Here's a headline we're tempted to write - or rather, one that we would be tempted to write if we weren't so nice, or so dedicated to avoiding oversimplification:
"Climate-Change Deniers Struck by Climate Change in Texas Tornado Outbreak."
This week two seemingly unrelated but very connected events took place: In the first, freak tornadoes struck the Dallas area today with unexpected ferocity, causing many experts to revisit the issue of whether tornadoes should be included in the list of extreme weather caused by climate change.
In the second, one of the hard-hit area's Representatives bragged about cutting funds for - predicting storms and reducing their impact.
If you think that's bad - and it is - last year Mitt Romney did the Representative one better: He said it would be "immoral" to spend Federal money to help victims of national disasters like the one that just struck Texas.
Immoral.
A Spell of Bad Weather
Even as presumptive GOP nominee Romney was talking like that last year, fourteen weather disasters caused a billion dollars or more in damage. And yet House Republicans insisted on cutting funds for studying the climate, predicting violent storms, early storm warnings, and assistance in helping communities minimize damage and loss of life. They cut $140 billion from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Commission, the agency which monitors the climate and helps minimize damage and loss of life during storms, after trying to cut much more than that.
Last year's GOP budget also slashed more than $500 million from the budget for weather prediction satellites. And they tried to cut funding for FEMA, the agency that helps people get through disasters like these, by more than half the previous year's amount (which would have left FEMA with less than one-third of its 2010 budget).
This year's House budget includes more of the same. In fact, economists who analyzed it have concluded that it in a few years there will be virtually no funds for any government activity except a growing military budget and spending that's mandated by law.
Good Folks, Not-So-Good Politics
That's what the citizens of Mesquite, Texas[1] voted for when they elected Rep. Jeb Hensaerling to represent them in Congress. Now, we don't mean to be harsh toward the area's citizens, especially those in Mesquite, which was one of Dallas' hardest-hit suburbs this week. They're undoubtedly extremely nice folks down in Mesquite, and we're grateful that neither they nor anybody else in the Dallas area got hurt by these storms.
In fact, I've read a little about the town and I'd like to go there. The Real. Texas. Festival. (love the use of periods) is coming up later this month, and as a former country musician I'd love to see "20 musical acts on three stage" - not to mention as the "indoor rodeo action," the 'Taste of Mesquite BBQ Cook-off," and the "Cowboys and Chrome Car Show."
The problem isn't the good people of Mesquite. The problem is that they haven't been given the information they need to make better political decisions. They may have seen the statement by Rep. Hensaerling, for example:
""The passage of the House Republican budget is a sign of hope for the future of our nation and future generations for whom the American dream is in danger. Americans know that President Obama has placed us on an unsustainable trajectory toward bankruptcy and decline, but today the nation has a better choice: a path to renewed liberty, opportunity, solvency, and prosperity."
Rep. Hensaerling's full statement uses the word "danger" twice to describe the budget he voted cut - a budget that would have allocated millions more for predicting storms and reducing the risk of property damage and loss of life.
A Damn Shame
Were the citizens of the greater Dallas area struck by climate change this week? The most reasonable answer at this point is "We don't know for sure" - although the evidence seems to be mounting. But here's what we do know: We know that it will be a lot harder to discover the truth if Republicans like Mitt Romney and Mark McCaul have their way.
And we know that people like the good citizens of Mesquite will be left more defenseless than ever against the possible loss of property - or worse - caused by violent storms of every kind, whatever their cause.
That would be a real shame. I love meeting good people like the folks in Mesquite, Texas - and I love good barbecue too.
--------------------
[1] UPDATED: The original post mis-identified the Congressional district where the tornadoes struck. I had an A.D.D. moment (and they're cutting funds for that, too).
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future and the host of The Breakdown, broadcast Saturdays nights from 7-9 pm on WeAct Radio, AM 1480 in Washington DC.
Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
Global warming causes tornadoes.
And the warmer it is, the more powerful and frequent the tornadoes are.
'We have no clue about tomorrow. Bring an umbrella, bring a coat, and bring your swim shorts. Be on the alert for tornadoes and if you see one, dive for cover or run very very fast. See us at 11 for our updated forecast".
Their Congressmen, and others explain to them that the only way to improve things, is to get rid of all those people and ideas they who are not like them, but are spending all thier "hard earned money".
Their "leaders" cultivate the feelling of the citizens that the only way to make things better, so they, so they get "their fair share" of all "they have worked for" is to cleanse the country of the undesriable elements.
The only way to get rid of the undesirable elements is to vote hard right.
Science is based on nothing more than what (American) political party you align with.
That makes SO much sense. You must be proud.
Vote Republican but don't live in the path of a storm.
Global warming was first predicted in 1896 when a physicist did a quick calculation of the CO2 input he observed. His conclusions, still irrefutable, showed that clearly with continued human CO2 input into the atmosphere the planet would warm.
1896 - Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
All the political nonsense aside, do any of you think you get to have an opinion on GRAVITY? Just because you parrot the nonsense from the climate deniers, doesn't mean you know the facts. Just pick up any scientific journal - there is no controversy within the research community.
AGW is real, and it is inexorably coming at the human race like a freight train. Whether you believe in it or not. Like GRAVITY!
Your statement that people should.
"Just pick up any scientific journal", shows how isolated you are from mainstream American culture.
As in the days of slavery, there is a strong movement to reserve literacy for the "better classes".
We know, that with few exceptions, a college education has almost no impact on the literacy or body of knowledge of those attending college. The elite don't need a lot of people doing too much reading.
For those who manage to graduate high high school, there average reading level is th 7th grade.
Meaning of course a great success for the 1%. High school functions as a 'finishing school" for the grunts who will work for the 1%. It points out that there is almost no academic achievement between the sixth grade an high school graduation.
What could be better for the 1%.
Did you know that before the civil war, it was serious crime to teach a slave how to read. You think the 1% are dumber than the cotton farmers?
All kidding aside - I don't know where your kids went to school, mine went to public schools on the left coast, but they learned the love of reading at home. They read very well. And for pleasure.
Climate change has been a minor factor in recent weather anomolies seen in America. NOAA explains it here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/noaa-says-record-warmth-_-march-madness-_-was-more-freak-occurrence-than-global-warming/2012/04/02/gIQAUru3qS_story.html
“Climate change was certainly a factor, but it was certainly a minor factor,” Hoerling said.
Does the government research into early warning systems help?
If they save a community $10 million by spending $1 billion on research, is it worth it?
How much spending is there on the research, and how productive is the research? Is it worth continuing? Or is there other ways that the communities can help themselves, and save money at the same time?
Does the government do things effectively? (BTW...I have worked for the government as a contractor, and the waste is UNBELIEVABLE!)
Don't smaller groups of educated people do things better than large groups of bureaucrats? Where are the answers to these questions...big daddy government is not their to protect us from all risk.
Early warning systems help save lives. They won't help save property.
Of all the programs in the budget that actually make sense which are far and few between, funding NOAA is one of them.
I've yet do see a small group of people make something like weather Satellites happen..or the microchip(NASA and military spending got much of modern electronics off the ground)..or the internet, or nuclear power, or many other things. That's been the pattern for many many decades. It takes big big money and big thinking to make these things happen, and small private money doesn't take those kind of risks.
Now there may well be private companies that can do effective satellite launches; but it never would have happened without public funds. Now private companies benefit from that; but they don't thank the big gov shoulders they stand on, because that would smack of socialism, eh?
Weather is not climate, remember? That's what the scientists tell us. But you are more interested in scoring political points than in science.
Leave it to a lefty to try to politicize a natural disaster and pick on the victims for their political affiliation.
The only proper response to this Is "how can I help?"
And of course its just a bunch of overeducated, white male snobs that are documenting the loss of artic ice, and the rise of sea levels.
But you are entitled to make up any nonesense you want.