Thankfully,
Bill Read isn't taking the bait:
This was inevitable, folks. It was only a matter of time before the liberal media started suggesting climate change was to blame for Hurricane Harvey. Friday morning’s CNN Newsroom went there as co-host John Berman wondered aloud to a guest if the potentially-devastating rainfall predictions are do to climate change.
“Is there a why to this? Why there is so much water associated with this storm? One of the things we heard is that climate change does impact the intensity of many of the storms that the that we see,” Berman stated in a question to former National Hurricane Center (NHC) director Bill Read.
Thankfully, Read was quite dubious of this claim and pushed back that he “probably wouldn't attribute what we're looking at here” seeing as how “[t]his is not an uncommon occurrence to see storms grow and intensify rapidly in the western Gulf of Mexico.”
“That is as long as we've been tracking them, that has occurred. The why for the big rain is the stationarity. The fact that the storm is going to come inland and not move. That's — that’s while it has happened in some cases, had a really big storm come and stall I guess is really rare,” Read added.
Some recommended reading for you today:
an Investors Business Daily editorial titled "Hurricane Harvey Brings Out the Madness."
This, from a Stanford professor, in Sunday's NYT (aka "liberal media"--but liberal's OK per Denny Prager; sounds reasonable to me, but that's a dirty word here): "Although seas have risen and warmed, and the atmosphere now holds more moisture, we can’t yet draw definitive conclusions about the influence of climate change on Hurricane Harvey. Hurricanes are complex events, and the role of historical warming in their development continues to be studied. But it is well established that global warming is already influencing many kinds of extremes, both in the United States and around the world, and it is critical to acknowledge this reality as we prepare for the future."
ReplyDeleteNoah S. Diffenbaugh is a professor of earth system science at Stanford.
“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation” --Herbert Spencer(British social Philosopher, 1820-1903)
Glad to see that the Stanford prof asserts that "we can’t yet draw definitive conclusions about the influence of climate change on Hurricane Harvey," but he shows his freedom-and-human-advancement-hater bona fides are in good order with the shit about "it is well established that global warming is already influencing many kinds of extremes, both in the United States and around the world."
ReplyDeleteYou sure have a warped view of freedom and the alleged hatred thereof.
ReplyDeleteWe draw economic conclusions every day regarding climatology. There is increasingly severe storms of water damage. Maybe we might calculate ice sheet melting by storm water loss volume. Just this year how many trillion gallons of gallons of storm water loss are there?
ReplyDeleteMaybe Teutonic plates begin to shift by climate change in these warming regions giving a new meaning to lazier fair. Capitol ventures may abound there in the new losses?
ReplyDeleteHouston is in a quandary once the water recedes. They have over half a million undocumented immigrants who comprise over a quarter of the construction labor in the city. Maybe God wants us to take another look at that wall. Plus, it's probably just for show, but Mexico is sending aid, stating that's what good neighbors do. Oh well. The big crisis is the number of uninsured losses. And even with the insured ones, FEMA is over 20 Bil in the hole. I know, I know, dump FEMA or make their premiums match the risk. It was always crony capitalism for the bankers and the real estate whores anyhow. Why is there a FEMA? For the same reason there is Medicaid--private carriers don't want risks likely to have claims. It hurts their profits. So, reject & slough it off to, well, if not the government, then to charity, they don't care, they're not on it and that's the end of that story.
ReplyDeleteErratum> I wrote FEMA when I should have written NFIP. FEMA will cost a lot too. So I'm sure that's a bad bad bad bad thing for the taxation shunning ilk of the bloggie (except when it comes to the single largest line item in the budget--the big D. Nice for the contractors though. Windfall under Trump!
ReplyDeleteRyssdal: As you think longer term and how Washington, specifically Congress, deals with this, and I'm imagine you've spent more than your fair share of time at the green table in front of various congressional committees, where where does the ball land next in terms of funding the money for this?
ReplyDeleteFugate: Well, FEMA is fortunately fully funded to respond to these kind of events. But they're going to definitely need both additional borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance Program for that program that's already $25 billion in debt. But they're going to probably need to borrow more money to service the policies here, in addition to a budget, raising the debt ceiling, the National Flood Insurance Program is up for reauthorization. We'll be looking at how much money both immediately and longer term will be needed for this recovery.
Ryssdal: Yeah it's going to be a busy September you think in Washington, huh?
Fugate: Well as we've watched before, there's always a lot of debate and a lot of hand wringing, and a lot of finger pointing, but at the end of the day, Congress has always funded these disasters. So I sometimes tell people don't look at the sausage making it can be pretty scary, but Americans have always come to each other's aid. But I think it's also important to note that because this is such a large number of homes that were not insured by flood insurance, the FEMA programs are not going to make families whole. So there is going to be a lot of long term need both from government but also from donations to volunteer groups to help people recover.
Ryssdal: When you say long term how long you talk in here, sir?
Fugate: Years. This will be years to rebuild and get people back on their feet and get people back in their homes after this type of a flood.
Rysdal is the host of PBS Marketplace; Fugate is former head of FEMA
Fema will be shortly removed, once the publicity dies down. 5 million flood insurance policy holders can not pay for flood insurance in America. -25 billion and climbing.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we might ask Ted Cruz what he thinks should be done in Texas regarding the storm.
ReplyDeleteFEMA expects to be there for 15 years I thought I read.
ReplyDeleteCruz said that hurricane relief is a “vital, central role” of the federal government and should be for a long time.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.salon.com/2017/08/29/ted-cruz-changed-his-mind-about-federal-disaster-relief-rather-quickly/
Fema being there amounts to short term assistance and low-no interest loans which will piggy back the existing loans I thought. Talk about being underwater.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct sir. I now understand your thinking through your words.
ReplyDelete