It appears the United States has quietly taken a scalpel—rather than a chainsaw—to one of its central instruments of climate orthodoxy: Climate.gov. According to reporting from The Guardian, the plug is being pulled on this site, which served as a flagship for NOAA’s “climate communication, education, and engagement” efforts. Its entire content production team has been sacked, and the site’s future now hangs somewhere between irrelevance and digital zombification.
Let’s not beat around the wind turbine: this is cause for a healthy smirk.
For over a decade, Climate.gov was marketed as a neutral purveyor of scientific truth, but in practice, it functioned more like a taxpayer-funded echo chamber for IPCC-aligned climate narratives. It presented “consensus science” as gospel, projected model predictions as inevitable fate, and treated carbon dioxide—a gas essential for life—as a pollutant to be morally condemned. All in the name of “public education,” of course.
Well, education implies options. What this site provided was indoctrination.
The exposed nerve in The Guardian‘s coverage is palpable. Staff describe the firings as a “deliberate, targeted attack” on “politically neutral” science. According to former program manager Rebecca Lindsey—who admits she received “a stellar performance review, a bonus, a raise”—the team was dismissed with a form letter stating that their
“knowledge, skills, and abilities are no longer of use to NOAA”.
Translation: the new administration doesn’t need more PowerPoint climatology to justify economy-wrecking policies.
Apparently, publishing graphs with y-axes scaled to induce panic is no longer a national priority.
The pearl-clutching gets better. One staffer voiced concern that the administration could “co-opt” the Climate.gov domain and hand it to “a content team from the Heartland Institute,” fearing it might become a platform for gasp alternative viewpoints. This is presented as a nightmare scenario. But why, exactly? If the public is indeed so swayed by reason and data, then an honest debate shouldn’t threaten anyone.
Unless, of course, the foundation of your messaging is so fragile that even a modest breeze of skepticism might topple it.
One of the more revealing quotes comes from a contractor who worries that Climate.gov could become a “propaganda website for this administration.” That’s rich. Because when it was churning out one-sided material about climate doom, it wasn’t propaganda—it was “education.” The self-awareness deficit here is staggering.
Climate.gov boasted “hundreds of thousands of visits per month” and supposedly played a key role in “pushing back against misinformation.” In truth, its content pushed a very specific kind of information: that which supported central planning, carbon taxation, regulatory expansion, and the replacement of affordable energy with intermittent, subsidized alternatives.
Notably, Di Liberto, a former NOAA spokesperson, laments the fact that
“They only fired a handful of people, and it just so happened to be the entire content team for climate.gov. I mean, that’s a clear signal.”
That’s not a glitch; that’s a feature. When the alleged neutrality of a government website means never deviating from one political outlook, then yes, the entire content team should be replaced—or eliminated entirely.
The kicker is that this doesn’t even represent a full-scale rollback. It’s more like a bureaucratic cold shoulder. Pre-written content will still be drip-fed to the site, like a zombie blog still twitching after its brain has been removed. Social media accounts are likely to go dark. Staff who once wielded the authority to label everything they disagreed with as “disinformation” will now have to join the rest of us in the public square—where claims must actually hold up under scrutiny.
The Guardian frames this as a national disservice, warning that “halting factual climate information is a disservice to the public.” But what it really laments is the loss of narrative control. The public still has access to raw data. NOAA isn’t disappearing. The difference is that its most ideologically curated interface is no longer being force-fed into search engines and school curricula.
Let’s be honest: Climate.gov was never just a website. It was a flagship for technocratic messaging, a glittering storefront in the climate industrial complex. Its dismantling signals something refreshing: that Americans are tiring of being talked down to, taxed up the wazoo, and force-fed a diet of dire predictions wrapped in pseudo-objectivity.
It’s about time we returned to actual skepticism, open inquiry, and policies that treat energy not as a vice, but a virtue.
Score one for reality.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Boo hoo and AMF. They won’t be missed.
Only congress can kill an Agency they established, but the Administration can reduce the Scope.
This is where we can win. Schoolkids looking to do a report will Google “climate change” like I did and see the NOAA site pop up high in the feed. Chatbots are going to pick this up and report governmental policy. Pointing out some of the inconsistencies of alarmists is helpful.
Not suggesting its all over and we won. Just happy to see some fairness in presentation return. This and the EPA air rule changes announced yesterday are huge steps forward.
Are you aware that Google has an agreement with the UN to promote the UN climate junk over everything else?
Being a political hack has risks.
The whole site should be deleted, but it is still up. Come on Trump, kill it off!
Debate would be great but I doubt it would happen. My experience with believers or propagandists, even some who give lectures on the catastrophe, is that they soon run away from me. They do this even in ludicrous situations, such as, on a boat in the middle of a river.
They seem to have no science, only the propaganda.
I expect most of us have had these experiences. Has anyone met a ‘believer’ with good science to offer?
The classic response to any challenge to an ideologue’s position is for the ideologue to disengage and beat a headlong retreat to their “safe space”, that is – the groupthink that is the foundation of all ideologies.
No. But every one I have talked to has a ready “denier” tag ready
Yes, “denier” is the modern-day equivalent of “heretic”.
Stoning of “deniers” is carried out vicariously these days by the legacy media “Protectors of the CAGW Settled Verses”, as crafted by the Apostles of the ideology from the UN, WEF, EU and myriad lower-ranking congregations.
Or “heathen,”, “apostate,” etc.
Yes, or the inevitable “97% (or ‘all of’) the scientists agree.”
Denier is offensive beyond anything else.
My wife’s parents lived through the Holodomor. It was 9 million Ukrainians starved to death over about 18 months. History has been altered so Stalin is less a villain than Hitler.
My wife’s parents had friends the went into the Holocaust camps and never returned.
Denier is the most offensive slur in history.
I’m one of the least knowledgeable persons here on climate science- yet when I meet a climate emergency believer, I know more than they do on the topic- usually WAY more. 🙂
Yes Joseph, I always have to clarify with CAGW ideologues whether they’re blaming the element C (Carbon) for the planet’s imminent doom, or the molecule CO2 (Carbon Dioxide).
In which case, I ask why aren’t they taking their pitchforks to the element O, which by definition has twice the presence of Carbon in the molecule, and therefor must be twice the treat to the planet’s existence.
Side-eye is the usual response.
Oh but that’s a minor issue. They are completely devoid of the basic facts. They don’t know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere today, they don’t know the highest or lowest it has ever been, they don’t know that the main “greenhouse gas” is WATER VAPOR, they just have no frame of reference.
Plus they are ignorant about how life has always flourished in warm climate periods and how cold climate periods have by contrast generally been periods of famine and disease – AND worse weather.
A few years ago I watched some EPA officials testifying to a congressional committee. One question to all was, “what % of the atmosphere is CO2”. None had a clue. The answers ranged from 5-10%. If they didn’t know the answer – then they didn’t have a ******* clue about the climate.
Exactly. They are 100% wrapped up in the appeal to authority, with no actual knowledge about what the claims are based on. And zero intellectual curiosity about it either – they don’t want to hear any facts, they cause too much cognitive dissonance.
“Scientists say….”
“… good paying UNION jobs…”
“… our most vulnerable…”
Notably, Di Liberto, a former NOAA spokesperson, laments the fact that
You sure couldn’t pull one over on Captain Obvious.
Phil R,
Cut some slack, the poor girl is female and just acting like females do. Married guys know that they have to make adjustments when She who must be Obeyed makes yet another illogical comment.
It is entirely unfashionable to criticise female decision making. Few male social researchers would have the balls to write papers contrasting female and male success in positions of senior management, but the problem is large and obvious. Show me a current large organisation in trouble and I’ll win $$$ with a bet that the CEO is female. Not always, but true on the balance of probability. This is recently getting worse with formal schemes regulating for equal numbers of female and male in the same type of job.
But have you ever heard of a woman in childbirth asking for a male
midwife? No, not me either. Truth is that females and males ARE different, not just in body strength, but also in the logic of problem solving. Males have centuries of experience in being the boss, females in having babies and caring for them while male delivers the food.
Make no mistake, I love the female as much as the male, but you cannot expect top results when you regulate the job market as if differences are not important. Some of my best friends have been female. Last month marked our 61 years of contented marriage.
Please, ladies, be cautious about new job offers tasked with doing what men have usually done. You are at higher risk of failure and the shame that results. Geoff S
Even female and male brains are physically different – from a study –
I’m not saying anything about “superiority”. Just saying that males and females are physically different, and quite probably mentally different, for all sorts of reasons related to the evolution of mankind.
Reality isn’t subject to political correctness, or “canceling”.
Richard Feynman was referring to quantum physics when he wrote “So I hope you can accept nature as She is – absurd.”, but his opinion applies to other fields as well. There are different races – a pathologist can often determine a distinct race from examining bones. Deny it all you like, call me a racist if you wish. Nature doesn’t care, and nor do I. Humans have two sexes – male and female. Obviously, some mutations result in “sports”, just as some people have six fingers, three legs, or no brain. That would make me sexist, I guess.
So sad, too bad. Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter, either.
Oh dear, now some people will complain that their egos are bruised, or their “feelings” have been hurt! Am I supposed to care?
Geoff, have you noticed how often a woman steps up for the “hospital pass” from a dipstick Aussie prime minister or premier when it’s obvious to all and sundry that the incumbent is toast, and “courageously resigns to spend more time with his family” before the predictable election outcome?
Women are superior to men in certain areas, just as men are superior to women in different areas, and there are areas where they are reasonably equal.
That is just the way it is.
Yes, and it’s time to admit this. There is absolutely no question at all that sandwiches made by females taste better than those made by men.
The chart at the start of this article labeled “Combined Heating Influence” shows the “heating influence” of carbon dioxide increasing linearly. From Happer and Wijngaarden I learned that the influence of carbon dioxide declines logarithmically and is presently approaching saturation. Why would NOAA show a linear increase?
It’s much worse than that. According to the CERES data, both ASR (absorbed solar radiation) and OLR (outward long wave radiation) are going up. So much for the ‘narrative’.
Sounds fair. All the sunlight reaching the Earth is lost to outer space. More in must lead to more out, I guess,
Yep, the CERES data is very interesting, also their data on which regions have been warming and cooling since 2000. The warmer areas are nearly all in the northern hemisphere land masses and the Arctic, whilst large swaths of Africa, India, Australia and Antarctica have been cooling. Thus, recent global warming really isn’t global, it’s asymmetric focused in the northern hemisphere, but still cyclical and relatively benign.
In the NOAA data they show graphs of the important greenhouse gases and their effect, whilst ignoring the main active agent-water vapour, that according to some physicists has a main contribution of up to 95% to the so-called greenhouse effect. So, the NOAA data is just propaganda and needs to be rectified or removed. I have no sympathy for these people who deliberately pushed this pseudoscience rubbish on the masses to scare them into compliance with climate consensus orthodoxy.
Ironically, that same “uneven” pattern of warming has been used by assholes like Michael Mann to suggest that the Medieval Warm Period wasn’t “global” warming.
So I guess “global warming” isn’t happening now, either./sarc
So I guess “global warming” isn’t happening now, either.
Absolutely correct. That’s why they had to rebrand it as “climate change.”
I notice the climate.gov website shows the fatuous “ocean heat content” graph, so beloved of certain WUWT trolls like bdgwx and Simon.
I was just reading an article at Real Clear Science by someone named Katherine Hayhoe, who claims to be a scientist/climatologist. The article (on Substack, and the comments are equally idiotic) is stunning for how unscientific is it. She throws around the word “doom” like it’s a reference to having a bad day, and claims that humanity is doomed because we live in a world with ever-increasing global greening, increasing agricultural productivity, and steady or falling levels of weather-related disasters, fires, or floods. Mankind is wealthier than ever. Yet, we are to believe that we’re “doomed”, and must apologize to our offspring.
I was tempted to sign up in order to leave a comment, but decided to come here instead. This article here today is perfect- the warmest climate fraud peddlers are at their end. Thank God for WUWT, if only more people could come here and see some real science and truth!
Katherine is well known here at WUWT. Use the search box and several posts are found — including with her lovely face. 😉
Climastrologist
The name- Climate.gov – signaled its purpose – to present distorted, biased views of climate change, and to never mention climate variability (natural changes). When climate data were taken from other agencies (e.g. NOAA) into Climate.gov, the data was purposefully altered to confirm agency bias.
For example. the heating/cooling degree day data, originally, exhibited a small trend toward a milder climate. This was confirmed by detailed analysis of data from several thousand weather stations across the entire lower-48 over the same period.
Climate.gov replotted the heating/cooling degree day data on different scales to make it appear symmetrical which it is not. An increasing night-day gap appeared which was not present in the original data curated by NOAA through 2013. I replotted both data sets on the same scale. The overlap is exact for 50 years (1895 to 1945) then the plots become increasingly discrepant when the curation passed to climate.gov, especially in subsequent years when no comparison was possible. This is disinformation and Climate.gov is a propaganda arm of a biased government.
Three decimal places on Y-axis going back to 1895.
Very nice!
Out of idle curiosity I clicked on one of the climate.gov links in the ATL article just just see what you left-pondians have to suffer (as opposed to the Met Office / the BoM / …).
It turns out that there are mentions of “climate variability (natural changes)” there … it’s just that they are extremely well hidden.
In the “Global Climate Dashboard” section the default setting for the “Sort by Indicator:” option is “Climate Change“, with the other alternatives being “Natural Variability” (!) and “– Any –“.
Selecting “- Any -” (and then clicking the “Apply” button) gave the following set of one-sentence summaries.
.
“Natural Variability” options
Arctic Oscillation : This index tracks coordinated shifts in air pressure and the jet stream between the Arctic and the mid-latitudes.
North Atlantic Oscillation : This index tracks changes in the relative strength of high and low pressure patterns In the North Atlantic.
El Niño and La Niña (Oceanic Niño Index) : The ONI tracks the warming or cooling of surface waters in the tropical Pacific Ocean that indicate El Niño and La Niña.
Pacific-North American Pattern : This index tracks changes in the strength of high and low pressure patterns that affect weather in the North Pacific and North America.
Southern Oscillation Index : The SOI tracks the disruptions to the normal air pressure and wind across the tropical Pacific Ocean that indicate El Niño and La Niña.
Incoming Sunlight : The sun’s brightness does vary over time, but no changes have occurred that are big enough to cause observed global warming.
.
“Climate Change” options
Arctic Sea Ice : Since 1979, the extent of ice covering the Arctic Ocean at the end of summer has shrunk nearly 40 percent.
Carbon Dioxide : Atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen more than 50 percent since people began burning fossil fuels for energy.
Mountain Glaciers : The glaciers in a key reference network lost an average thickness of nearly 98 feet between 1970 and 2024.
Greenhouse Gases : The heating influence of all human-produced greenhouse gases was 51 percent higher in 2023 than it was in 1990.
Ocean Heat : The ocean is storing 91% of the excess heat from global warming, causing sea level rise, ice shelf retreat, and stress on marine life.
Sea Level : Sea level has risen 8-9 inches since 1880, and the rate of increase has accelerated over the satellite era.
Spring Snow : Since the start of satellite observations in 1967, June snow cover has shrunk by 12.9 percent per decade.
Surface Temperature : Earth’s temperature has risen 0.14 degrees F per decade since 1880. The rate of warming has more than doubled since 1981.
.
.
How can you possibly read the above one-line summaries and conclude that the climate.gov website is not providing the American (/ Internet-connected worldwide) public with a “honest, unbiased and non-partisan presentation of a completely neutral cost-benefit analysis of CO2 emissions” ?!?
You’ll be accusing them of “hysterical fear-mongering” next !
| … OK, I’ve found the “bold and “underline” options, but where did Anthony hide that “Add ‘sarcasm’ HTML tags” button again ? … ]
“Let’s not beat around the wind turbine”
s^$#% I spit cheetos al over my keyboard. Nice one.
““Let’s not beat around the wind turbine””
Emulating Don Quixote !
Climate.gov, PBS, NPR, etc. None of them should be getting taxpayer dollars.
Blackburn Introduces Bill to End Taxpayer Funding for NPR and PBS – U.S. Senator…
“WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced the Free Americans from Ideological Reporting (FAIR) Act to stop federal taxpayer dollars from being sent to National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) after years of left-wing politically biased reporting under the guise of public broadcasting. Senator Blackburn has long pushed to ensure taxpayers are not footing the bill for biased media, and this bill would codify the executive order President Trump issued on May 1, 2025.
The purpose of NOAA’s Climate.gov site is propaganda, not “communication, education, and engagement.” (That’s not an isolated problem; the GlobalChange.gov site is as bad as Climate.gov.)
Just like most universities, many journals, and institutions like Google, NOAA employs heavy-handed “viewpoint discrimination” (censorship) to suppress climate realists’ opinions.
Two people appear to have been in charge of enforcing that censorship. There’s no user comment feature on the Climate.gov site, but there’s an associated Climate.gov Facebook page. Rebecca Lindsey is (or was) a longtime contractor to the NOAA Climate Program Office, who is employed by a company named Groundswell, formerly Collabralink Technologies, Inc. She and Tom DiLiberto (mentioned in this article) censor(ed) the Climate.gov Facebook page to prevent viewpoints like mine, which differ from theirs, from being expressed.
To that end, my access to https://www.facebook.com/NOAAClimateGov/ has been blocked since late 2021, and the comments which I had posted there before I was blocked have apparently been deleted. Here’s what I see when I visit that page:
That censorship is blatantly illegal. It violates a legal principle called the Public Forum Doctrine. I’ve explained that to Lindsey and DiLiberto, in email, but they simply don’t care that what they are doing is illegal. I have a large collection of email correspondence with them about it.
I also asked them to seek legal advice from the NOAA Office of General Counsel, but they did not respond to me about that request. So I called the Office of General Counsel, myself. I’ve called many times, and left many voicemails, at both their DC office, and the SE section office in Florida (which covers NC, where I am), over a period of several years. They have never answered the phone, or returned any of my calls.
So I’ll shed no tears if that propaganda office is shut down, and the propagandists who work there lose their jobs.
Quite the damning story, David. I admire your persistence in doing the right thing.
I’m struck by the uniform dishonesty all the way up to the Office of the General Counsel.
Scofflaws all, apparently, even those sworn to uphold the law. The corruption is root, branch and soil.
I’ve long been of the opinion that the courts are the last bastion of freedom. If those go, overthrow and rebuild is the only alternative. It seems Climate.gov had descended to the state where its dissolution became the only route to a cure,
Looks like the US Government version of “free speech”.
You’re free to say anything the Government allows you to say.
Big Brother lives.
It’s incomparably worse in the UK.
Yes, I saw a report of a woman being arrested in the UK for “silently praying” – twice. Took her a while to get damages for wrongful arrest.
The police apparently take a hard line against silent prayer. Dangerous antisocial activity, obviously.
Start next with the US Attorney General.
“According to former program manager Rebecca Lindsey…”
*checks notes*
Oh yeah, she was the named writer of the NASA EarthObservatory web article I wrote about a few years ago. She may not have understood the implications of the “heat engine” description of atmosphere and ocean circulations in that article she herself composed from various contributions from others.
More here about why I said “NASA Knew” there was no reason to describe the continuing emissions of CO2 as a “crisis.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/16/wuwt-contest-runner-up-professional-nasa-knew-better-nasa_knew/
NASA KNEW! I love it. That’ll be my next X post.
Thanks, David. I missed your 2022 WUWT Heat Engine essay. It’s terrific, and has shades of the thinking that informs your energy conversion video.
Interesting to see that Ms. Lindsey invokes back-radiation as sourcing the greenhouse effect. Not a word about collisional transfer.
According to the passive AGW model of CO2, the turnover rate of the terrestrial heat engine must have been maxed out in 1750. Hardly credible.
Thanks for your kind words, Pat, and please keep up the good work. It must all come to light eventually that there was never any good physical reason to suppose incremental CO2 would drive sensible heat gain – most certainly not to harmful effect.
Agree. Incrementing (increasing) CO2 from zero to anything at all provides no heat gain, sensible or otherwise.
Only the ignorant and gullible push their religious belief that it does.
No GHE.
The People’s Republic of Wokeachusetts is still pushing climate extremism on the web.
Everyone Can Take Climate Action
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/everyone-can-take-climate-action
Yuh, we’re experiencing some climate effects- milder winters, longer growing seasons, our forests, gardens, farms see faster growing plants. Lots of rain this spring- everything here is as green as a jungle. The birds seem happy- I’m seeing species I haven’t seen in years. It’s a banner year for mosquitoes but that’s OK, they feed the birds. I have a bluebird nest and a house wren nest- both love eating bugs. Unfortunately, some rare wildlife species that used to be in the woods behind my house are now gone because it’s now a solar “farm”.
And they’re on YouTube too with the dogma.
“Lots of rain this spring- everything here is as green as a jungle.”
Same here in rural CNY. I just mowed the front yard on a sunny warm day and the wheels on the tractor got wet in the lower part.
All the blue-state “climate action” messaging is SO tiresome.
Exactly! There must be a “climate fatigue” factor in the USA, all over the world. But that is all the lefties have so that is what they push.
Here we go again with The Guardian and a number of other alarmist sites, like Canada’s CBC which immediately pounced on the wildfire outbreak in the western part of the country as incontrovertible proof of climate change, man-made, of course. Then closer examination showed that many of these blazes had been started by human activity; e.g., campfires, smoking, vehicle exhausts, and in a number of cases, deliberate arson. An extended dry spell during the winter and spring was also a factor, but this has been a potential threat for many years now. Yet the media is trying to claim this will be the rule, not the exception in future; therefore fossil fuel production and consumption should be discouraged at all costs. Except that the reality is that the public has few, if any, intentions to make the type of lifestyle changes and cutbacks that it’s been told will save it from the apocalypse because it never bought into this propaganda from the outset.
More good news.
“One staffer voiced concern that the administration could “co-opt” the Climate.gov domain and hand it to “a content team from the Heartland Institute,” fearing it might become a platform for gasp alternative viewpoints”
We need to make sure all reports, tests, models and communications concerning climate.gov are preserved. But rather than continue it’s work all of it’s work should be tested, reviewed and graded for quality of work and processes. Show all mistakes, lack of full results, tweaking outcomes and so on. We don’t have to ask for anything, everything we want is right there. Then release regular reports on what we have discovered. We don’t have to do a damn thing to prove how incompetent and dishonest they are, they have already done that for us all we have to do is report it.
That chart of greenhouse contributions (51% increase) is a shocker, as it ignores the biggest greenhouse gas of the lot.
Let the celebration begin!
A small victory in the global war. It is psychological warfare. Propaganda, disinformation, silencing the opposition, and other techniques are the tools.
Repetition is used for brainwashing. Reading the same thing repeatedly (such as social media, and others) strengthens neural pathways and the result is a new “truth.” Repetition is how we learn.
Control the language, control the ideas.
— Generally attributed to 1984 by G. Orwell
Is Gavin Schmidt next on the expunge list?
Many will miss watching him exit stage left from a climate debate.
Another example of a useful idiot.