Analysis Summary:

The article's accuracy is mixed. While the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is indeed a significant climate law (Verification Source #2), the claim that supporters have stopped talking about the environment altogether is difficult to verify definitively with the provided sources and leans towards a biased interpretation. The headline itself uses a common rhetorical device, implying ignorance of the IRA, which is unlikely given its prominence.

Detailed Analysis:

• Claim 1:** "The Inflation Reduction Act was once hailed as the biggest climate law in U.S. history."
• Verification Source #2: Supports this claim, stating the IRA is "the largest US government investment in reducing climate pollution to date."
• Claim 2:** "But as supporters try to save it, they’ve stopped talking about the environment altogether."
• This is a subjective claim and difficult to verify with the provided sources. It implies a shift in messaging, which might be true, but the extent and reason are unclear. The provided sources do not directly address this claim. This statement could be an interpretation of observed communication strategies.
• Failure to cover:* The provided sources do not offer information on the current communication strategies of IRA supporters.
• Headline:** "A Climate Law, You Say? Never Heard of It."
• This is a rhetorical device. While some voters may not know the specifics (Verification Source #2), it's unlikely that the IRA is completely unknown, especially within relevant policy circles. The headline introduces a biased framing.

Supporting Evidence/Contradictions:

• Agreement:** Verification Source #2 supports the claim that the IRA is a significant climate law.
• Lack of Coverage:** The provided sources do not offer direct evidence to support or contradict the claim that supporters have stopped talking about the environment.
• Internal Knowledge (Limited Use):** Based on general knowledge of political discourse, it's unlikely that supporters of the IRA have *completely* stopped talking about the environment. The claim is likely an exaggeration to emphasize a perceived shift in messaging.