Another American Weather Website Being Shut Down

Got something to say to this podcast? Send a voicemail, and you might hear yourself on the next episode!

• Effective Shutdown of Climate.gov: The website is likely to cease publishing new content imminently. The "entire content production staff at climate.gov (including me) were let go from our government contract on 31 May," stated an anonymous former contractor. This signifies a de facto shutdown of new information dissemination.
• Targeted Elimination of Staff: The dismissals were highly specific, with former program manager Rebecca Lindsey describing a situation where a demand came "from above" to "rewrite parts of the contract to remove the team’s funding." Tom Di Liberto, a former NOAA spokesperson, noted, "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."
• Political Motivation and Suppression of Science: The consensus among former staff is that the actions were politically motivated and aimed at restricting public access to climate information. Lindsey believed it was a "very deliberate, targeted attack," and stated that the administration is engaging in a "slow and quiet way of trying to keep science agencies from providing information to the American public about climate." Di Liberto explicitly states, "It’s clear that the administration does not accept climate science, so it’s certainly concerning."
• Loss of a Trusted, Non-Partisan Source: Climate.gov was recognized as an "extremely well-trusted source for climate information." Lindsey emphasized that the content was "specifically designed to be politically neutral, and faithful to the current state of the sciences," and that they "operated exactly how you would want an independent, non-partisan communications group to operate."
• Vulnerability to Misinformation and Propaganda: A significant concern among the fired staff is the potential for the administration to "co-opt climate.gov to publish its own anti-science content." Lindsey feared a "sinister possibility" of the administration providing "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." The contractor also worried about the site turning into "a propaganda website for this administration." The absence of staff to "pushback on misinformation" on social media accounts further compounds this risk.