More Climate Propaganda coming our way... I bet...

[Lord of Planar]

So, we apparently have another atmospheric river on its way to the Pacific Northwest. The projection I saw yesterday has it hitting landfall around the Oregon/California border from the Pacific Ocean. We can expect natural flooding, but when we have towns and cities claiming unnatural flood levels due to Climate Change....

Stop and think for a moment. Take those glasses of indoctrination off and consider a few facts.

We build in known flood plains.

We limit the land around us from absorbing water into the ground, by capping it off with asphalt, concrete, and building. Then we channel it into storm sewers that give the streams and rivers more water volume than they had before we capped off all that land. This affects the next community downstream from all that land use change. Then they do the same thing, adding more water that would be there naturally, for the next community.

We restrict the flow on rivers by building bridges and reducing the natural flow widths of them.

At some point, we flood. There is no place for the high volume of water to go, as fast as it is coming. The laws of physics require it to rise in level, so that gravity can equalize to a volume of flow equal to its input.

 

[Integrityrespec]

So, we apparently have another atmospheric river on its way to the Pacific Northwest. The projection I saw yesterday has it hitting landfall around the Oregon/California border from the Pacific Ocean. We can expect natural flooding, but when we have towns and cities claiming unnatural flood levels due to Climate Change....

Stop and think for a moment. Take those glasses of indoctrination off and consider a few facts.

We build in known flood plains.

We limit the land around us from absorbing water into the ground, by capping it off with asphalt, concrete, and building. Then we channel it into storm sewers that give the streams and rivers more water volume than they had before we capped off all that land. This affects the next community downstream from all that land use change. Then they do the same thing, adding more water that would be there naturally, for the next community.

We restrict the flow on rivers by building bridges and reducing the natural flow widths of them.

At some point, we flood. There is no place for the high volume of water to go, as fast as it is coming. The laws of physics require it to rise in level, so that gravity can equalize to a volume of flow equal to its input.

Great point on contributing factors to why these disasters are worsening. It's not climate change, it's man made decisions concerning where and what we build, how heavy our population centers are and what have we done to control adverse affects of population density and construction patterns. The worsening effects are because we are crowding more people into a space that 100 years ago had just a fraction of that population. The storms are not substantially worse, but crowding into these areas certainly is. Got to prepare better. For instance the reservoir near the Palisades fire was out of service during a high fire season. What the hell? Poor planning.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Great point on contributing factors to why these disasters are worsening. It's not climate change, it's man made decisions concerning where and what we build, how heavy our population centers are and what have we done to control adverse affects of population density and construction patterns. The worsening effects are because we are crowding more people into a space that 100 years ago had just a fraction of that population. The storms are not substantially worse, but crowding into these areas certainly is. Got to prepare better. For instance the reservoir near the Palisades fire was out of service during a high fire season. What the hell? Poor planning.

Yet every time, look what the loud pundits claim.

 

[Volunteer]

Yet every time, look what the loud pundits claim.

Forget the pundits. There are thousands of papers written by scientists every year that we should be paying attention to, instead.

 

[longview]

Forget the pundits. There are thousands of papers written by scientists every year that we should be paying attention to, instead.

But studies of weather attribution all start with the assumption that added CO2 causes warming,
an assumption that is now in question.

 

[Grand Mal]

Great point on contributing factors to why these disasters are worsening. It's not climate change, it's man made decisions concerning where and what we build, how heavy our population centers are and what have we done to control adverse affects of population density and construction patterns. The worsening effects are because we are crowding more people into a space that 100 years ago had just a fraction of that population. The storms are not substantially worse, but crowding into these areas certainly is. Got to prepare better. For instance the reservoir near the Palisades fire was out of service during a high fire season. What the hell? Poor planning.

December-January is high fire season? When is the low season when infrastructure maintenance should happen?

 

[ttwtt78640]

The global population has increased 4X in the last 100 years and 7X in the last 200 years. We (choose to) measure the impact of weather (climate change?) ‘disasters’ based on the damage done to the population and their chosen habitat/infrastructure.

 

[longview]

The global population has increased 4X in the last 100 years and 7X in the last 200 years. We (choose to) measure the impact of weather (climate change?) ‘disasters’ based on the damage done to the population and their chosen habitat/infrastructure.

And we build in places they knew better 100 years ago.

 

[Paradoxical]

Forget the pundits. There are thousands of papers written by scientists every year that we should be paying attention to, instead.

Right on cue, the argument that we must rely on authority argument is trotted out.

 

[Paradoxical]

And we build in places they knew better 100 years ago.

Yep. People build in heavy brush and pine trees for the views and serenity and then a fire comes along = global warming.

 

[ttwtt78640]

And we build in places they knew better 100 years ago.

Yep, and put another way: exactly the same weather (climate change?) ‘disaster’ events would be deemed 4X as bad now as they were 100 years ago. Nobody much cares if a hurricane or tornado impacts uninhabited/unimproved land (or water) areas.

 

[MamboDervish]

Forget the pundits. There are thousands of papers written by scientists every year that we should be paying attention to, instead.

Agreed - just as we did with things like the hole in the Ozone layer, which continues to heal and shrink. Just like we did with acid rain, which we've continued to mitigate. Scientists warn us - and we take action. That's the way it's supposed to work!

BTW, how are things in Asheville? I'll be flying down there in three weeks, and was hoping to see recovery in full swing. It's a fantastic place, and one I'd be delighted to retire to if I had the means.

 

[longview]

Yep. People build in heavy brush and pine trees for the views and serenity and then a fire comes along = global warming.

In My area they build in the River Food Plains, and then wonder why it floods more.
They used to use river bottoms for crops and cattle, knowing the area floods every few years, now they build there.

 

[ttwtt78640]

In My area they build in the River Food Plains, and then wonder why it floods more.
They used to use river bottoms for crops and cattle, knowing the area floods every few years, now they build there.

Here they zoned to allow an RV park to be built in a flood plain on our street next to Plum Creek. I guess they assumed folks with RVs could remove them in the event of a (well predicted?) flood. So far, nothing has been built there, but we got our street widened and repaved out of the deal.

 

[longview]

Here they zoned to allow an RV park to be built in a flood plain on our street next to Plum Creek. I guess they assumed folks with RVs could remove them in the event of a (well predicted?) flood. So far, nothing has been built there, but we got our street widened and repaved out of the deal.

Likely some place that you have seen flood, it makes no sense.
And when they tell people they need to leave, a few will stay.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Likely some place that you have seen flood, it makes no sense.
And when they tell people they need to leave, a few will stay.

The frequency of that creek’s flooding has actually decreased with the increased development in this area. The farm fields and pasture land used to shed more water (into the creek) than the (mostly) residential neighborhoods and small business development now present, since the development required adding storm drainage systems and catch tanks.

 

[Paradoxical]

In My area they build in the River Food Plains, and then wonder why it floods more.
They used to use river bottoms for crops and cattle, knowing the area floods every few years, now they build there.

This is precisely why I am against bailouts for natural disasters. What is there to bail out exactly? Most all people have insurance for high winds and resulting rain, and for brush fires. So why do we need other states to have to spend billions? For what? Uninsured people?
Also in flood prone areas, flood insurance is available. Are we to bail out those people if they were too cheap to buy insurance?
When it comes to the state, there were no state buildings burned, and the roads are generally not burned. So, other than minimal overtime at for the first month, why do we send billions to the state? I just don't get it.
When I lived in Calif. I always paid a lot for earthquake insurance. Should someone that didn't get earthquake insurance get bailed out?

If an area is uninsurable or too costly by either private or government insurance and people choose to build there anyway, that's their problem. Not mine. When we don't bail people out like Biden did with forgiving student loans, then they are forced to be responsible people.

 

[longview]

This is precisely why I am against bailouts for natural disasters. What is there to bail out exactly? Most all people have insurance for high winds and resulting rain, and for brush fires. So why do we need other states to have to spend billions? For what? Uninsured people?
Also in flood prone areas, flood insurance is available. Are we to bail out those people if they were too cheap to buy insurance?
When it comes to the state, there were no state buildings burned, and the roads are generally not burned. So, other than minimal overtime at for the first month, why do we send billions to the state? I just don't get it.
When I lived in Calif. I always paid a lot for earthquake insurance. Should someone that didn't get earthquake insurance get bailed out?

If an area is uninsurable or too costly by either private or government insurance and people choose to build there anyway, that's their problem. Not mine. When we don't bail people out like Biden did with forgiving student loans, then they are forced to be responsible people.

I suspect in this case the insurance companies are not as pure as the driven snow.
I have heard some people had their homeowners cancelled (Not Renewed) just a few months ago, or the rates went
up so high they could not afford them. I saw one persons say their old policy was $6000 a year, but the renew was $18,000.
In my area (Hurricanes) the big companies stopped writing policies, I can only get insurance by getting a high deductible.
Something has got to give at some point, but the banks will not loan money on an uninsured asset.

 

[Paradoxical]

I suspect in this case the insurance companies are not as pure as the driven snow.
I have heard some people had their homeowners cancelled (Not Renewed) just a few months ago, or the rates went
up so high they could not afford them. I saw one persons say their old policy was $6000 a year, but the renew was $18,000.
In my area (Hurricanes) the big companies stopped writing policies, I can only get insurance by getting a high deductible.
Something has got to give at some point, but the banks will not loan money on an uninsured asset.

No offense but this is where people believe something because they heard the story so often the brain begins to think it's true because so many others believed it based on lies or false information. Anyone can check out what I say here and while I may be wrong on other matters, I know what I am saying here.

An insurance company cannot cancel a policy in mid-stream other than for fraud on the part of the consumer. In Arizona they have to give 30 days and in other states they have to give 45 days. 32 states have FAIR plans for homes in brush areas where no insurer will write there, as well as for wind damage from hurricanes. The other states have Surplus insurance, a Private market and state specific programs. Florida and North Carolina and Texas have FAIR plans. California has FAIR plan for fire.

The National Flood program is a federal program, and it writes in every state.

Therefore, NO ONE was given just 10-15 days' notice or had their policy canceled. It is a lie. In nearly every state they get a 45-day notice which allows people to shop for another carrier or get the FAIR Plan. In the fire areas of California, most all of those were multimillion dollar homes where people can easily afford higher premiums. 95% of those people were just under-insured (by their choice to save on premiums) NO ONE was uninsured unless they had no loan which most likely was not the case. The lenders will insist on insurance because THEY get a notice of non-renewal at the same time as the homeowner does. The lender can and will force place a policy if you don't get one before the non-renewal date.

All these claims of policies being canceled just before the fire are lies. A company cannot do that without a 45 day notice. The lies come from uninformed people through here say.

 

[longview]

No offense but this is where people believe something because they heard the story so often the brain begins to think it's true because so many others believed it based on lies or false information. Anyone can check out what I say here and while I may be wrong on other matters, I know what I am saying here.

An insurance company cannot cancel a policy in mid-stream other than for fraud on the part of the consumer. In Arizona they have to give 30 days and in other states they have to give 45 days. 32 states have FAIR plans for homes in brush areas where no insurer will write there, as well as for wind damage from hurricanes. The other states have Surplus insurance, a Private market and state specific programs. Florida and North Carolina and Texas have FAIR plans. California has FAIR plan for fire.

The National Flood program is a federal program, and it writes in every state.

Therefore, NO ONE was given just 10-15 days' notice or had their policy canceled. It is a lie. In nearly every state they get a 45-day notice which allows people to shop for another carrier or get the FAIR Plan. In the fire areas of California, most all of those were multimillion dollar homes where people can easily afford higher premiums. 95% of those people were just under-insured (by their choice to save on premiums) NO ONE was uninsured unless they had no loan which most likely was not the case. The lenders will insist on insurance because THEY get a notice of non-renewal at the same time as the homeowner does. The lender can and will force place a policy if you don't get one before the non-renewal date.

All these claims of policies being canceled just before the fire are lies. A company cannot do that without a 45 day notice. The lies come from uninformed people through here say.

I think taking the media hyperbole out of the equation, it was mostly non renewal or over priced renewal that hit most people.
I know my carrier for almost 20 years Allstate said they were not renewing policies in my zip code.
They did suggest one of their subcontracted carriers but the quote was for nearly double the last year price, for a policy that did not cover tropical wind storms, which is why I carry insurance.

 

[Paradoxical]

I think taking the media hyperbole out of the equation, it was mostly non renewal or over priced renewal that hit most people.
I know my carrier for almost 20 years Allstate said they were not renewing policies in my zip code.
They did suggest one of their subcontracted carriers but the quote was for nearly double the last year price, for a policy that did not cover tropical wind storms, which is why I carry insurance.

Yes. The only thing it could have been is where people were being non renewed. In California Allstate doesn't write new policies and haven't for many years but still renew policies. State Farm is pulling out completely from homeowners and commercial. Nationwide pulled out. Farmers is limiting coverage as is Chubb, a very high-end insurer opf multimillion dollar homes. So, people have to scramble now for insurance and premiums are exploding.

This is the way capitalism works and should work. I am all in favor of it. So many people never lived in brush areas before and now when there is a fire as has happened for centuries, we have calamity. People will now either not build there anymore or build with block and fireproof roofs and make sure brush is cleared with perhaps a generator that they can activate with a separate water tank operating sprinklers.

Insurers have to analyze their exposure and risks and when catastrophes happen, they step back and say "No, California isn't worth it anymore. It's too densely populated and too many people in brush areas." The same with hurricane prone areas. In California, many of those homes were with the FAIR Plan. They will most likely go broke and need teh state to bail them out. The result will be higher premiums. Regular insurers don't have the luxury of a state bail out and have to hope they have enough reinsurance to keep them from going bankrupt.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Forget the pundits. There are thousands of papers written by scientists every year that we should be paying attention to, instead.

It sure would be a help if the pundits stopped lying about what the papers said, and speak the facts.

 

[Volunteer]

Agreed - just as we did with things like the hole in the Ozone layer, which continues to heal and shrink. Just like we did with acid rain, which we've continued to mitigate. Scientists warn us - and we take action. That's the way it's supposed to work!
BTW, how are things in Asheville? I'll be flying down

Disaster recovery is slowly progressing but, after 120 days, rebuilding in and around Aasheville is still at a snail's pace. Our economy is damaged. Folks are living in tents in temperatures sometimes near zero. My wife and I volunteer at a relief kitchen that is still serving hundreds of meals per day thanks to FEMA and World Central Kitchen.

 

[Volunteer]

It sure would be a help if the pundits stopped lying about what the papers said, and speak the facts.

Show us some facts.

 

[Paradoxical]

It sure would be a help if the pundits stopped lying about what the papers said, and speak the facts.

Many of those scientists rely on grants and they are in their own little clique where it is an unwritten rule that you don't go against your fellow scientists. We really need to get over this bit of relying on authority. Big Brother wants us to because that's how the control us.

This is like the old days where Catholicism ruled the world. You dared not question a priest. They were sacrosanct and would never lie. The trick was that if YOU personally were not a bible expert you could not debate a priest and had to keep quiet. When he said every sentence of the bible was inspired, you had to go along with it. If you dared question the priest (the authority figure) the members of the tribe would excoriate you and say "You are not an expert. He is. Shut up."

This is what is done with science and the believing left wingers.