Climate.gov was not the centralized and only storage spot for climate data. There's petabytes of it all over the place.

You want data? https://www.noaa.gov/data or https://api.weather.gov/ or https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data are a good place to start.

That only makes my question even more applicable... just with a wider scope.

As for your question: I personally don't want data, I want a service backed by sound data and expert validation+analysis.

Sounds grand, but it is not in scope.

Instead, each citizen has a volition and a voice and a vote—with exceptions, and at personal expense.

And as a humanitarian with reservations, I say tax the bots for UBI.

> each citizen has a volition and a voice and a vote

Each citizen can't evaluate climate data. Specialization is necessary.

Each citizen doesn't need to, only some citizens need be able to. Because the data is available.

Not sure about you, but I'm glad we moved away from a system where an anointed cadre of people tell us what's what.

> Each citizen doesn't need to, only some citizens need be able to.

> I'm glad we moved away from a system where an anointed cadre of people tell us what's what.

Those 'some citizens' are the experts. The 'annointed cadre' thing is just undefined, meaningless BS. Do you think that, lacking expertise, you can distinguish real experts from fraud, valid ideas and facts from misinformation? You can't; the people who think they can, those are the suckers - the ones they target to manipulate.

No one will believe said citizen with expertise because they don't a have a degree. Every billionaire backed media circus will ridicule said citizen.

Example: Gary Stevenson is an inequality expert with a masters in economics but people keep demanding where are the PhD grads with his opinion, which there are, but it's a statement to distract and discredit

>As for your question: I personally don't want data, I want a service backed by sound data and expert validation+analysis.

Don't expect to find it in the US.

The site wasn't (isn't) about the data. It's about articles that contextualize the data. The money raised has allowed them to stand up a new site with all the old articles (which truth be told were all still nominally accessible via the internet archive) and will help fund them to create new ones. So it will stay relevant by paying the people who in the past worked for NOAA to creation the content, to now create the content paid for by donation.

How can we use a bucket of mostly useless data to enrich ourselves by building more VC-funded apps? I'm asking the important questions.

Why would you say it’s useless data?