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.

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.