Texans get by on the cheap and now want federal bailout

Ted is loved in Texas. He has no worries.

I never trusted Ted Cruz. I heard from a very reliable source (Donald Trump) that Ted's father was involved in the assassination of JFK.Actually Trump was right about one thing, Ted Cruz is a liar.

HOUSTON -- Harvey dumped a year's worth of rain on Houston in a matter of days, shattering last year's above-normal rainfall and bringing this year's total to an unprecedented 73 inches.

But according to Jim Blackburn, a professor in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at Rice University, the storm wasn't just a natural disaster.

"This was a climate-influenced storm. There's no question," Blackburn said. "The temperature in the Gulf of Mexico where the tropical cyclone grew in two days to a Category 4 hurricane was 2 to 7 degrees above normal."

Blackburn has studied the effects of storms on cities for nearly 40 years. He said that when Harvey came ashore, the storm laid bare another problem decades in the making: the massive paving over of the area's natural wetlands and prairies.

"We've covered our sponge up," Blackburn said. "The sponge we had here was wonderful. It would hold water, but … in order to develop it you had to drain it. You had to get rid of the water. And as we've developed out we've dumped water back on ourselves."

Since the 1950s, nearly 88 square miles of wetlands have disappeared in the Houston area due to development. And the region's system of canals and bayous are overwhelmed by increasingly heavy storms.

science bites back wrote:

Jim Blackburn ... said that when Harvey came ashore, the storm laid bare another problem decades in the making: the massive paving over of the area's natural wetlands and prairies.

I traveled to Houston 30 years ago several times. The wetlands were extremely lush. There was a bug in the swamps--I do not recall the name--that during mating season made a noise that was unbelievable; the noise was loud and drowned out everything. ... Now all that land has been built over. ... Texas politicians are 100% responsible for the disaster that struck---pave over and build everywhere is a recipe for disaster.

Houston has been hit with 500-year events in 2009, 2015 and 2016, and a 1000-year event this year. What will happen is that the 500-year flood zone will become the 100-year flood zone. That the way the flood zoning works. New data changes the flood regions.

What once was Houston wrote:

science bites back wrote:

Jim Blackburn ... said that when Harvey came ashore, the storm laid bare another problem decades in the making: the massive paving over of the area's natural wetlands and prairies.

I traveled to Houston 30 years ago several times. The wetlands were extremely lush. There was a bug in the swamps--I do not recall the name--that during mating season made a noise that was unbelievable; the noise was loud and drowned out everything. ... Now all that land has been built over. ... Texas politicians are 100% responsible for the disaster that struck---pave over and build everywhere is a recipe for disaster.

Houston has been hit with 500-year events in 2009, 2015 and 2016, and a 1000-year event this year. What will happen is that the 500-year flood zone will become the 100-year flood zone. That the way the flood zoning works. New data changes the flood regions.

It's a shame they let that happen. Texans sometimes you really have to respect science. Sometimes government regulation is a life saver.

What once was Houston wrote:

Houston has been hit with 500-year events in 2009, 2015 and 2016, and a 1000-year event this year. What will happen is that the 500-year flood zone will become the 100-year flood zone. That the way the flood zoning works. New data changes the flood regions.

Nothing lasts forever. It is futile. The best thing to do is just to move on and adapt. Look at what happened to the dinosaurs and then things like the ice age that occurred only thousands of years ago. What are you going to do about the 1 in a 10,000 year event that you can stop? What about the 1 in a million year mass extinction event? The best you can do is pucker up.

Ah yes. Remember when the north was so prepared for hurricane sandy?

john utah wrote:

no state income tax wrote:

They pay no state income tax. But if like like others carrying the weight for you you should go on welfare.

Texans pay taxes to the federal government. Understand? Now the Fed needs to give Texas their share back instead of subsidizing some bs programs in other states.

The idea that retards can somehow paint the most fiscally responsible state and one of the biggest economic engines in the USA as a failure just boggles the mind. Clusterf#4k California is in complete chaos and bankrupt but they have it figured out. Right.

Because of oil, they are likely surplus contributors to federal government.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

john utah wrote:

Texans pay taxes to the federal government. Understand? Now the Fed needs to give Texas their share back instead of subsidizing some bs programs in other states.

The idea that retards can somehow paint the most fiscally responsible state and one of the biggest economic engines in the USA as a failure just boggles the mind. Clusterf#4k California is in complete chaos and bankrupt but they have it figured out. Right.

Because of oil, they are likely surplus contributors to federal government.

Because of a long history of over priced oil, the rest of the country has been surplus contributors to Texas.

Lack of proper government over sight exacerbated this problem. Become knowledgeable about the effects of over paving the area. Become knowledgeable about increased water temperature and increased moisture in the air. Become knowledgeable about continued rebuilding in high risk flood areas.

Texas government, do your job. Enforce some common sense limitations and REGULATIONS.

The rest of Texas needs to be more like Austin.

Some people will believe anything they read or hear just because the a story in the media drops terms like "experts," "data," and "studies." The opinion expressed therein becomes infallible in a person's mind even though he has no ability to evaluate its actual credibility. Rather than demonstrating respect for the scientific method, such people demonstrate the most childish and unsophisticated mentality possible to human beings.

SD2 wrote:

Some people will believe anything they read or hear just because the a story in the media drops terms like "experts," "data," and "studies." The opinion expressed therein becomes infallible in a person's mind even though he has no ability to evaluate its actual credibility. Rather than demonstrating respect for the scientific method, such people demonstrate the most childish and unsophisticated mentality possible to human beings.

Yes lets go back to a time where we respected and understood science. Creationists, flat earthers and climate change deniers wake up!

Believing anything the media and public intellectuals tell you is not respect for science. It is the same epistemological approach most people had in the days when almost everyone believed in religious explanations of the natural world and human origins--that is, they regarded some people (the king, monks, priests, the Pope, etc.) as infallible and believed anything those people said. An individual who respects science first and foremost thinks independently and is willing to question anything and anyone. The minute you say "X must be true because it is the consensus of experts," you have announced your embrace of mysticism and rejection of reason.

Bandana boy wrote:

Ah yes. Remember when the north was so prepared for hurricane sandy?

storm surge Trumptard & yes some of the northeast development and infrastructure was dubious; in Houston and the rest of coastal Texas, this is anything but a "surprise." Ever hear of Galveston for one? The sprawl and destruction of Houston has been reckless and ignorant by any standard.

SD2 wrote:

Believing anything the media and public intellectuals tell you is not respect for science. It is the same epistemological approach most people had in the days when almost everyone believed in religious explanations of the natural world and human origins--that is, they regarded some people (the king, monks, priests, the Pope, etc.) as infallible and believed anything those people said. An individual who respects science first and foremost thinks independently and is willing to question anything and anyone. The minute you say "X must be true because it is the consensus of experts," you have announced your embrace of mysticism and rejection of reason.

You've got a very good point. Too often, the media will dub someone an "expert" if they work in a particular field. That may make them an expert compared to the general population, but by no means does that make them infallible, or even right! They might draw a particular conclusion from a set of data, but that doesn't mean it should not be questioned. This is what makes scientific publications, and their review processes, so critical.

If a hurricane research professor says right now that "I looked at data from Hurricane Harvey and I concluded that it was caused by fracking", you would get some left-leaning media outlets (hopefully not the ones with credibility!) publishing headlines like "Weather expert says flooding causing by fracking", despite the fact that this claim is really just one person's opinion. Then of course right-wing media outlets will respond with "The left is claiming that fracking caused Houston to flood and this is why you can't trust science". Everyone likes to cherry pick evidence that supports their viewpoint without properly vetting it.

But you also get to a certain point where the people challenging the experts have nothing more than rank speculation on their side. Houston had a massive flood in 2001 with TS Allison. That was supposed to be the unprecedented flood to end all floods. Then, Ike hit and cause flooding in different areas. Then there was the Tax Day flood and the Memorial Day flood. These were not even tropical storms. They were just big rain storms that dumped 10-15" of rain in a few hours. Now, there is Harvey. A very weak tropical wave that turned into a Cat 4 in just a few days. And now we have Hurricane Irma with 100 mph winds on track to possibly head to the gulf. This is unprecedented for Houston and the Gulf Coast. Saying that global warming has nothing to do with it is completely absurd. The only way this could be happening is because the atmosphere is warmer and wetter. It reminds me of a case I handed where a train hit a bus full of refinery workers. There were lots of defendants trying to blame each other. One not very skilled lawyer was badgering one of the workers about lots of different things during his deposition and finally asked him "what do you think went wrong that day?" The worker responded "A train hit a bus. Trains are not supposed to hit buses." We are now at the point on the gulf coast where the train has hit the bus.

So all these experts noticed the Gulf was "2-7" degrees warmer than average but didn't predict the storm would intensify? But now are able to look back and proclaim it is obviously caused by global warming?

Yes I agree. A big issue is that the average person has no understanding of what "100 year" and "500 year" storms mean. If every storm you mentioned was a 500 year storm (not sure about this), then Houstonians must be the unluckiest people alive! Of course, if we accept that larger storms are happening more frequently, we have to look at what the cause might be. I certainly think that higher temperatures could be a factor, but I am no climate expert. Claiming that global warming is a hoax won't make your home any more flood-proof, and that's really what matters in the end.

you have a rather myopic view of the world, John Utah.

John Utah wrote:

Only an insane person would think that higher taxes is better. The insane and the communists. Texas takes in loads of cash and spends it more efficiently that nearly any other state. They don't burn taxpayer cash like cali and New York does.

I suppose you believe the most successful companies are the ones that lose the most money.

Try harder Engineer. It happened. Deal with it. "What did they know and when did they know it" isn't quite appropriate here.

And deal with it the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time.