anger with Trump for taking unilateral action against Iran. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the top Democrat in the chamber, wrote that the president had "failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East." "Donald Trump shoulders complete and total responsibility for any adverse consequences that flow from his unilateral military action," Jeffries added in a statement. While the executive branch technically doesn't have the legal authority to order a foreign military attack without the approval of Congress, previous presidents, including Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Trump during his first term, launched comparable military actions in Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan and Iran. Congress has not actually declared war since 1941, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, and legal scholars have long been divided on whether the president has the authority to unilaterally launch a military strike.

Buzz Feed

11 minutes ago

• Buzz Feed

MAGA Weighs In On Trump Bombing Iran

Last night, President Donald Trump announced that the US military had bombed three nuclear sites in Iran in a planned attack. Trump also took to Truth Social to congratulate the US military on the strike and announced that "now is a time for peace." Well, MAGA supporters are not holding back their frustrations and voting regrets about Trump's decision to involve the US in another war in the Middle East. Here's what they're saying over on the r/LeopardsAteMyFace subreddit. Republican lawmaker Marjorie Taylor Greene posted on X, stating, "This is not our fight." "I trusted you. I'm done with MAGA and all your bullshit." "I fully regret voting for this shit." "You betrayed us, your MAGA base. I voted for you three times." "Trump needs to be impeached." "Donald Trump has completely failed us." "No More Wars!!!" "I regret my vote, and I couldn't apologize more for voting for this." "More than disappointed with this action." "He's betrayed the vast majority of his voter base." Latino for Trump voter: "You promised us NO War, and you just started one." "If the United States enters war with Iran, as appears to be the case, I will regret my vote." "Very disappointed in President Trump." "I wish I never voted for @realDonaldTrump." And finally, "I trusted Trump to put America have been betrayed." What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below.