Climate.gov, the award-winning website operated by NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is at risk. The recent firing of nearly all its contracted staff has created doubt about its future. This decision comes on the heels of dramatic political shifts within the federal agency. That’s a serious question—it suggests the public may not have access to objective climate science information.
Climate.gov was be developed and released initially as a resource of NOAA’s Climate Program Office. It has turned into a premier portal for basic climate science, drawing several hundred thousand visits a month. The site was recently named one of the internet’s top 10 most trustworthy sources of climate-related information. It provides audiences with information that’s nonpartisan and grounded in data. Though the local operations have now been shut down by the recent layoffs, the site has no plans to cease operations, with new content ceasing after this month.
We understand that a committed core of about ten contracted staffers had worked on Climate.gov under the prior operation. On the editorial side, they collaborated with NOAA scientists to thoughtfully curate the editorial content and ensure continued integrity. As these contracts are now terminated, the day to day operations of this website have grinded to an unavoidable halt. Currently, there are only two web developers left, calling into question how sustainable this critical resource will be in the long term.
Former Climate.gov program manager Rebecca Lindsey publicly disclosed a troubling conflict within NOAA. Political appointees and career staff remain locked in a bitter struggle over the future of the site. Specifically, she raised the alarm that budget chiefs from higher up recently forced some dramatic revisions to a key NOAA contract coming up for renewal. This aggressive push has enormously drained resources from the small team that keeps the site running, further intensifying the conflict.
“We operated exactly how you would want an independent, non-partisan communications group to operate,” – Rebecca Lindsey.
Lindsey put forth her worry about what these changes could mean. She emphasized that stopping the spread of truthful climate information makes it impossible for the public to be prepared for the challenges that climate change brings.
“Hiding the impacts of climate change won’t stop it from happening; it will just make us far less prepared when it does,” – Lindsey.
As a result of the unexpected sweep of layoffs, Climate.gov’s social media accounts are not currently being actively maintained. These accounts, many of them with hundreds of thousands of followers, went mute. This stopgap effectively cuts off public access to consistent, trusted climate science information. It leaves us scratching our heads about a potential shift in NOAA’s public engagement approach under the current administration.
Michael Di Liberto, a former Climate.gov author, reminded us that what we see today might be steps in a bigger plan. These tactics are meant to limit the ability of scientists to communicate on climate-related matters. He stressed the power of the website’s address. He further argued that the recent layoffs literally demonstrate how it must be seriously discussed to be saved for use someday under better conditions.
“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,” – Michael Di Liberto.
Lindsey explained how these advances fit in with a more alarming trend she has been seeing within our government science agencies. She warned that this trend is a “slow and quiet” method to limit Americans’ access to critical climate data. It raises alarm bells over the transparency of high-priority data.
The impact of these changes reaches far beyond Climate.gov. Stakeholders are understandably concerned that this is indicative of a larger pattern of willful ignorance towards climate science by our nation’s leaders. Lindsey noted her fear that Climate.gov would eventually be used as a propaganda weapon. Otherwise, she fears it will cease to be seen as a credible source of information.
“It’s clear that the administration does not accept climate science, so it’s certainly concerning,” – Michael Di Liberto.
Lately, former staffers have been raising red flags. They fear that misinformation and disinformation about climate science will succeed without credible answers from trusted platforms such as Climate.gov.
“We were an extremely well-trusted source for climate information, misinformation and disinformation because we actually, legitimately would answer misinformation questions,” – A former contractor.
Without continual, active engagement from Climate.gov, the public’s understanding of climate science would be at risk. This is particularly alarming because robust and timely data are essential for learning all we can to make informed decisions in the immediate future.