Major US climate website likely to be shut down after almost all staff fired
A major US government website supporting public education on climate science looks likely to be shuttered after almost all of its staff were fired, the Guardian has learned.
Climate.gov, the gateway website for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa)'s Climate Program Office, will imminently no longer publish new content, according to multiple former staff responsible for the site's content whose contracts were recently terminated.
'The entire content production staff at climate.gov (including me) were let go from our government contract on 31 May,' said a former government contractor who wished to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. 'We were told that our positions within the contract were being eliminated.'
Rebecca Lindsey, the website's former program manager, who was fired in February as part of the government's purge of probationary employees, described a months-long situation within Noaa where political appointees and career staff argued over the fate of the website.
'I had gotten a stellar performance review, gotten a bonus, gotten a raise. I was performing very well. And then I was part of that group who got the form letter saying, 'Your knowledge, skills, and abilities are no longer of use to Noaa' – or something to that effect.'
Lindsey said she had been worried that climate.gov might be a target of the new administration soon after the election, but when a large Noaa contract was up for renewal at the end of May, her former boss told her that a demand came 'from above' to rewrite parts of the contract to remove the team's funding.
'It was a very deliberate, targeted attack,' said Lindsey.
Lindsey said the content for climate.gov was created and maintained by a contracted staff of about 10, with additional contributions from Noaa scientists, and its editorial content was specifically designed to be politically neutral, and faithful to the current state of the sciences. All of those staff have now been dismissed, she said.
'We operated exactly how you would want an independent, nonpartisan communications group to operate,' said Lindsey, and noted that climate.gov is housed within the science division of Noaa, not its public affairs division. 'It does seem to be part of this sort of slow and quiet way of trying to keep science agencies from providing information to the American public about climate.'
Noaa has been contacted for comment. It's unclear whether the website will remain visible to the public.
The climate.gov site was housed within the Communication, Education, and Engagement Division of Noaa, which describes itself as 'the largest team in the federal government dedicated to climate communication, education, and engagement'.
The website receives hundreds of thousands of visits per month and is one of the most popular sources of information about climate science on the internet.
The fired staff believe the changes to climate.gov were targeted by political appointees within the Trump administration and specifically aimed at restricting public-facing climate information.
'It's targeted, I think it's clear,' said Tom Di Liberto, a former Noaa spokesperson who was also fired from his position earlier this year. 'They only fired a handful of people, and it just so happened to be the entire content team for climate.gov. I mean, that's a clear signal.'
The purge spared two web developers, which Di Liberto says is a concerning sign.
The contractor said: '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.'
The contractor said that while there will still be some pre-written, scheduled content posted on the site this month, there are no plans for further new content: 'After that, we have no idea what will happen to the website.'
Lindsey said she also fears a 'sinister possibility' that the administration may co-opt climate.gov to publish its own anti-science content. Lindsey said the administration could now 'provide a content team from the Heartland Institute, leveraging our audience, our brand, our millions of people that we reach on social media every month. That's the worst-case scenario.'
'Climate.gov is one heck of a URL. If you wanted to basically keep the website alive to do something with later, this is what you would do if you're the [Trump] administration,' said Di Liberto. 'It's clear that the administration does not accept climate science, so it's certainly concerning.'
The cuts also mean that there is now also no one left to run climate.gov social media accounts, which have hundreds of thousands of followers. Since staff in charge of climate.gov did a lot of pushback on misinformation, their absence may help anti-science information flourish there more readily.
'We were an extremely well-trusted source for climate information, misinformation and disinformation because we actually, legitimately would answer misinformation questions,' said the contractor. 'We'd answer reader emails and try to combat disinformation on social media.
'We get attacked on social media by people who don't believe in climate change, and that's increased over the last six months or so as well.'
The shutdown comes amid broader cuts to science funding across the government, including 'significant reductions to education, grants, research, and climate-related programs within Noaa', as stated in the 2026 'passback' budget Congress is currently deliberating.
'It seems like if they can't get rid of all the research, what they can do is make it impossible for anyone to know about it,' said Di Liberto.
The contractor said they worry that what may have begun as a heavy-handed attempt by administration officials to limit public knowledge of human-caused climate change will have broader impacts on public education on the cyclical drivers of weather – as well as the results of publicly funded research conducted by Noaa scientists.
'To me, climate is more broad than just climate change. It's also climate patterns like El Niño and La Niña. Halting factual climate information is a disservice to the public. Hiding the impacts of climate change won't stop it from happening, it will just make us far less prepared when it does.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
26 minutes ago
- Reuters
UK backs advanced manufacturing, clean energy in ten-year industrial plan
LONDON, June 23 (Reuters) - Britain aims to cut the electricity bills of thousands of companies from 2027, the key reform in its industrial strategy for the next decade, which it published on Monday, opens new tab. The main parts of its plan are below. Investment of up to 2.8 billion pounds ($3.76 billion) in R&D programmes over the next five years to spur innovation, automation, digitisation and commercialisation. Britain is targeting at least a doubling of current investment levels across the clean energy industries to over 30 billion pounds per year by 2035. Establish a 150 million pound growth fund and financial support for screen, music, and video games. Make Britain one of the world's top three life sciences economies through reforms and investment, including up to 600 million pounds for a Health Data Research Service to create an advanced, secure, and AI ready health data platform. The government said it was including the sector in a national industrial plan for the first time as it seeks to build on the UK's strengths in areas such as accountancy, legal services and management consultancy. It said it would help fund the adoption of artificial intelligence, negotiate with other governments for mutual recognition of professional qualifications to boost exports and launch five new professional business services hubs in England and Scotland. Britain wants to become one of the top three places in the world for developing technology businesses, promising reforms to boost R&D and skills, improve regulation and collaborate more closely with the private sector and other nations. It said it would prioritise frontier technologies such as advanced connectivity, artificial intelligence, cyber security, engineering biology, quantum technologies and semiconductors. Britain said it planned to cooperate more with the European Union on energy and carbon pricing to remove red-tape, making it easier for business to trade and enabling investment in projects in the North Sea. "We will both explore the UK's participation in the EU's internal electricity market and continue technical regulatory exchanges on new energy technologies," the strategy said. ($1 = 0.7437 pounds)
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Vance says difference between this Middle East attack and others is that previous presidents were ‘dumb'
Vice President JD Vance has attempted to draw a distinction between Donald Trump 's attack on Iran and George W Bush 's War on Terror by arguing that 'back then, we had dumb presidents.' Speaking to Kristen Welker on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday morning, hours after the U.S. launched airstrikes against three Iranian nuclear sites in support of Israel 's Operation Rising Lion offensive, Vance attacked Bush's administration and those of Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden without directly naming them. 'I certainly empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East,' he said. 'I understand the concern, but the difference is that, back then, we had dumb presidents and now we have a president who actually knows how to accomplish America's national security objectives. So this is not going to be some long, drawn-out thing. 'We've gone in, we've done the job of setting their nuclear program back, we're going to now work to permanently dismantle that nuclear program over the coming years, and that is what the president has set out to do.' The Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein in the aftermath of 9/11 was based on what proved to be the false premise that the dictator was harboring weapons of mass destruction. The war coincided with a period in which the U.S. was also involved in removing the Taliban in Afghanistan, which proved to be an even longer commitment that only ended, chaotically, in 2021, helping inspire an aversion to 'forever wars' to which Trump himself has previously given voice. Vance himself enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps after graduating from high school in 2003. He was sent to Iraq in a non-combat role for six months, an experience that is understood to have left him disillusioned and influenced his non-interventionist stance on foreign policy ever since. Trump's actions on Saturday night have already drawn comparisons with the defining blunder of the Bush era. The vice president's critique of those earlier administrations has, in turn, invited an angry response. 'This is one of the dumbest arguments I have heard any top U.S. official make,' said Michael McFaul, the former American ambassador to Russia under Obama. 'Embarrassing.' Vance's claim in the same interview that 'We're not at war with Iran, we're at war with Iran's nuclear program' was also met with incredulity. 'As war heats up, the propaganda always gets progressively dumber,' said journalist Michael Tracey. 'Imagine if some other country bombed nuclear installations in the U.S., and then tried to claim they were 'not at war with the U.S.'' On Sunday, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called the bombing raids on Iran's Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan sites an 'incredible and overwhelming success' that had 'devastated the Iranian nuclear programme.' Tehran has vowed to retaliate and could do so by closing the Strait of Hormuz, driving up global oil prices, or by targeting American military bases on its doorstep in the Gulf. Trump has since thrown fuel on the flames by declaring on Truth Social: 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Iran standoff: Starmer and Trump fail to agree on 'de-escalation'
Keir Starmer is engaged in frantic diplomacy over the Iran crisis today as Donald Trump sounds an increasingly strident message. The PM and president spoke last night after the US strikes on Tehran's nuclear sites. But Downing Street 's readout notably did not include any reference to the 'de-escalation' Sir Keir has been urging in other statements. Instead No10 said the leaders agreed Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and should return to negotiations. Soon after the call Mr Trump took to social media apparently endorsing regime change - swiping that it could be time to 'Make Iran Great Again'. The stance raises fresh questions about Sir Keir's influence and the health of the Special Relationship. After meeting Mr Trump in person at the G7 in Canada last week, the premier had insisted he did not believe the US would go ahead with the attacks. America did not ask to use the Diego Garcia base for the bombing raid, amid speculation that Attorney General Lord Hermer had advised UK participation would be illegal. Ministers again refused to say explicitly this morning whether Britain supported the action taken by the US. Foreign Secretary David Lammy repeatedly dodged on whether the bombing was the 'right thing to do'. In a readout of the call after B-2 stealth bombers and a salvo of submarine-launched missiles hit Iran's nuclear facilities, Downing Street said: 'The leaders discussed the situation in the Middle East and reiterated the grave risk posed by Iran's nuclear programme to international security. 'They discussed the actions taken by the United States last night to reduce the threat and agreed that Iran must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. 'They discussed the need for Iran to return to the negotiating table as soon as possible and to make progress on a lasting settlement. 'They agreed to stay in close contact in the coming days.' Earlier, Sir Keir said there was a 'risk of escalation'. 'That's a risk to the region. It's a risk beyond the region, and that's why all our focus has been on de-escalating, getting people back around to negotiate what is a very real threat in relation to the nuclear programme,' he said. There are fears British forces could be dragged into the conflict if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei orders a retaliation. Speaking to reporters at his Chequers country retreat, Sir Keir would not be drawn on whether Nato's mutual defence pact would apply if US forces were targeted. The PM said 'we have taken all necessary measures to protect UK interests, UK personnel and to work with our allies to protect their interests as well'. Extra RAF Typhoon jets have already been moved to the region and Defence Secretary John Healey said 'force protection is at its highest level' following the US strikes. Mr Lammy spoke to his Iranian and Israeli counterparts 'to stress the need for de-escalation'. 'I urged a diplomatic, negotiated solution to end this crisis,' he said. The Foreign Office dismissed as 'inaccurate' a report by Iran's IRNA news agency that Mr Lammy 'expressed regret' over the US strikes. Mr Lammy also spoke to US secretary of state Marco Rubio and the foreign ministers of Egypt and Cyprus. The US attacked Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz which are linked to Iran's nuclear programme. The Tehran regime has insisted its nuclear programme is peaceful but its uranium enrichment process has gone far beyond what is required for power stations. Asked during a round of interviews this morning whether Britain endorsed the military action taken over the weekend, defence minister Luke Pollard told Times Radio: 'That was a decision that the US has taken. Our focus has been on the diplomatic effort that is necessary to get a lasting peace. 'That's why that's been the focus of the Prime Minister's actions over the last few days, it's why the Defence Secretary, myself, the Foreign Secretary and the minister for the Middle East have been engaging in diplomatic activity in the region, because we need to make sure that there is a route to a lasting peace here. 'The way to do that is with a diplomatic solution that brings Iran back to the negotiating table.'
