My question is, how will this site stay relevant? The collection/analysis/monitoring of the current situation is as important as historic data. Turning current data into historical data takes significant resources.
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.
As for your question: I personally don't want data, I want a service backed by sound data and expert validation+analysis.
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 can't evaluate climate data. Specialization is necessary.
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.
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
> 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.
Don't expect to find it in the US.