Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe poor people should pay for their own food and leave the rest of us out of it.
Same absurd logic, glad I don't think like you people.
Why do you have to turn every disaster into a political point? What is wrong with you?
If you have paid attention to my posts you would know I'm a moderate. Aren't we on a political forum I have't started any posts about this disaster. How about Ted Cruz not wanting to fund Sandy but want's to fund Texas which is home state. Don't you think that's hypocritical.
If you have paid attention to my posts you would know I'm a moderate. Aren't we on a political forum I have't started any posts about this disaster. How about Ted Cruz not wanting to fund Sandy but want's to fund Texas which is home state. Don't you think that's hypocritical.
Depends if he wants to pay for something in Texas that he didn't want to in NJ....Sandy was a very minor storm compared to the level of hurricanes hitting the gulf and yet it's the second highest costing hurricane. My take is there was a ton of pork in the Sandy funding that there probably won't be to the same degree in Houston.
Yes, your point is made but I'm afraid it misses the mark. As myself and others have pointed out here in this thread, AGW did not cause this hurricane but it took a small rather average hurricane and turned it into a major flood producer.
It is settled science, beyond debate, that warmer air causes higher rates of evaporation and it increases the capacity of clouds to hold water. Those are two basic facts of science that any middle school kid can demonstrate in science class. We are going to see more and more of this, where otherwise ordinary storms dump record amounts of rain or snow in short time periods. And because AGW has ratcheted up evaporation rates around the world, we're going to see more droughts too.
If we 'are going to see more and more of this', then why were there no major hurricanes since Katrina and Rita, 12 years ago? The left has been trumpeting Global Warming all this time. Shouldn't there have been a major hurricane every year, or maybe every other year if your theory is true? Why the 12 year gap?
In case nobody has been paying attention, the entire continent of North America has been stuck and stagnating between 2 high pressure systems for the past 11 months.
Why do you suppose that is? When has that ever happened before?
.
Maybe it happened 1,000 years ago. Or 4,000. Or 7,500.
We just don't know.
If you look at a map from the US Drought Monitor, Houston was actually in a minor drought before Harvey. That probably helped stop some of the flooding from being even worse. And it will move through some drier areas in the Midwest and south where the rain will be welcome once the storm weakens. In Pa we should get some. We're not suffering from a drought, it was actually a wet summer.
People forget that hurricanes are often beneficial to areas beyond the coasts where their damage is most felt. Entire regions aquifers can get replenished from one storm.
Depends if he wants to pay for something in Texas that he didn't want to in NJ....Sandy was a very minor storm compared to the level of hurricanes hitting the gulf and yet it's the second highest costing hurricane. My take is there was a ton of pork in the Sandy funding that there probably won't be to the same degree in Houston.
Sandy was one of the worst storms to hit the US in terms of damage, you do not need to have a cat 5 to do damage. It has a lot to do with the area that is hit, population density and infrastructure, you don't even need to have hurricane winds to do damage as would be the case if Harvey was simply a tropical storm.
Yes there was pork in Sandy, we will see if those Texas congressmen that voted against Sandy do a better job trimming their funding request. Rather hypocritical that they allowed that development to proceed in the Houston area and never mentioned the funding for repetitive flooding from the flood Insurance Program.
Quote:
An Associated Press analysis of government data found last year that if the county that is home to Houston were a state, it would have ranked in the top five or six in every category of repeat flood losses. That's defined as any property with two or more losses in a 10-year period each totaling at least $1,000.
Nationally, repeat federal flood relief payouts averaged about $3,000 per square mile (2.5 square kilometers). But in greater Houston, the payouts were nearly a whopping $500,000 per square mile (2.5 square kilometers).
We'd better go ahead and mandate apartments on light rail lines and bugs for dinner! A liberal's dream!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have't started any posts about this disaster. How about Ted Cruz not wanting to fund Sandy but want's to fund Texas which is home state. Don't you think that's hypocritical.
