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.