Trump-Shuttered Climate Change Site Now Back Online In Nonprofit Hands (theregister.com)
- Reference: 0184172056
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/06/29/0115229/trump-shuttered-climate-change-site-now-back-online-in-nonprofit-hands
- Source link: https://www.theregister.com/science/2026/06/26/trump-shuttered-climate-change-site-back-online-in-nonprofit-hands/5263319
But "former members of the site's team have brought much of it back at a new domain," [1]reports The Register :
> "Trusted climate information should not disappear when politics change," [2]Climate.us managing director Rebecca Lindsey said of the new platform in a [3]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 [4]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 [5]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.
[1] https://www.theregister.com/science/2026/06/26/trump-shuttered-climate-change-site-back-online-in-nonprofit-hands/5263319
[2] https://www.climate.us/
[3] https://www.climate.us/news-features/feed/climateus-launches-independent-website-trusted-climate-information
[4] https://www.noaa.gov/climate
[5] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/restoring-gold-standard-science/
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The fact is that the catastrophe happens, no matter what. But there are people wanting to hide it for as long as possible, while others think that getting prepared because of solid information available beforehand makes some sense.
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:
Do we want Climate change?
If no, do we want to do something about it?
Whatever the answers to the two questions above, who will foot t
Re: (Score:2)
The US is a very distant 2nd behind China in terms of carbon emissions.
[1]https://www.worldometers.info/... [worldometers.info]
As a matter of fact, the US, India, Russia and Japan combined emit less carbon than China.
[1] https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
Re: (Score:2)
That data is based on a 2025 report from the EU, the [1]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
[1] https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/09f00a92-8df7-11f0-bfe2-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
Convenient (Score:4, Informative)
The archived Climate.gov site alongside the live Climate.us site will provide a convenient way to compare climate statistics after Trump's term with the data that he deliberately froze in 2025.
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:4, 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:3)
Never underestimate just how deep some people can bury their heads in the sand.
I remember when that happened (Score:5, Insightful)
It was a complete dip-shit move to shutter that site.
Re: (Score:1)
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:2)
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.
Mr. Universe - I mean, Climate? (Score:2)
> 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:2)
Bring back Firefly. 8)
Re: (Score:2)
Juxtaposing together words you have heard does not really imply any coherent thought.
Re: (Score:2)
very dumb.