| ▲ | timr 2 days ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | padjo 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| “The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which coordinated the information in the assessments, did not respond to repeated inquiries” Nobody is jumping to conclusions, lots of climate related information is being scrubbed. This website has been down for at least 12 hours. The fact that the domain is still registered proves precisely nothing. Could it be a misconfiguration? Sure, but available evidence points to an ongoing attempt to erase everything related to climate change. |
| |
| ▲ | timr 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > “The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which coordinated the information in the assessments, did not respond to repeated inquiries” Except they did, as I found an NPR article with official comment, and there's a link downthread to this much better article about the same thing, again with authoritative reply: https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-administration-shutters-majo... | | |
| ▲ | padjo 2 days ago | parent [-] | | And they responded to say “yes we took it down” so what’s your point again? | | |
| ▲ | timr 2 days ago | parent [-] | | No, they literally said "we're moving it to NASA". I'm not arguing that the overall fact pattern is good here. I'm saying this article is stupid and lazy. | | |
| ▲ | padjo 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | No you said it’s probably a dns configuration, posted some pointless name server addresses and implied government sysadmins are incompetent. What actually happened is exactly what this article said and I wouldn’t be surprised if they get no response from NOAA because of the administration’s well documented feud with the AP. And if you believe NASA will publish anything beyond the most perfunctory version of this report under this administration I have a bridge to sell you. | | |
| ▲ | timr 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > No you said it’s probably a dns configuration, I said that barring better information, you can't rule it out. Still true. > posted some pointless name server addresses They're government servers, is the point. And don't you find it a little bit curious that someone bothered to change the NS records? It's not the usual way that a website goes down. In fact, it's the sort of thing that happens when you're in the process of (potentially incompetently) moving a domain from one server to another. > What actually happened is exactly what this article said and I wouldn’t be surprised if they get no response from NOAA Yet other reporters, from multiple different left-leaning news outlets, managed to get these elusive comments from super hard-to-reach people like...the White House press secretary for science policy. It's almost like there was a press conference or something. Sometimes you actually have to do work to be a reporter, and when you skip that part and jump directly to conspiracy, it's not defensible. It's just trash journalism. | | |
| ▲ | verdverm 2 days ago | parent [-] | | This administration has lost the benefit of the doubt because they lie so much and rarely follow through. Until they actually do it, it's more likely they will not and are just saying whatever comes to mind as a way to manipulate the narrative |
|
| |
| ▲ | triceratops 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | "As of this writing, NASA has not provided any details on when and where the reports will be available again or if the new assessment will proceed." | | |
| ▲ | timr 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, try reading a better source [1]: > NASA will now take over, Victoria LaCivita, communications director at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, told ABC News. "All preexisting reports will be hosted on the NASA website, ensuring compliance with statutorily required reporting," LaCivita said, referring ABC News to NASA for more information. So, they're explicitly answering the second half of that question. Again, not suggesting the fact pattern is good, just that this article is terrible. I assume the AP could have also managed to get the same quote before running to press with speculation? [1] https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-administration-shutters-majo... | | |
| ▲ | triceratops 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Yeah, try reading a better source [1]: It's from your source. It's the very last sentence in the article as of right now. | | |
| ▲ | timr 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > It's from your source. It's the very last sentence in the article as of right now. Sorry, what? I don't have any affiliation with ABC. Someone else posted the link. NPR has the same basic comments [2]: > All five editions of the National Climate Assessment that have been published over the years will also be available on NASA's website, according to NASA spokesperson Bethany Stevens. NASA doesn't yet know when that website will be available to the public. How you get from that to "we don't know if they'll ever publish it again!" is beyond me. [2] https://www.npr.org/2025/07/01/nx-s1-5453501/national-climat... | | |
| ▲ | triceratops 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > I don't have any affiliation with ABC I didn't say that. You've been posting it everywhere and called it a "better source" that we should all read. Calling it "your source" is a reasonable shorthand. > How you get from that to "we don't know if they'll ever publish it again!" is beyond me. I didn't say that either. I only pasted a direct quote from an article you urged everyone to read. How you get from that to what you're saying is beyond me. | | |
| ▲ | timr 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > I only pasted a direct quote from an article you urged everyone to read. Mea culpa, I missed the line because it was at stranded at the bottom of a bunch of blocked ads. About the only thing I can say is that "NASA" and "any details" is doing all of the heavy lifting in that sentence. The reporter just quoted someone from the administration saying that they'll follow the law. So the reporter runs over to NASA, doesn't get an immediate or exact answer, and says "OK, I'll just make it sound like maybe they're being dodgy about following the law, then." Its a fairly standard reporter trick, but it's sleazy nonetheless: "At press time, we've received no answer from the man about when he stopped beating his wife." > > How you get from that to "we don't know if they'll ever publish it again!" is beyond me. > I didn't say that either. I now realize that this language could be misconstrued. I wasn't literally talking about "you". I meant it as "how one gets from that statement to..", and I was talking about the reporters. |
| |
| ▲ | GolfPopper 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >How you get from that to "we don't know if they'll ever publish it again!" is beyond me. In case you've missed it, the current administration lies constantly and loves suppressing views it doesn't like. Hosting a document is not rocket science. There is zero reason to take something down before having the new host up and running. That this has been done anyway suggests malign intent. And the current administration is long past getting the benefit of the doubt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | roxolotl 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Is it really that unreasonable to believe that a government run by people who’ve regularly called climate change a hoax and has a history of pulling previously public data is pulling the public data about climate change? I don’t disagree that jumping to conclusions is bad but intentionally discounting prior behavior seems just as reckless to me. |
| |
| ▲ | toofy 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | no, it isn’t unreasonable at all. i’ve noticed a large uptick over the past couple years of some people insisting it’s unreasonable to consider context and known past behaviors when we try to discuss things. again, no, it’s not unreasonable. actually it would be incredibly silly, more unreasonable to ignore their past behaviors when discussing this. | |
| ▲ | timr a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I’m not “discounting prior behavior”, I’m just not getting exorcised over shutdown of a website, particularly when the explanation is likely to be incompetence. Be real: do you honestly believe that this website was influencing any marginal opinions? I don’t. Most of the people here who are so outraged likely had no idea that this website existed before today. This is a case where a website is a political flag, and one side is upset that the other side took down their flag. It’s all just tedious and dumb, has only tangential relationship to science, and makes exactly no difference to the world. | |
| ▲ | voidhorse a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah. The copium and ignorance described as "reason" is strong. This administration really shows you that there are several people out there that are so dense and naive that they'd want to give their oppressors a "fair shake" and "look at the facts" (issued from the oppressors) before daring to question the justice of their own persecution. Some Americans and Europeans have apparently had things so cushy they can no longer discern when their systems and institutions are actively being destroyed. The very idea of systematic and active oppression is so foreign to them that their "reason" becomes unreasonable. The democratic establishment in the US is a blatant example of this. Let's allow the neofascists to do whatever they want on the ground of remaining "civil". |
|
|
| ▲ | Glant 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| According to someone from NASA, it was in fact shut down. NASA will eventually re-publish the reports. https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-administration-shutters-majo... |
| |
| ▲ | timr 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That's a better article than the link, since they actually bothered to get answers to the question from definitive sources. NPR also linked directly to the NOAA copy of the report, lending credence to the "sloppy relocation" theory of the case: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/61592 | | |
| ▲ | padjo 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes cancelling funding and firing all the people involved is indicative of an honest mistake when moving some stuff around. | | |
| ▲ | timr 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If they already fired the staff of the agency, it's actually pretty believable that the dedicated website would get shut down. Talk about burying the lede. |
|
| |
| ▲ | triceratops 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | "As of this writing, NASA has not provided any details on when and where the reports will be available again or if the new assessment will proceed." |
|
|
| ▲ | chaoskitty 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That's hopelessly naive. A "misconfiguration" is the excuse they use after the fact when there's enough outrage that they have to put things back the way they were. |
| |
| ▲ | timr 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm not being hopelessly naive. It's certainly possible that they took it down with the explicit intention of hiding information on the internet, but that would also be pretty stupid, since various articles have found the reports on other government servers. So I assume incompetence before malice. What's already known is that they fired the staff who prepared the report, and are presumably shutting down the agency. Is it really surprising that someone might have turned off the webserver before transferring the domain? | | |
| ▲ | voidhorse a day ago | parent | next [-] | | You are being repeatedly pummeled in the face by a gang of bullies and responding by pondering whether or not they may be continually assaulting you out of some kind of misunderstanding. lol | |
| ▲ | philosopher1234 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes you are. If you’re arguing in good faith then you should try to answer this question: How far does it have to go before you assume malice? Do they have to tell you “I am malicious”? And if someone malicious is using the “dont admit it” strategy are you fucked? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | MangoToupe 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What wild conclusions specifically are you objecting to? This seems an awful lot like burying your head in the sand. |
|
| ▲ | bombcar 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you see your hosts file what the DNS used to show, does the server respond? That’s usually the real test. |
| |
|
| ▲ | mulmen 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Sure, it is always DNS. But are other sites on that DNS also down? How long has this site been down? Has anyone acknowledged this outage? If the DNS is up and the domain is registered it starts to look like a takedown instead of a mistake. I do know that the EPA took down their EJScreen [1] dataset so it’s not like politically motivated takedowns are unprecedented under the current regime. [1]: https://screening-tools.com/epa-ejscreen |
