Earlier quoted context omitted.
“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 po…
> “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...
Websites hosting major US climate reports taken down
71–80 of 445 posts
Re: Websites hosting major US climate reports taken down
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “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...
And they responded to say “yes we took it down” so what’s your point again?
I'm not arguing that the overall fact pattern is good here. I'm saying this article is stupid and lazy.
Re: Websites hosting major US climate reports taken down
#73Re: Websites hosting major US climate reports taken down
#74https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Look_Up
I think we rely too much on government mandated websites than we do practical common sense that could save lives. For instance, over 175,000 people die from heat exposure each year across the WHO European Region. Compare that to 1-2k in the US. In this case, the Don't Look Up scenario is that people don't want to get A/C and governments sometimes make it very hard for them, killing hundreds of thousands because... I…
Re: Websites hosting major US climate reports taken down
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
And they responded to say “yes we took it down” so what’s your point again?
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.
Re: Websites hosting major US climate reports taken down
#76[flagged]
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...
Re: Websites hosting major US climate reports taken down
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Yes cancelling funding and firing all the people involved is indicative of an honest mistake when moving some stuff around.
Re: Websites hosting major US climate reports taken down
#78Gotta provide a smokescreen for “Drill baby drill”
Re: Websites hosting major US climate reports taken down
#79As the US slowly becomes N. Korea...
Re: Websites hosting major US climate reports taken down
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"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."
> 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...