> unlikely that there is good precedent for a private weather organization. When has something being a bad idea or never having been tried stopped political ap

> unlikely that there is good precedent for a private weather organization. When has something being a bad idea or never having been tried stopped political apparatchik's from trying, especially given past appointee's opinions: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGn9T37eR8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGn9T37eR8 * https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11110660/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11110660/ * https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/oct/14/john-oliver-last-week-tonight-recap-national-weather-service https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/oct/14/john-oliver-... * https://time.com/5699545/john-oliver-weather-last-week-tonight/ https://time.com/5699545/john-oliver-weather-last-week-tonig... See also Project 2025: > The document describes NOAA as a primary component "of the climate change alarm industry" and said it "should be broken up and downsized." […] > Project 2025 would not outright end the National Weather Service. It says the agency "should focus on its data-gathering services," and "should fully commercialize its forecasting operations." > It said that "commercialization of weather technologies should be prioritized to ensure that taxpayer dollars are invested in the most cost-efficient technologies for high quality research and weather data." Investing in commercial partners will increase competition, Project 2025 said. * https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/sep/26/jared-moskowitz/what-does-project-2025-say-about-the-national-weat/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/sep/26/jared-mosk...