Why should we give NY 60Billion for Hurricane victims?

[fskimospy]

Liar, as usual for you.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/12/updated-normalized-hurricane-losses.html

Dishonest and frankly baffling, as is usual for you. The best science available on climate change says that the frequency and intensity of hurricanes in the Atlantic is likely to increase in coming years. More frequent hurricanes makes it more likely that one will hit NYC again.

Are you a climate change denier also?

 

[fskimospy]

Then self-insure...but don't expect the taxpayers across the country to pay for your short-sightedness in design/construction of infrastructure. Why should taxpayers in Wyoming, for example, have to pay to rebuild the NYC subway system?

I don't know, why does Wyoming get about 11% more back in federal funds than it pays in every year, not just in disaster years? Why does New York only get about 79 cents on the dollar for the federal taxes it pays every year?

Maybe they've already paid for their hurricane damage a few times over.

 

[monovillage]

Dishonest and frankly baffling, as is usual for you. The best science available on climate change says that the frequency and intensity of hurricanes in the Atlantic is likely to increase in coming years. More frequent hurricanes makes it more likely that one will hit NYC again.

Are you a climate change denier also?

No, the best science isn't saying that and the article shows your lie, but keep spouting the lie if you want and I'll keep linking the best science. Maybe if you spent a little time reading up on the best science you'd stop with the misinformation.

 

[fskimospy]

No, the best science isn't saying that and the article shows your lie, but keep spouting the lie if you want and I'll keep linking the best science. Maybe if you spent a little time reading up on the best science you'd stop with the misinformation.

Yes, the best science is definitely that guy's blogspot account. I think I'll stick with the IPCC, but thanks for the suggestion!

What sad is that I don't even think you're purposefully lying when you make these posts. You're just that desperate not to have your world view threatened.

 

[monovillage]

Yes, the best science is definitely that guy's blogspot account. I think I'll stick with the IPCC, but thanks for the suggestion!

What sad is that I don't even think you're purposefully lying when you make these posts. You're just that desperate not to have your world view threatened.

Then here's Dr. Pielke's link and articles posted about the IPCC-SREX report.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/11/few-comments-on-ipcc-srex-report.html

along with the link to the actual IPCC-SREX report.
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

*EDIT* My apologies for my rudeness Eskimospy, a very bad personal week has led me to lashing out at those not at any fault. Again, my apologies

 

[michal1980]

Dishonest and frankly baffling, as is usual for you. The best science available on climate change says that the frequency and intensity of hurricanes in the Atlantic is likely to increase in coming years. More frequent hurricanes makes it more likely that one will hit NYC again.

Are you a climate change denier also?

if the storms are going to get worse, and more frequent, then why bother spending the money to rebuild.

maybe better spent to relocate.

 

[HeXen]

Either you like living in a society or you don't and should live in no man's land. You guy's complain about the stupidest things in life.

 

[Brainonska511]

if the storms are going to get worse, and more frequent, then why bother spending the money to rebuild.

maybe better spent to relocate.

Please point to a location free from devastating natural disasters. And as previously mentioned, a way to get ships to travel across land would also be useful, since we obviously cannot afford to have ports on the ocean, they might be wiped out in a storm.

 

[michal1980]

Please point to a location free from devastating natural disasters. And as previously mentioned, a way to get ships to travel across land would also be useful, since we obviously cannot afford to have ports on the ocean, they might be wiped out in a storm.

oh please. you could have a port city, without millions of people near buy.

how many people roads/rail is needed to support a port.

That's what we can rebuild/reinforce.

Is there a need for wall street on the coast? nope, it can be anywhere.

 

[michal1980]

Either you like living in a society or you don't and should live in no man's land. You guy's complain about the stupidest things in life.

when the coasts stop pissing on the Midwest, maybe I'll consider them part of society. While its considered flyover country. f-them.

 

[K1052]

when the coasts stop pissing on the Midwest, maybe I'll consider them part of society. While its considered flyover country. f-them.

Your inferiority complex is showing.

 

[Abraxas]

Ok, lets say I agree we should build something, but why should this area get protection first. There are other areas in the U.S in far greater danger of of catastrophic flooding, why is this area being given higher priority. California in particular, if a repeat of the 1862 storm happens, estimate puts the cost at 750 billions dollars with millions of homes destroyed. California is in huge danger, and they levies here are not designed to protect against such storm. In fact California is likely in greater danger of this storm is then NY is of a repeat of sandy.

I will freely admit my ignorance of the situation in California so I will stipulate to everything you just said for the purposes of this post. In that case, yes, we should certainly strengthen California's defenses. If one storm can cause that much property damage, maybe some of of our defense budget should be rerouted to that which is likely to damage us. If one is deserving of priority, however, I still go with New York for the moment, but only because the infrastructure there is already damaged and in need of being replaced. While we are in there changing out components anyway we may as well upgrade them to avoid having to fix them next time a storm comes up the coast. California may be vulnerable now, but so is New York, but it is in that regard fully functional.

Also, the wide scale infrastructure projects could be very good for the economy if well handled.

 

[fskimospy]

when the coasts stop pissing on the Midwest, maybe I'll consider them part of society. While its considered flyover country. f-them.

Serious envy and inferiority complex here. We really don't make fun of you or piss on you. We barely remember you exist .

 

[michal1980]

Serious envy and inferiority complex here. We really don't make fun of you or piss on you. We barely remember you exist .

which is why we choose to ignore arrogant assholes like you that contribute little to society.

What's the next finical bubble you assholes are coming up with?

 

[Chaotic42]

oh please. you could have a port city, without millions of people near buy.

how many people roads/rail is needed to support a port.

That's what we can rebuild/reinforce.

Is there a need for wall street on the coast? nope, it can be anywhere.

No, there's no need for Wall Street to specifically be on the coast, but that's where it is. Most people have a strong attachment to place (you also seem to). New York is very clearly a center of culture and even on American identity. People won't leave unless it becomes impossible for them to live there.

If we were to somehow be able to redesign the US instantly and for free, sure, we might make some changes. But where would you expect this truly massive population to go? It's not like tens of millions of people can pick up and move to Iowa.

I heard similar arguments about New Orleans and the gulf coast (where I live) right after Katrina. We enacted some rules about building new houses, and insurance definitely makes it prohibitive to live right on the water. Very few people ended up leaving because this is their home.

Finally, you really need to drop the regionalism. You sound exceptionally bitter at what you perceive the Northeast to be thinking. Just go out and be your best and if someone doesn't like you because of where you were born, that's their problem.

 

[DCal430]

I will freely admit my ignorance of the situation in California so I will stipulate to everything you just said for the purposes of this post. In that case, yes, we should certainly strengthen California's defenses. If one storm can cause that much property damage, maybe some of of our defense budget should be rerouted to that which is likely to damage us. If one is deserving of priority, however, I still go with New York for the moment, but only because the infrastructure there is already damaged and in need of being replaced. While we are in there changing out components anyway we may as well upgrade them to avoid having to fix them next time a storm comes up the coast. California may be vulnerable now, but so is New York, but it is in that regard fully functional.

Also, the wide scale infrastructure projects could be very good for the economy if well handled.

California has no infrastructural protection from such an event, which is why it would be so devastating. The chance for such an event are as great as a 7.8 earthquake striking Southern California. I still say California need is greater than New York. It is unlikely for another storm to hit NY in our lifetimes. The government has even determined California is in the greatest danger of catastrophic level flooding in the U.S.

 

[Brainonska511]

California has no infrastructural protection from such an event, which is why it would be so devastating. The chance for such an event are as great as a 7.8 earthquake striking Southern California. I still say California need is greater than New York. It is unlikely for another storm to hit NY in our lifetimes. The government has even determined California is in the greatest danger of catastrophic level flooding in the U.S.

I fail to see your point. It seems to amount to: California has it potentially worse, so we should ignore NY. And your other point was: we can never do enough, so we should do nothing.

But the bolded is for potential future ownage. I guess you didn't get enough in the "Sandy is a non-event" thread.

 

[DCal430]

I fail to see your point. It seems to amount to: California has it potentially worse, so we should ignore NY. And your other point was: we can never do enough, so we should do nothing.

But the bolded is for potential future ownage. I guess you didn't get enough in the "Sandy is a non-event" thread.

Sandy wasn't a non-event, it was a major event. Scientist say has a very low chance of reoccurring. My point is their are other areas in the U.S in greater danger, in which more can be done. Other areas that the money could be better spent to protect them from potential disasters.

All funding of this type should be allocated by were it would have greatest benefit, and NY simply isn't it.

 

[HeXen]

when the coasts stop pissing on the Midwest, maybe I'll consider them part of society. While its considered flyover country. f-them.

You're the type i'm referring to. Pretty selfish and pathetic for anyone within the same country to think that way just because they are not in their own neighborhood. If our ancestors thought like that, you may not even be here. Too worried about a few bucks in your taxes that you could have wasted on yourself right?