←back to thread

Websites hosting major US climate reports taken down

(apnews.com)
594 points geox | 2 comments | 02 Jul 25 21:10 UTC | HN request time: 0.421s | source
Show context
timr[dead post] ◴[02 Jul 25 23:34 UTC] No.44449975[source]▶
[flagged]
padjo ◴[02 Jul 25 23:48 UTC] No.44450077[source]▶
“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 points to an ongoing attempt to erase everything related to climate change.

replies(1): >>44450128 #
timr ◴[02 Jul 25 23:57 UTC] No.44450128[source]▶
> “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...

replies(1): >>44450210 #
padjo ◴[03 Jul 25 00:10 UTC] No.44450210[source]▶
And they responded to say “yes we took it down” so what’s your point again?
replies(1): >>44450222 #
timr ◴[03 Jul 25 00:12 UTC] No.44450222[source]▶
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.

replies(2): >>44450267 #>>44450323 #
padjo ◴[03 Jul 25 00:27 UTC] No.44450323[source]▶
No you said it’s probably a dns configuration, posted some pointless name server addresses and implied government sysadmins are incompetent.

What actually happened is exactly what this article said and I wouldn’t be surprised if they get no response from NOAA because of the administration’s well documented feud with the AP.

And if you believe NASA will publish anything beyond the most perfunctory version of this report under this administration I have a bridge to sell you.

replies(1): >>44450375 #
1. timr ◴[03 Jul 25 00:36 UTC] No.44450375[source]▶
> No you said it’s probably a dns configuration,

I said that barring better information, you can't rule it out. Still true.

> posted some pointless name server addresses

They're government servers, is the point. And don't you find it a little bit curious that someone bothered to change the NS records? It's not the usual way that a website goes down. In fact, it's the sort of thing that happens when you're in the process of (potentially incompetently) moving a domain from one server to another.

> What actually happened is exactly what this article said and I wouldn’t be surprised if they get no response from NOAA

Yet other reporters, from multiple different left-leaning news outlets, managed to get these elusive comments from super hard-to-reach people like...the White House press secretary for science policy. It's almost like there was a press conference or something.

Sometimes you actually have to do work to be a reporter, and when you skip that part and jump directly to conspiracy, it's not defensible. It's just trash journalism.

replies(1): >>44451124 #
2. verdverm ◴[03 Jul 25 02:41 UTC] No.44451124[source]▶
This administration has lost the benefit of the doubt because they lie so much and rarely follow through.

Until they actually do it, it's more likely they will not and are just saying whatever comes to mind as a way to manipulate the narrative