Websites hosting major US climate reports taken down

geox | 599 points | 13day ago | apnews.com

esalman|13day ago

NOAA released their budget estimate for FY 2026. Someone in our org ran it by copilot to summarize the impacts:

* NOAA eliminates most climate, weather, and ocean labs and grants, causing major layoffs and loss of research capacity.

* National climate research infrastructure is lost, with staff reductions.

* Regional climate services, adaptation, and heat health programs end.

* All climate research grants are cut.

* Foundational ocean observation and Great Lakes research are terminated.

* Sea Grant support for coastal resilience and aquaculture ends.

* Aquaculture research and ocean science partnerships are stopped.

* Funding for uncrewed systems R&D is eliminated.

* Research computing for climate/ocean modeling is reduced or lost.

* Many programs shift to operational focus (NOS/NWS), with layoffs in OAR.

* Regional ocean observing systems and applied coastal research are ended, with grant losses and layoffs.

* State coastal management, resilience, and estuarine reserve grants are terminated.

* Support for coral reef grants and marine sanctuaries is reduced; no new sanctuaries.

* Species/habitat research, salmon recovery, and habitat restoration programs are cut, with major layoffs.

* Satellite/data services are reduced, with staff cuts.

* NOAA Office of Education is closed; mission support staff reduced.

* Overall, there is a major workforce reduction and elimination of many programs.

ryandrake|13day ago

But look on the bright side: a relative handful of ultra-wealthy will pay slightly less in taxes. That’s got to count as positive news for them!

Shalomboy|12day ago

It just occurred to me that SEAMAP will be* gone, and I didn't notice because the people looking ahead at these sorts of things while I kept my head down and worked were all fired. I will need a new job.

* I say will be, because it was already cut down to size last spring.

3D30497420|12day ago

Speed-running global warming with our eyes closed. Fun.

rekabis|12day ago

Right when warming has accelerated dramatically, too, such that we will see more warming in the next 10 years than we have in the last 40.

Those cuts couldn’t have come at a better time. /s

mike_hearn|12day ago

Where do you see that warming has accelerated dramatically? NOAAs graphs don't show that.

wickedsight|11day ago

> NOAAs graphs don't show that

Good one...

Luckily, there's more in the world than NOAA. If you just search 'global warming accelerating' on Google, there are plenty of sources. I can't seem to find the 'more in the next 10 than the previous 40' stat and 'dramatically' is obviously subjective, but it doesn't look great.

If you look at some predictions from people specializing in permafrost methane ejections, it looks pretty bad even.

mike_hearn|11day ago

We're talking about recorded data, not predictions. If you think NOAA's data is wrong then it seems like a good reason to support taking down those climate reports?

triceratops|13day ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Look_Up

dottjt|13day ago

I liked the idea behind the movie, but the movie itself wasn't very good. It was a bit like the movie Mickey 17, it didn't quite know what it wanted to be and tried to be a lot of things, but none of it really stuck and it ended up being a bit incoherent. The ending I thought was powerful though.

timr|13day ago

[flagged]

nothrabannosir|13day ago

> Being preached at about science by a population of people who probably mostly failed high school science is not a good time.

I agree with the part about preaching, but fair is fair: they were preaching scientific consensus. They preach what is said by the overwhelming majority of active scientific researchers in this field.

You didn’t say they were wrong I agree, but still .. they were (/ are) right. And why should they be perfect, anyway? They are who they are, flawed and all, but they are right about this and they were right to make that movie and they were right about people being selfish.

Ironically you could say that we are now basically reenacting the movie, proving its point. There’s an asteroid heading for us and here we are, judging the high school grades of the people telling us about its trajectory.

I thought it was very depressing and surprisingly self reflective and poignant in that sense.

timr|12day ago

So? There’s more to a movie than being right.

It wasn’t a documentary, and even if it were a documentary, a dreadful, preachy, insipid movie that is technically right is still bad.

(I say “technically right”, because let’s not forget that this film was supposed to be a satire.)

yongjik|13day ago

I don't think the movie was snobby: it was full of over-the-top gags, and it was clear to me that the movie was never taking itself too seriously.

The main character (played by DiCaprio) is also depicted as a quite flawed and vain human being as well.

Also honestly, who doesn't feel frustration at the whole real-world situation the movie is actually about?

p1necone|13day ago

People who complain about being "preached" at while the world burns behind them are exactly the kind of people the movie is poking fun at

spankibalt|13day ago

Precisely. But just as scientific literacy, media literacy always was, and still is, a huge problem.

triceratops|13day ago

Actors act, writers write. You seem to be confused about who was "preaching".

I've confirmed that both writers of the movie graduated high school, and one of them even graduated college.

timr|13day ago

[flagged]

dspillett|12day ago

> about science by a population of people who probably mostly failed high school science

Your assumption that actors (and writers, those where the ones “preaching” more than the people on screen) have failed highschool at a higher rate than the general population is, I think, rather flawed¹. There are some very bright people in the entertainment industries for one reason or another (doing what they enjoy, and presumably are good at, instead of something else they are good at, being a common situation, there being more money in stardom being another).

Hence a number successful stand-ups who have degrees (in the sciences, not necessarily “media studies” before someone pipe up with that), PhDs, law certifications, and such.

Hedy Lamarr is the best known poster child for this, but too many think she is a singleton exception rather than an indicator that we shouldn't make too many assumptions about what acting talent might imply about other mental abilities.

----

[1] And, in fact, more snobby than the film you are critiquing as being snobby!

barbecue_sauce|13day ago

Why would you assume people that went on to have successful film careers failed high school science? Just because someone doesn't pursue science as a career doesn't mean they received bad grades in it, especially at a high school level.

bee_rider|13day ago

Without regard to the broader point* in the particular case of Leo, I’d be surprised if he had great k-12 science education. He was a child star already at that point, right? Only so many hours in the day.

Of course, it isn’t a universal rule, see Dolph Lundgren, etc etc.

* I don’t care if the actor delivering an environmentalist message in a movie is actually good at science for the same reason I don’t care if Keanu Reaves knows king fu.

timr|13day ago

I’m not assuming anything - this is why I used words like “probably” and “mostly” - but let’s just say that I’ve known my share of actors, and I’m willing to take the odds.

jahsome|13day ago

It's so funny to me you'd whine about "preaching" and then take such a needlessly judgemental and demonstrably false stance, and then double down and lie when it's pointed out. Truly, a person of science.

timr|11day ago

Where did I "lie"?

I expressed an opinion.

timr|13day ago

[flagged]

jahsome|13day ago

C'mon bud, you've got a PhD. You don't really need some uneducated filth to point out how you were disengenous.

But just in case: you made a prejudiced assumption and then boldly claimed you didn't. And you didn't state an opinion, you presented it as (probable) fact. You can couch it with all the adverbs you want, your own snobby disdain shines right through.

timr|12day ago

I said a movie was bad because I don’t enjoy being lectured about science by actors, many (if not most) of whom have only the most tenuous grasp of science. I wasn’t being “disingenuous”. I meant every word. It’s fine if you think I’m a snob, but I’m not “lying”.

Y’all seem to have a hard time accepting that some people might not like propaganda, even if it is propaganda for things you support.

jahsome|12day ago

Your still lying. Saying you didn't say something which you very much did, and then claiming you said something completely different are forms of lying.

It's not the opposition to propaganda folks bristle with, it's the self-important passive aggressive elitism.

timr|11day ago

> I said a movie was bad because I don’t enjoy being lectured about science by actors, many (if not most) of whom have only the most tenuous grasp of science. I wasn’t being “disingenuous”. I meant every word.

I not only said it, I repeated it, and then re-confirmed that I meant what I originally said.

jahsome|10day ago

You asserted without evidence they "probably mostly" failed. Thats a very different statement than your "tenous grasp" claim. If you're going to make sweeping generalizations, don't be a coward about it.

What's worse, you claimed you didn't make any assumptions, which you very clearly did -- that the writers and performers were uneducated, when in fact they are.

Then when presented with evidence, you doubled down and even still continue to gaslight, hence: disengenous.

Uneducated folks can still make correct assertions, and that's the entire point of science. The idea and supporting observations are meant to drive the conversation, not one's laughably judgemental opinion of the person presenting them.

That's a concept with which you, being so educated, are undoubtedly familiar.

triceratops|13day ago

Agree, great idea, strong ending, kinda saggy middle.

jeroenhd|12day ago

I loved the concept for that movie. I found the execution rather lacking, though. In the end, I wouldn't recommend watching it. Just watch the trailer instead, yo'll get the point without needing to finish the entire thing.

NewJazz|13day ago

And two decades before that, Inconvenient Truth.

pstuart|13day ago

And way before that, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here

apgwoz|13day ago

The section of the population that needs to think about the Inconvenient Truth didn’t watch the movie, because they don’t watch documentaries unless it’s about a Poop Cruise, or a celebrity.

999900000999|13day ago

Too many high price celebrities. I’m sure they’re all great people, but I was more focused on them than the actual movies message which is an issue.

bko|13day ago

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 don't know why. But at least EU has nice proclamations and accords on the risk of climate change.

https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/01-08-2024-statement--h...

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2822854

Rexxar|13day ago

The first number is based on statistical observation of mortality rate the second is based on classification by doctor at death. It's not comparable at all. For example, if there is an increase in heart related death when it's hot it's not accounted in second stats.

WHO European region also covered Russia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and other countries from central Asia so I don't see how you can conclude anything about EU with this piece of statistic. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WHO_regions)

billfor|13day ago

Cold still kills at least 2x the number of people in the same region. 363,800 deaths are attributed to cold exposure.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/aug/21/heat...

Brybry|13day ago

Couldn't they push heat pump units that cool and heat (with a bonus of not being reliant on wood or natural gas)?

Or do the regions that matter the most get too cold for heat pumps?

triceratops|13day ago

How do governments make it "very hard" to get A/C?

bko|13day ago

[flagged]

triceratops|13day ago

> Several EU countries have mandatory temperature limits for air conditioning in public buildings. Spain, Italy, and Greece have all announced that A/C in public buildings cannot be set lower than 27C (80F) in summer

How does that make it "hard" to get A/C in private homes? And are there a lot of heat-related deaths at 27C?

> The EU's F-Gas Regulation creates significant restrictions on refrigerants used in air conditioning

You should maybe look into why those exist. Air conditioning refrigerants are themselves major greenhouse gases and many deplete the ozone layer. Try also comparing those regulations to American ones. They're likely not very different.

> 90% of US homes have AC while only 20% of European homes have it

The US is richer and hotter. There's nothing like Florida or south Texas or Las Vegas or Phoenix in Europe.

> There's significant red tape when installing AC due to building regulations

Do tell...

> some EU countries even have laws telling you how much you can open your windows! In the UK...

Did you write this with an LLM or something? The third link you provided says nothing of the sort. It's about tint regulations on automobile windows FFS.

Zanfa|13day ago

Not the GP, but there are some regulations about windows, not sure if local or EU-wide. Windows at floor level above ground level must not be fully openable or must have an outside barrier. But thats a pretty sane restriction, given those windows are basically just glass doors to nowhere.

matwood|13day ago

I would be amazed if much of the US didn't have a similar building code that there must be a railing if there's a possibility of easily falling out the window/door.

stuffoverflow|13day ago

That 27C limit seems to have been due to the energy crisis in 2022 and restrictions were lifted in 2023.

The last source you cited is AI slop and is not even related to your message.

mayneack|13day ago

What does this have to do with government mandated websites? Seems that the US had a government website about climate and few heat deaths. If the number of heat deaths goes up this year without the websites would you think that is because the website went away (obviously not).

Seems like a website with information about climate change without a mandate about max AC is a pretty conservative strategy all things considered.

Xss3|12day ago

Awful misinformation.

The WHO European Region includes Central Asia and Russia, massive populations that aren't in the EU.

You cant draw ANY conclusions about the EU from this data.