Trump-Shuttered Climate Change Site Now Back Online In Nonprofit Hands (theregister.com) 110
Donald Trump shuttered the web site Climate.gov in 2025, cutting off public access to climate information from America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
But "former members of the site's team have brought much of it back at a new domain," reports The Register: "Trusted climate information should not disappear when politics change," Climate.us managing director Rebecca Lindsey said of the new platform in a press release. Lindsey, who previously served as the Climate.gov program manager and lead editor, told The Register in an email that she and one of the web developers responsible for the site were the first to be caught up in government purges when DOGE swept through the department in late February 2025... Created in cooperation with sustainability nonprofit accelerator Multiplier, Climate.us aims to be an independent alternative to its old .gov, and many of the former NOAA crew behind the previous website have teamed up for the new initiative to "keep climate information accurate, accessible, scientifically rigorous, and useful for the people who rely on it."
Climate.gov, which now redirects to a NOAA page about climate but which hosts none of the data the shuttered site used to contain, was taken offline in July 2025 following a Trump executive order prioritizing "gold standard science...." arguing that prior climate science models relied on worst-case scenarios, which somehow meant the public availability of 15 years of climate data and reporting ought to change...
All of the content that was purged from the .gov is now back, along with blogs from experts, climate status reports, maps and data pathways, and national assessments of climate change as well. Lindsey told us that rapidly changing political winds have led her to believe that the government isn't the right place for that mission to continue, and that she would have concerns about returning the site to federal management if a future administration changed its position on climate change... Lindsey said that the Climate.us team will continue with the same mission it had before the Trump administration attempted to quash it: Getting climate science in front of the public in a manner that's understandable so they can make their own decisions about how to respond.
But "former members of the site's team have brought much of it back at a new domain," reports The Register: "Trusted climate information should not disappear when politics change," Climate.us managing director Rebecca Lindsey said of the new platform in a press release. Lindsey, who previously served as the Climate.gov program manager and lead editor, told The Register in an email that she and one of the web developers responsible for the site were the first to be caught up in government purges when DOGE swept through the department in late February 2025... Created in cooperation with sustainability nonprofit accelerator Multiplier, Climate.us aims to be an independent alternative to its old .gov, and many of the former NOAA crew behind the previous website have teamed up for the new initiative to "keep climate information accurate, accessible, scientifically rigorous, and useful for the people who rely on it."
Climate.gov, which now redirects to a NOAA page about climate but which hosts none of the data the shuttered site used to contain, was taken offline in July 2025 following a Trump executive order prioritizing "gold standard science...." arguing that prior climate science models relied on worst-case scenarios, which somehow meant the public availability of 15 years of climate data and reporting ought to change...
All of the content that was purged from the .gov is now back, along with blogs from experts, climate status reports, maps and data pathways, and national assessments of climate change as well. Lindsey told us that rapidly changing political winds have led her to believe that the government isn't the right place for that mission to continue, and that she would have concerns about returning the site to federal management if a future administration changed its position on climate change... Lindsey said that the Climate.us team will continue with the same mission it had before the Trump administration attempted to quash it: Getting climate science in front of the public in a manner that's understandable so they can make their own decisions about how to respond.
Probably for the better in the long run (Score:5, Interesting)
With the global climatology science no longer relying on support and funding from one of the worst sources of pollution and environmental damage, we'll finally see which end of the scale has had a thumb on it for the longest time. I'm not sure, but pretty confident, the new image of what we're dealing with will be actually worse than what's been generally presented as the "consensus" so far. Like with most efforts of this administration, the long term effect on the world is probably gonna be the exact opposite of what they're trying to do.
Re:Probably for the better in the long run (Score:5, Insightful)
What are they trying to do? It seems like to me that they want a catastrophe on the presumption that they'll end up on top. It's another variant of "might-is-right." It fits the war mongering mentality. Take what can be taken, stab em' in the back, generally being a cunt of a person. Black heart syndrome.
Re:Probably for the better in the long run (Score:5, Interesting)
Climate change happens, and it is hanging fast, faster than ever in recorded geological times.
All's left to do is to answer three questions:
There are people wanting to dodge the questions, especially the third one by hand waving and mumbling something about economy, technological advance and the market forces. And there are people who want answers.
Re:Probably for the better in the long run (Score:5, Informative)
The catastrophe did not have to happen. Some restraint would've gone a long way. And significant directed investment would've made a big difference on alternative energy sources.
We had plenty of warning. Science knew the potential climatic behaviour a hundred years ago. Scientists measured the distinct trajectory in the 1960s. The knowledge to take action was understood by 1970. Nevertheless, by 1988 a full published study was presented at the UN - As a call for political action.
We all know how the politics subsequently played out. Exactly the wrong path was taken.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The catastrophe did not have to happen. [...] Nevertheless, by 1988 a full published study was presented at the UN
Yeah, a hundred fucking years after the problem was understood. THAT is the problem.
Re: Probably for the better in the long run (Score:3)
It would have been much cheaper to gentle steer away from the cliff 40 years ago than wait until things get too severe to ignore.
Re: Probably for the better in the long run (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, the way Carter was trying, and to demontrate, he had solar panels on the roof (where you didn't see them) of the White House.
Then in came Ronnie Raygun, who had them ripped off, and drill, baby, drill. And the Bushes, who were oil industry (and Darth Cheney)...
Re:Probably for the better in the long run (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately denial continues, not just accepting science. It is a minority if yale is correct, 30% on the negative side and only 11% on the outright denial side, but they are rather vocal. https://climatecommunication.y... [yale.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like to me that they want a catastrophe on the presumption that they'll end up on top.
I think that imputes too much evil to them, and not enough stupidity. Apply Hanlon's Razor "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".
No, I think the truth is that they think the catastrophe will be good, or they don't believe it. Or both! Humans are very good at cognitive dissonance.
Among the more deeply religious on the right, I think many may accept that climate change is real, but assume that the end will come first -- or even that climate change is the predicted
Re: (Score:2)
Or it's simply financial motivation. Any steps taken will cost them money, and the problem is likely not going to really become a problem until after they are dead and gone. They'll be spending the money, but will personally get no ROI from it. Therefore, they choose to do nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Or it's simply financial motivation. Any steps taken will cost them money, and the problem is likely not going to really become a problem until after they are dead and gone. They'll be spending the money, but will personally get no ROI from it. Therefore, they choose to do nothing.
That's probably true of many, and it couples well with motivated-disbelief. Confidence that if it happens it won't really be a problem for you makes it easier to just shrug the whole thing off and refuse to think too much about whether your disbelief makes sense.
It's worth mentioning that there's one more position that actually does make sense, even if it's a bit Pollyanna-ish: The belief that science will find a less impactful way to address the problem in the future. The argument is that we shouldn't
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The US is a very distant 2nd behind China in terms of carbon emissions.
https://www.worldometers.info/... [worldometers.info]
As a matter of fact, the US, India, Russia and Japan combined emit less carbon than China.
Re: (Score:3)
That data is based on a 2025 report from the EU, the actual report [europa.eu] says it is based on data from the years up to and including 2024.
Something I don't understand is why the report's figures diverge from those it is supposedly based on.
Country Worldodometers EU Report
China 33.12% 29.2%
USA 11.69% 11.1%
India 7.96% 8.2%
EU27 see note 5.9%
Russia 5.07% 4.8%
Those figures purport to be the percentage of global emissions attribu
Re:Probably for the better in the long run (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Probably for the better in the long run (Score:5, Interesting)
USA population:- 349,035,494
So China is just over 4 times the size of USA
China emissions:- 13,124,727,993
USA emissions:- 4,632,164,876
That makes China's emissions just below 3 times as bad - so who is really the more polluting especially when China is making all the stuff Westerners buy?
Re: (Score:2)
Answer - It does not matter because
1) we have one atmosphere
2) People are going to buy stuff
3) China is a going to make stuff people want to buy
4) regulators in Washington and Brussels don't control how China makes things.
5) Everyone decided 'derp tariffs bad' so (2) will be filled by China, and poorer client states
This is all before we even explore the energy economy.
People need to come to grips with the fact that we are NOT going to be doing anything that is actually effective about carbon emissions via p
Re: (Score:3)
The strength of your belief in forces conveniently entirely out of your control fixing the problem is a dogma many religious fanatics could envy you for.
Re: (Score:2)
Answer - It does not matter because
Answer: it does matter because country borders make no difference to global warming. You're pointing to a bunch of people saying "you should go from emitting 1/3 as much as me to even less because you all live in a different place from me". While drive a car with the fuel efficiency of the 6000 SUX.
5) Everyone decided 'derp tariffs bad' so (2) will be filled by China, and poorer client states
The way you're god-emporer did them was worse than "derp" it's down right dementia
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the recent news stories about the EU removing the de minimis customs duty exemption, which was decided in November and comes into force on the 1st of July.
Re: (Score:2)
Overpopulation is not the solution to pollution. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only are the USA's cumulative emissions much higher than China, given current Chinese trends in emissions it will forever remain USA being the worst.
And the situation gets worse when you take your entitled racist hat off and realise that China has 4.5x the population of the USA meaning you either need to accept that the China needs 4.5x the American emissions to break even or agree that you're a racists entitled fuckwit who thinks you have a right to pollute more than a Chinese person.
Re: (Score:2)
China has over three times our population, and is the industrial powerhouse of the world. Still, they emit a little less than three times the US does.
Re: (Score:2)
"With the global climatology science no longer relying on support and funding from one of the worst sources of pollution and environmental damage..."
What an ignorant take. One could easily dispute that the totality of the American economy is "one of the worst sources of pollution and environmental damage", but the US government is NOT the totality of the American economy.
Re:Probably for the better in the long run (Score:5, Insightful)
What an ignorant take. One could easily dispute that the totality of the American economy is "one of the worst sources of pollution and environmental damage", but the US government is NOT the totality of the American economy.
True. The American government is merely a fully-owned subsidiary at this point.
Re:Probably for the better in the long run (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure, but pretty confident, the new image of what we're dealing with will be actually worse than what's been generally presented as the "consensus" so far.
I have been following climate science from the 80s and the most consistent thing has been what we’re dealing with actually is worse than what’s been the “consensus” so far. Not to say an administration hostile to inconvenient facts and logical reasoning isn’t a problem, but science in general across all fields tends to resist change in ideas. Going against the established precedent is difficult (and this isn’t always bad), but it does take a long time and when it impacts how people live their lives this change always seems to greatly lag behind where logical reasoning from facts places us. It’s part of the human condition.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I can tell you for a fact that when I was working in Climate Science in the mid 2000s, Scientists where being heavily pressured to "tone it down" in terms of model tuning to avoid attracting the saurons-eye of conservative political lobbyists who, at the time, where busy going after the fucking weatherman with some outrageously mentally ill theory that weather stations where spookily lying about how hot it was, as if we hadn't been factoring in urban heat islands already since the frigging 1800s.
Re: Probably for the better in the long run (Score:2)
Tell us more about how you're smarter than the experts who actually did what you say they didn't do
Re: (Score:2)
you succesfully tried to gain grants and reach political goals while ruining the global economy
Hyperbole at it's finest. Compare the monetary amounts of those grants to the amount of money involved in the fossil fuel industry and you'll see an orders of magnitude difference. It is incredibly foolish to sacrifice the planet we live on for the sake of making money.
The harm you caused to life and civilization of Earth will not be forgotten.
The harm that your deliberate obtuseness and stubborn ignorance won't be forgotten either. But it's OK, you won't have to care because you'll be dead and gone before the shit really hits the fan. The planet may become uninhabitable, but yo
Convenient (Score:5, Informative)
The U.S. is by no means the only contributor to climate change, but its inaction has undoubtedly played a significant role in worsening the situation.
Re:Convenient (Score:5, Interesting)
He might have inadvertently also contributed to the green transition with the Iran war exposing how vulnerable oil dependency really is. An optimist can hope that these even out.
Re: Convenient (Score:4, Insightful)
Never underestimate just how deep some people can bury their heads in the sand.
Re: Convenient (Score:4, Informative)
Fortunately it hit them where it hurts - in the wallet. Capitalism created this mess, and we have to use capitalism to fix it.
The worst part is we aren't even good at it. The nominally communist government in China is doing a far better job.
Re:Convenient (Score:5, Interesting)
The war in Iran was the direct reason I decided to maximise the system I could put on my new roof - and oversize the battery. I was expecting oil prices and energy costs to go high and stay high.
I ended up installing 10kw of 23% efficient solar panels was all I could fit on the approximately 100sqm north side of my roof. They are paired with a FoxESS 9.9kw single phase inverter and a 48kwh stack of Fox CQ7 batteries.
I might have slightly oversized on the batteries but over the last three weeks since it was installed, including rainy and cloudy days I have been 98% energy independent (the inverter always draws a little power from the grid) while exporting 15 to about 34kwh a day.
A 25kwh battery would probably do just as well for home power most days, though obviously with less energy arbitrage capacity.
At 15k AUD for the whole setup and warrantied stored power throughput of 178 MWh that will work out to about 6c/kwh for any stored solar power power I am using from the battery, so if the grid export price is significantly above that its worth exporting excess power and turning a profit, to help cover the electricity providers fixed connection fees.
Its the beginning of "winter" here now (where the temperature plunges to 16 centigrade at night and I sometimes even have to wear a light sweater.
In Summer I'm going to be drowning in excess power, even with my AC cranked because the house is pretty well insulated.
It really is possible to use renewables to completely cover your energy needs with a modest up front investment (esp. compared to the overall cost of a house) , and it's only going to get cheaper and more environmentally friendly as sodium ion batteries ramp up in production.
My next car will be electric or plugin hybrid for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
The Third World is making much larger and accelerated purchases of clean energy sources (solar, wind, hydro, nuclear) from China, to the tune of billions of dollars just since Usrael attacked Iran.
I remember when that happened (Score:5, Insightful)
It was a complete dip-shit move to shutter that site.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So when the Democrats win control of the house and senate in mid terms they'll restore funding but continue as a non-profit?
Keep its independence, you don't need any future oval office administration to sabotage it again.
Re: I remember when that happened (Score:3, Informative)
Trump is dipshit in chief so no surprise. Politics aside, the guy is a thin skinned narciscist who cant handle people or organisations who disagree with him or refuse to toe the line so funding removal was in a sense inevitable.
Re: (Score:2)
There was another site his administration shuttered in his first presidency, one which carried medical data in the form of symptoms and possible causes. Afaik the content was simply lost, Slashdot reported on this at the time.
Re:I remember when that happened (Score:4, Insightful)
"Almost as stupid as believing funding in the hands of Democrats isn’t the braindead move."
Except not at all. Just another "both sides" excuse by ignoramuses and bots.
"Lets jump on Californias..."
California has problems like everywhere, but California is remarkably successful by any measure, definitely not "fucked under Democrats".
"I’m certain the imaginary kids there know all about climate change. Like the homeless know how to sign a mail-in ballot."
And this is who you really are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It was a complete dip-shit move to shutter that site.
Only complete dip-shits fail to understand that the Trump presidency is a Russian attack, and therefore the malignant things it does are not stupid, they are successes.
Mr. Universe - I mean, Climate? (Score:5, Funny)
All of the content that was purged from the .gov is now back ...
The DOGE Guy killed me, Mal. He killed me with a chainsaw. How weird is that? I got... a short span here... they destroyed my .gov equipment but I have a back-up unit... bottom of the complex, right over the generator. Hard to get to. I know they missed it. They can't stop the signal, Mal. They can never stop the signal.
Re: (Score:3)
Bring back Firefly. 8)
peak slashdot-maxxing (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Juxtaposing together words you have heard does not really imply any coherent thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Ate a lot of paint chips as a child, eh?
George Martin said it best (Score:5, Interesting)
The idea that science data can be muted, and go away in the age of the internet is remarkably stupid. Climate science being suppressed is in the same vein as the old communist concept of Lamarckism, where creatures evolve in immediate time - politics, trying to impose itself on physics.
And 100 percent certain that those practicing the forbidden science have archived their science, maybe storing some copies In Svalbard. I'm waiting for our politicos to have voting on the speed of light, or making Pi equal to three like the bible tells us.
Re: (Score:1)
making Pi equal to three like the bible tells us.
I know it's a common mistake but you're confusing The Simpsons with The Bible . Surprisingly while they are held in similar regard in western culture, they are, in fact, very different works, and should not be confused.
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's a common mistake but you're confusing The Simpsons with The Bible . Surprisingly while they are held in similar regard in western culture, they are, in fact, very different works, and should not be confused.
You need to talk to God about that, because the Bible is the word of god as expressed to man. It is quite specific:
1 Kings 7:23. King James Version
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
In a circular structure ten cubits in diameter, and thirty cubits in circumference, that would indicate that Pi is 3, or if you wish to mince words, that rather than Pi the circu
Re: (Score:1)
Can you show me on the doll where the priest touched you?
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem you have some sort of emotional issue that's causing you to draw some irrational conclusion about what was intended by a story in 2500 year old text that tells the founding mythology of an ancient middle-eastern society. No one in their right mind would read the passage from 1 Kings and interpret it as describing pi.
Your last sentence is perhaps illustrative, the words "No one in their right mind". You are exactly correct, even though you used that sentence to invalidate mine. There are some people in this world who hold insane ideas.
As a person raised by strict Catholic Parents with Strict Southern Baptist grandparents, yes, you are 100 percent correct. I have a deep understanding of people not in their right mind. Perhaps you are not aware, but Christian fundamentalism is a belief in biblical infallibility and bibl
This is better (Score:2)
Thanks to the efforts of Rebecca and company (Score:2)
I salute you
And I helped! (Score:2)
Not directly involved, not bragging, not even a humble brag. Just sayin' I slipped 'em a few bucks, not much, something I could afford.
And saying it 'cuz you could, too! They could use your help.
Next time, la presidenta may wipe the sites data. (Score:3)
To force the site to be rebuilt from scratch.
This president is the cruelest president in the entire history of the United States. He won't stop unless he dies of old age, is impeached and convicted, or his cabinet uses the 25th amendment on him.
Where can I donate? (Score:1)
Nothing more to say than, that tackling climate change is the biggest undertaking in mankinds history.
Re: Where can I donate? (Score:2)
https://climate.us/ [climate.us]
Blue "Donate" button in menu.
activist sites (Score:2)
Activist sites should be in private, not government hands. This is good.
Climate change is a hoax (Score:2)
It's worse than reported.
Re: (Score:2)
Global warming is beneficial. Longer growing seasons, for one. There are more deaths from cold than heat. This will help.
Re: Climate change is a hoax (Score:2)
And making a city of 20 million like Lagos uninhabitable.
Re: Climate change is a hoax (Score:2)
What about when coastal cities flood and hundreds of millions have to find new homes?
Yeah, there may be a few benefits but the downsides and unknowns outweigh them.
Re: (Score:2)
Decade long drought cycles are great for hard-working farmers, gives them the extended vacation they deserve.
"Gold Standard Science" (Score:2)
With Donnie, gold is god.
Now that it's not federal (Score:2)
Will it finally be honest?
Mission accompilished (Score:2)
If the idea was to get others to finance the site rather than tax payer's money: Mission accomplished.
Now that money can go where it belongs: Into the coffers of Trump and his family.
Re: (Score:3)
very dumb.
Nope (Score:2, Informative)
The government has replaced trusted medicine with new wave alternative medicine bullshit like raw water, unpasteurized milk, vitamins and supplements sold at a trade show called "CPAC", fake magical "cure-alls" like ivermectin, and everything else from Kevin Trudeau's Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About. Bunch of hippies.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's called Starve the Beast [wikipedia.org] and it has been at the heart of the GOP playbook for the past 30 years
Project 2025 codified it and trump birthed it into action while the gop-led Congress and Supreme Court clapped
But sure, callout them liberuls... smh
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:The Working Class Ruin Everything (Score:5, Informative)
Taxpayer-Funded Travel: Data from OpenSecrets has shown that Republican congressional offices have spent more on taxpayer-funded travel than Democrats in recent years
Privately Funded Travel: Tracking by LegiStorm indicates that Republican members of Congress often outpace Democrats in accepting privately sponsored trips and travel expenses.
So you lied there, and then you lied to you daughter by pretending that the Southern Strategy never happened...
Re: (Score:2)
And then you go to bring up an incident where some politician said some racist things to absolve the Democrat party of its history of founding the KKK, shooting Lincoln in support of slavery and writing the Jim Crow laws.
I take it you're in favor of reparations, then.
If not, you have an inconsistency in your worldview. You apparently believe that guilt is carried by groups across generations, even when none of the current group was alive -- and many didn't even have ancestors involved -- when the bad things were done. Thus, the modern Democrats are stained by the racism and pro-slavery views of the 19th and early 20th-century Democrats. Likewise, white Americans are therefore permanently stained by slavery.
Re: (Score:2)
You just switched out a claim about "Democrats" (all Democrats) with "Democrat politicians" and haven't even noticed that you're not even talking about the same thing.
Yes I did, but only as to steel man OP:s claim because if we look at the voters vs politicians the numbers are even more in the different direction than what was claimed so if I had used that number then you would have complained that I instead should look at the politicians, so I used the (for my "side") lesser number and still proved OP wrong which in turn makes you the AC not only wrong but very very wrong.
Re: (Score:2)