With these two guys leading, what could possibly go wrong?

From banning supersize drinks to banning supersize storms?

bloomberg_biggulp

Bill Clinton and Bloomberg unveil ‘climate risk’ project

NEW YORK—Former President Bill Clinton and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a new climate initiative Monday to help cities measure their risk for severe weather and natural disasters. The hope is to help curb the impact of deadly storms like Superstorm Sandy, which devastated parts of New York City last October.

The project will be run through C40, a coalition of major cities around the world that united to study the impact of climate change on their municipalities. The group, chaired by Bloomberg, merged two years ago with the Clinton Climate Initiative—an offshoot of Clinton’s philanthropic foundation.

Known as the C40 Risk Assessment Framework, the “climate risk” project, as Bloomberg referred to it, would develop a consistent set of measures by which cities could assess their risk of a natural disaster, including hurricanes and floods.

“Cities simply cannot afford to close their eyes and hope for the best,” Bloomberg said, as he and Clinton unveiled the project during a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative in Manhattan.

“If you can’t measure a risk, you can’t manage it,” Bloomberg added, warning that a damaging storm like Sandy could happen again.

Read more here: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/bill-clinton-bloomberg-unveil-climate-risk-project-214502570.html

About these ads
This entry was posted in hurricanes, Ridiculae and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to With these two guys leading, what could possibly go wrong?

  1. ShrNfr says:

    Maybe they can investigate the “Great Hurricane of 1939″ that dumped all over Providence RI and ravaged Long Island while they are at it. The climate hasn’t changed, only the idiots who think it has. Oh, and then there were the hurricanes in the 1960s that chopped up all the barrier islands off the Jersey coast too. Short memories and stupid people with an agenda that makes their buddies rich.

  2. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    How stupid do you have to be to think you can control the weather? They’ve been watching too many James Bond movies.

  3. R. Shearer says:

    Bloomberg and Clinton know a thing or two about Big Gulps. :)

  4. kim2ooo says:

    Why didn’t they assess the risk – BEFORE Sandy… They knew Sandy was overdo?

  5. DougS says:

    What a circle jerk. These guys just can’t give up the gravy train.

  6. arthur4563 says:

    The unanswered question is : which of these two goofballs ever set foot inside a science classroom? As for that probably illegal ban on supersize drinks, exactly why does Bloomberg think
    people won’t just order two large drinks instead? Reminds me of the brainless move to reduce shower head spray volume – those who took showers simply took longer showers. We’re talking
    new levels of political incompetence here.

  7. JohnWho says:

    “Former President Bill Clinton and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a new climate initiative Monday to help cities measure their risk for severe weather and natural disasters.”

    Change that to:

    “Former President Bill Clinton and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a new initiative Monday to help cities measure their risk for severe weather and natural disasters.”

    and it almost sounds like a reasonable preparedness concept.

    Well, except that using “Bill Clinton” and “Michael Bloomberg” in the same sentence with “reasonable” is probably not, uh, reasonable.

    :)

  8. milodonharlani says:

    How about building flood gates, as Providence did in the 1960s?

  9. Bloomberg: “Cities simply cannot afford to close their eyes and hope for the best,”

    Which is EXACTLY what Boomberg and the City of New York did after dodging the bullet of Hurricane Irine. Irene was a “heaven sent” wind to wake up the city planners of NYC. Irene could have been stronger and hit during a 5 foot high tide. Instead, Irene was just a warning that the billionaire mayor seemed to pay little heed.

    Bloomberg’s eyes were shut for 48 hours AFTER Sandy passed. The thought of running the Marathon though Statin Island can only be seen through closed eyes.

  10. Gixxerboy says:

    I always thought Bil Clinton was a bit of a Cnut

  11. geran says:

    Bill just thought he was going to get to meet two NY chicks, “Sandy” and “Irene”….

  12. Catcracking says:

    The court threw out Little Gulp’s ban on big drinks.
    http://grist.org/news/nyc-judge-throws-out-bloombergs-big-sugar-drink-ban/

  13. Theo Goodwin says:

    “If you can’t measure a risk, you can’t manage it,” Bloomberg added, warning that a damaging storm like Sandy could happen again.

    Anyone want to take a shot at what that means? I say that Bloomberg will follow the measurement with new regulations that will give him ever so much control over the Jersey shore and New York City up to 40th street.

  14. Rud Istvan says:

    Billionaire Mayor Bloomberg, proprietor of BusinessWeek, is also responsible for the BW cover about Sandy 11/1/12.
    Mr. Mayor, such a storm surge has happened twice in the past 100 Years, was predicted decades ago to happen again, and SHOCK did. Whining for fed funds from a bankrupt government to your near bankrupt city will not change NYC weather basics that have little to do with climate change. NYC lives on the end of a natural storm surge funnel. Put that together with any anti clockwise storm, is trouble. Put it together with a hurricane like storm combining with a classic Noreaster front at peak high tide, and you get the mess you got.

  15. Manfred says:

    Hopw could anyone behaving so stupid become so rich ? This person should have no influence over other peoples lifes. There are serious things going wrong in the US.

  16. The more appropriate risk should be based on the dollar value of property and infrastructure built where flood insurance is required, or should be. Additionally, the negative effects of that building on the natural systems that maintain beaches.
    In my home of Virginia Beach in the southern part of Sandbridge lies a federal wildlife refuge. Hence, there has never been building near this beach. Consequently, the beach looks exactly as it did when I moved here in 1982. The dunes migrate back and forth with the natural tidal changes. The areas lined by houses to the north require constant sand replenishment. The dunes are long gone. There was significant damage during Isabel and Irene.
    Once upon a time, the areas which received the greatest damage from Sandy were swamps. I have a feeling that one day they will be again.

  17. dp says:

    I really didn’t expect to see Topher’s project yield results so quickly.

  18. ShrNfr says:

    @kim2000, There was an Army Corps of Engineers report a year earlier that documented the problems that NYC would have in a storm. The title is: 20110913_Final_Metro\ NY\ TDR.pdf You can go look for it on the net. Bloomberg totally ignored it. It warned of major flooding from storm surges and all the rest. The “\ ” is a blank space in the name. This is simply Bloomberg dodging responsibility for not acting on that. No more, no less.

  19. miked1947 says:

    Climate Risk Assessment Project! The acronym says it all with those two involved!!!!

  20. Ben D. says:

    Don’t know,..the rampaging Big Gulp pic just doesn’t work for me, give me King Kong or Gozilla any old day…

  21. Manfred says:

    Transparently, a prelude to another tax grab.

  22. Ken Andrews says:

    C40 is an organization headed by Bloomberg which is affiliated with the UN’s “Agenda 21″ program. C40 seeks to by-pass Congress and directly encourgages cities to implement the fraudulant anti-concept of “Sustainability” into the plans of those cities. An anti-concept is one that implies the exact opposite of what it, in reality, is. Sustainability is actually anti-growth, anti-industrialation and ultimately anti-life. Bloomberg has shown an ever growing appetite to forceably tell people how to live their lives. He and, by association, Bill Clinton are very dangerous to your health and to your life.

  23. Bill H says:

    Is this a remake of Dumb and Dumber? C.R.A.P. Too Funny….!

  24. You know you’ve reached the end times when salvation rests….
    on a Big Gulp billionaire with a Napoleon complex….
    and a Slick Willy Rhodes scholar with a Casanova complex….
    who are going to apply the C40 Risk Assessment framework….
    just another form of obese government molestation….

  25. Master_Of_Puppets says:

    WTF !

    Are Clinton (Bill) and Bloomberg (His Royal Majesty Ship) just zombie monsters ? Evidence is piling up not in their favor !

    Likely, Bloomberg smelled a ‘cash bonanza’ and called butt-buddy Clinton to ‘share the load.’

    Oh yeah ! Cash ! And container ship loads of it … the CIA cash bags to Karzai are pocket change measured against this.

  26. dbstealey says:

    “If you can’t measure a risk, you can’t manage it,” Bloomberg added…

    You can’t measure AGW. So, per Nanny Bloomberg, AGW cannot be managed. Therefore, spending money on AGW is money completely wasted.

  27. X Anomaly says:

    AGW is arguably the greatest threat facing these cities, because it has relatively nothing to do with climate related disasters and chews up a lot of resources..

  28. mosomoso says:

    Since NY is built near sea level in a region notorious for hurricanes since the 1600s, can some NY local tell me if Bloomberg was involved in the real estate development which narrowed the Hudson River near its mouth by some 700 feet? If Bloomberg was a party, active or consensual, to such folly, then I think we have an important subject for investigation right there.

  29. Stephen Rasey says:
    May 6, 2013 at 6:30 pm
    Bloomberg: “Cities simply cannot afford to close their eyes and hope for the best,”

    Which is EXACTLY what Boomberg and the City of New York did after dodging the bullet of Hurricane Irine. Irene was a “heaven sent” wind to wake up the city planners of NYC. Irene could have been stronger and hit during a 5 foot high tide. Instead, Irene was just a warning that the billionaire mayor seemed to pay little heed.

    ShrNfr says:
    May 6, 2013 at 7:02 pm
    @kim2000, There was an Army Corps of Engineers report a year earlier that documented the problems that NYC would have in a storm. The title is: 20110913_Final_Metro\ NY\ TDR.pdf You can go look for it on the net. Bloomberg totally ignored it. It warned of major flooding from storm surges and all the rest. The “\ ” is a blank space in the name. This is simply Bloomberg dodging responsibility for not acting on that. No more, no less.

    =============
    Neil Jordan says:
    November 5, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    This morning’s American Society of Civil Engineers SmartBrief carried top story items:
    ASCE warned years ago NYC faced huge storm-surge threat

    ASCE warned of a major storm-surge threat to New York City during a 2009 seminar where it proposed measures designed to reduce risks. “Scientists and engineers were saying years before Katrina happened, ‘Hey, it’s going to happen, folks. Stop putting your head in the sand,’” said Malcolm Bowman of the State University of New York. The “most workable plan” would be the construction of a nearly five-mile barrier from Sandy Hook, N.J., to the Rockaway Peninsula, and another barrier across the East River, according to Bowman. The New York Times (tiered subscription model) (11/4)

    Link to full NY Times article is:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/nyregion/in-2009-engineers-detailed-storm-surge-threat-to-new-york-city.html?_r=0

    The second article covers protecting the city before the next storm:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/nyregion/protecting-new-york-city-before-next-time.html

    “While such a system is expensive to build — estimates range to $17 billion — Sandy’s damage and economic losses to the region may reach $50 billion, . . .
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    “The most intriguing option, according to Bowman who has looked at all of these plans, is a project called the New York- New Jersey Outer Harbor Gateway, a five-mile long system of causeways and gates extending from Sandy Hook in New Jersey to the Rockaways in Queens. While that system, conceptualized by the London-based engineering firm Halcrow Group, wouldn’t completely stop a surge, it would deflect the energy of the surge and diminish water to manageable levels, according to a Halcrow report.

    ““The thing about the Outer Crossing is that it could have a multipurpose function,” said Bowman. “It could act as a four-lane highway plus a rail connection between northern New Jersey and Long Island. It could be a very interesting New York City bypass as well as a rapid rail connection with Kennedy airport.”

    ““You could even make it toll road to pay for it,” he said.”

    =================
    Gamecock says:
    November 4, 2012 at 4:42 am

    Bloomberg believes in CAGW. He believes sea level is rising. He endorses Obama because of his alleged belief in CAGW.

    As mayor of New York for 11 years, he has done NOTHING to protect Lower Manhattan from the presumed rising tide. It cannot be rationalized that he blames CAGW and yet did nothing to prepare.

    Roger Knights says:

    In a bit of pro-active CYA, he or TPTB commissioned the following 2011 study, which frowns on preventative measures, because they provide “a false sense of security” (because they can’t protect against the worstest case) and thus amount to “disaster by design.” Instead, low-lying New York should pick up and move, reverting their spaces back to parkland. Dig it:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/111610145/NYC-Worst-Case

    RISK INCREASE TO INFRASTRUCTURE DUE TO SEA LEVEL RISE.
    Klaus H. Jacob, Noah Edelblum and Jonathan Arnold.
    Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University
    [A center of warmist alarmism, I believe, and possibly chosen for that reason—Roger Knights]
    ———–
    [pp. 49-51:]

    Generic options for mitigating against the increased coastal storm surge hazards and risks to the MEC’s infrastructure (and to other built assets) may include the following, regardless of the political or fiscal likelihood to realize them. They fall essentially into two categories: protective engineered solutions and those based on landuse changes. In more detail, they include the following.

    (1) Short-term “Protective” Measures Using Local Engineering .

    Individually engineered solutions can be achieved by raising individual structures and systems or critical system components to higher elevations. This may be done without moving them laterally to higher ground. Alternate solutions my include surrounding the exposed structures with local sea-walls and dykes, as for instance has been done by the PANYNJ [Port Authority of NY & NJ] for the La Guardia Airport. The problem with such engineered solutions is that after completion, they often give for some time a potentially false sense of security and encourage new asset concentrations behind the protective defenses. They often simply postpone rather than eliminate renewed flooding. When flooding recurs during the most extreme events, then they tend to be associated with even larger losses when the engineered protections are overwhelmed. This phenomenon, together with some of the earlier flood insurance policies, has led to the newly coined term “Disasters by Design” (Mileti, 1999).

    By that logic, we shouldn’t require cars to have seatbelts, buildings to have fire extinguishers or fire escapes, etc., etc.—Roger Knights

    (2) Regional Mega-Engineering.

    The model for the mega-engineering approach is provided by the Netherlands where a large portion of the land, population and infrastructure is “protected” [note the sneer-quotes—Roger Knights] from the North Sea by major regional dam, dyke and levee systems, rather than by individually built local systems. In the US the Mississippi River dyke and levee system built largely by the US Army Corps of Engineers protecting New Orleans and many other cities (for the time being) [another sneer—Roger Knights] is the nearest example. If applied to the MEC region it would mean the future gating of the entrances to the New York harbor estuary, while somehow providing passage of ship traffic and outflow of freshwater and sediments from the Hudson, Passaic, Raritan and lesser river systems. Such mega-solutions have occasionally and half seriously been suggested [The endnotes contain no references to them—Roger Knights] , but have been rejected as far-fetched, utopian [Not as compared to “moving laterally to higher ground” (see below).—Roger Knights] , and in the long run environmentally unsustainable [that term pushes “environmentalists” hot buttons—Roger Knights] for many reasons, silting of the New York Harbor being only one such cause for concern. Also such a “solution” could lead to the ultimate disaster by design if the protective system were to fail by an extraordinarily extreme event. [So the Thames barrier should be dismantled, and the one protecting Leningrad, etc.?—Roger Knights]

    (3) Long-term Remedy – Changed Landuse.

    Perhaps the sole effective solution is a fundamental change in landuse. It implies to move, when and wherever possible, the infrastructures and other assets to higher ground. They would be moved not only vertically, but also laterally. If space does not exist or cannot be made available, in some instances it may be possible to put the infrastructure systems underground and have only their entrances located at sufficiently safe high ground. The freed water front spaces can then be turned into parks and recreational areas with low asset density where flooding losses can be kept minimal. Obviously such measures require large fiscal resources, a long-term planning, tenacious political will and foresight – all generally in short supply in a political landscape that is dominated by short-term economic gain and fierce competition.

    In reality it is likely that combinations of solutions 1 and 3 (but probably not 2) will be applied in time as sea level keeps rising with continued global warming, on a generational time scale. The challenge will be to accelerate mitigation before the losses start to drastically increase in frequency and magnitude.

    There are other options. One is to do nothing and pay when disaster strikes. Given the magnitude of the outlined risks this does not seem a realistic option that a developed society could afford. It would seem an unlikely option for the very metropolis that is keen to retain a position as a global leader in world financial markets. Risk management is a core concern of financial institutions and markets that dislike uncertainty. Whether the region is prepared to exercise forward looking risk management is a topic we defer to the sector report on “Institutional Decision Making (Zimmerman and Cusker, this study).

    The problem outlined earlier, that losses do not tend to occur in annualized steady small doses, but instead in rare, large, sudden and extreme events, may point to a solution rather than a problem. That solution may build on the seemingly reverse modus operandi: i.e. mitigation measures, especially those associated with changes in landuse and rezoning, may be more readily implemented in small incremental steps rather than in single large-scale political actions. True, post disaster conditions often provide windows of opportunity. But typically they do so only, if sound plans are ready and widely known before the disaster strikes. Therefore one should not wait to begin planning until after the disaster strikes. Assessment and planning time is now. Implementation will come later, often by surprise opportunities. The technical vision needs to be grand and all encompassing and requires a master plan of extraordinary complexity and longevity. It also must ensure that the solutions and actions for the future link with actions for solving today’s problems. Once the planning is in place, the administrative implementation could be incremental and hence affordable if correctly prioritized. This would require concentrating first on the most exposed and most essential assets, and then steadily move on to the less exposed and less important or less valuable assets and systems. Largely lacking at this time are the technical and scientific assessments that provide sufficient detail, spatial resolution, and hence technical credibility. This credibility is needed to form a vision that can get the process started based on technical merit. The solutions (or lack thereof) will always be part of the political and socioeconomic processes. The technical findings must be widely accessible to ensure a reasonably equitable discourse and input towards a public consensus before it comes to hammering out the actual policies and solutions under conditions of political realities and fiscal constraints.
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    [pp. 52-53]
    Conclusions and Recommendations.

    The Metropolitan east coast region with New York City at its center has nearly 20 million people, a 1-Trillion dollar economy, and 2-Trillion dollars worth of built assets, nearly half of which are invested in a complex infrastructure.

    Many elements of the transportation and other essential infrastructure systems in the MEC region, and even some of its regular building stock, are located at elevations from 6 to 20 feet above current sealevel. This is well within the range of expected coastal storm surge elevations of 8 to more than 20 feet for eastern tropical and extratropical storms. Depending on which climate models will apply, the sealevel rise over the next 100 years will accelerate and amount to at most 3 feet by the year 2100. This seemingly modest increase in sealevel has the astonishing effect to raise the frequency of coastal surging and related flooding by factors of 2 to 10, with an average of about 3.

    The rate of incurring losses from these coastal floods will increase accordingly. Expected annualized losses from coastal storms, in the order of about $ 1 Billion per year, would be small enough to be absorbed by the 1-Trillion dollar economy of the region. However it is an unpleasant fact that the actual losses do not occur neatly in regular annualized doses. Rather they occur during infrequent extreme events that can amount to hundreds of billions of dollars for the largest events, albeit with low probability. Such large losses would deprive the economy of tens of percent of the gross regional product (GRP), a forfeiture that will be hard to bear. Insurers, policyholders and non-insured will be stretched to the brink. If the frequency of these and lesser events increases by factors of 2 to 10 due to accelerating sea level rise, mitigating actions will become urgent. The region will be in a race between increasing losses and needing to afford, at the same time, the costs of mitigation and remediation.

    The region is already in the process to revamp its basic infrastructure at costs approaching a good fraction of 100 Billion dollars per decade. Therefore, the most cost- effective way to harden the infrastructure against future coastal storm surge losses would be to account for the increased flood potentials. A coherent policy is needed which should be based on technical input. Some uncertainties exist and will persist even after future detailed technical and scientific studies are performed which are needed to avoid unnecessary excessive remedies. However, these uncertainties must not be used to justify inaction since it is inevitable that the losses will accelerate just from the sheer growth of built and newly exposed assets alone.

    The best mitigation is to avoid placing new or refurbished assets at low elevations. This requires an innovative landuse plan, tough zoning enforcement, and would be best combined with new engineering codes that place all critical components at sufficiently high elevations. [“Refurbished” could be interpreted, by a zealous enforcement agency, as covering preventative maintenance, and even mere maintenance.—Roger Knights] This objective could be well achieved by a Voluntary National Model or Reference Code. The usual local privileges to adopt the recommended standard into local law should be preserved. The National Flood Insurance Program’s Q3 mapping effort administered by FEMA may have a new and innovative role to play in this respect. Congress may need to put the necessary resources in place for NFIP to move from the past haphazard process of updating the flood zone maps to one that uses already proposed modern technologies to produce improved accurate digital maps on an accelerated pace. An infusion of resources will be needed to catch up with the rising tide – not an inexpensive undertaking, but one with a likely high benefit to cost ratio.

    The problem of sea level rise that New York City and the MEC are about to face will be faced by coastal megacities and shore-bound populations all around the US coasts, in fact around the globe, in rich and poor countries alike. [Presuming global warming is accelerating—Roger Knights] New York City and the surrounding MEC region could be in the unique position to muster the financial and intellectual resources, perhaps even the communal political wit and will (sic!) to set a world-class example for how to deal with such a fundamental societal / environmental issue. [IOW, focus on CO2 mitigation. This is the policy Bloomberg has been following.—Roger Knights] NYC and the surrounding MEC could do so in par with its often self-declared status as the ‘financial capital’ of the world. The City that never sleeps? True or not, ‘mother nature’ will see to it that wake-up calls will abound.

    ”Abound” is a giveaway that the authors’ hearts are imbued with warmist alrmism. This report’s recommendations (mostly “move” & “mitigate CO2” (implicit)) are largely based on accepting warmist projections of a 1-meter sea level rise by 2100. Further, based on nature of the the paragraph that sneeringly rejected “Regional Mega-Engineering,” I suspect that this report’s recommendations reflect current environmentalism’s knee-jerk rejection of man’s large-scale defiance of nature in the form of levees, surge barriers, etc.—i.e., a belief that such a stance is never justified and amounts to an affront to Gaia. The Dutch have told “mother nature” where to get off, and we should too, in this instance. (“This I know—Mother Nature is a maniac.”—Laurence Janifer, epigraph to You Sane Men.)—Roger Knights
    =============

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-09/billions-on-flood-barriers-now-might-save-new-york-city-l.html#comment-706225669

    “Here, in austere times, the question is money, political will and a general skepticism in some quarters, including the office of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, that big engineering solutions are the answer.”

    Roger Knights says:
    I wouldn’t be surprised if Bloomberg had turned thumb’s down on the surge-barrier idea in years past and therefore that his endorsement of Obama and his citing of global warming as the cause of Sandy was a preemptive attempt to deflect blame for his inaction. His endorsement of climate-change alarmism would be a perfect fit with his greenie “skepticism . . . that big engineering solutions are the answer.”

  30. Chad Wozniak says:

    Bloomberg’s obsession with soft drinks is evidence of pathological control freakery a la mode.

    It’s also symptomatic of the increasing determination of government in this country to control every detail of our lives, and AGW, so long as they can maintain the fiction, gives them a perfect excuse to do it.

    I’m reminded of a story that circulated in my office a while back. It goes like this:
    “The Department of Personal Conduct has determined that improper tying of shoelaces is a safety hazard, therefore we must regulate that. Failing to tie shoelaces properly in accordance with regulations shall be a violaion punishable by a $5,000 fine per shoe per occurrence. Since this is an administrative and not a judicial proceeding, the Fifth Amendment shall not apply and the offender shall not be entitled to “due process,” and since the official assessing the fine is a civil servant he/she shall have no liability for his/her actions.”

    C40 and Agenda 21 should be outlawed, and municipalities should be barred from participatuing in C40 or implementing Agenda 21. These are flagrantly anti-American and totalitarian and violate every principle of a free society.

  31. Kaboom says:

    Do they really want to find out how lousy US cities are prepared for natural disasters? Someone might get the idea that their administrations spend a lot of time hand waving about non-issues like big soft drinks while leaving their populations vulnerable.

  32. This side of the Pond it’s called emergency planning, and every unitary authority and County Council has an office. I guess that sticking “Climate” in there somewhere attracts more taxpayer’s money and catastropharians looking for a new gravy-train to what is traditionally a quiet backwater staffed by retired armed services officers.

  33. John Slayton says:

    Stephen Rasey:
    The thought of running the Marathon though Statin Island can only be seen through closed eyes.

    Your point of forgetting the Irene experience is well taken. So perhaps the misspelling of “Staten Island” is deliberate, as statins are notorious for affecting one’s memory. I’m afraid I have personal and first hand experience about that….

  34. G R Dukes says:

    As a lifelong resident in the State of Florida, in 55 years we have never been hit by a hurricane. In 2004 we took some pretty severe damage from Francis and Jean`s tropical storm strength winds (40-45mph) sustained over a 16 hour or so period with rain saturated ground. This mostly resulted in toppled trees tearing down power lines, and some residential home damage from uprooted trees. I called it the “great thinning”, of trees that is. Also as someone who knows, I do storm damage tree service, the worst storm I was involved with was Andrew by far, then Ivan.

  35. CodeTech says:

    Just out of curiosity, what kind of moronic follower does one have to be to consider al-Gore or Bubba to be a leader? Really, just wondering. I’m glad I’m past the juvenile stage where I thought some pop-culture idiot had the answers I was looking for.

  36. CodeTech says:

    Wow – what kind of tired posting does one need to be doing to type “al-Gore” when the brain is saying “bloomberg”… ? lol

  37. polistra says:

    This news story might explain it:

    FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — Reinsurer Munich Re said Tuesday its first-quarter net profit rose 25 percent as the company saw modest outlays for natural disasters and raised its prices for catastrophe coverage.

    Munich Re is, of course, a major investor in the Crimate scam. Through careful use of media and research, they’ve managed to raise everyone’s expectation of disasters while experiencing fewer disasters overall.

    Presumably Bloomberg is looking for a new way to exploit this end of the scam, by creating quantified false expectations in specific cities. With quantified lies in official documents, a reinsurer won’t have to create its own lies.

  38. polistra says:

    Oops, just to be clear, the first paragraph was the news story and the rest was my rant.

  39. atheok says:

    “…“If you can’t measure a risk, you can’t manage it,” Bloomberg added, warning that a damaging storm like Sandy could happen again…”

    A classic statement from obsessive micro-managing megalomania style of management that believes a ‘real’ manager can manage anything and the less they know about what they are managing, the better.

    Which happens to be the style of management that various workplace studies (e.g.,Harvard Business Review) identify as the worst managers for productivity, employee security, employee turnover and workplace liability claims. These types of managers move from problem to problem issuing discipline punishments, reprimands and blaming everyone and everything but their own inadequacies.

    A simple explanation is that the ‘big gulp’ micromanager is a case of the ‘Peter Principle’ in action; especially as the character involved continually purchases his positions and left his original ‘Peter Principle’ plateau far behind as he bought his way into new incompetency plateaus.

    Bloomberg’s statement above is classic; blame is implied, but decidedly not his fault. Next, if they can measure the risk (an administrative burden type task), the blame will be implied as somebody else’s fault and another expensive administrative tracking demand made. Bloomberg is not a “The buck stops here” manager.

  40. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    “If you can’t measure a risk, you can’t manage it,” Bloomberg added.
    Similarly: If you can’t properly define a problem you can’t solve it.

    What is the batting average of Climastrologists who have attempted to measure this risk? “0″
    What is the batting average of liberals who have attempted to solve our country’s problems? “0″

    Without a doubt, C.R.A.P. is the proper acronym.

  41. ferd berple says:

    kim2ooo says:
    May 6, 2013 at 6:18 pm
    Why didn’t they assess the risk – BEFORE Sandy… They knew Sandy was overdo?
    ++++++++++
    Because Sandy and “climate change” gives politicians an “out” for building in flood zones and failing to maintain infrastructure.

    If you build a house on the beach you have built a temporary structure. If you build a house on a river, you have built a temporary structure. It is a nonsense to call it a “natural disaster” when these structures wash away. The better term for water-front and low-lying property is “a man-made disaster waiting to happen”.

    There was a time in the past when people had common sense. Farmers built their houses on the hill and farmed the river bottom. Every year the river flooded and fertilized the fields. Now we build houses on the river bottoms, put dikes along the rivers, buy expensive inorganic fertilizers, and are surprised when eventually the dikes fail and the houses wash away.

    Flooding, storm surge, this is natural. Trying to prevent it is artificial. What is criminal is expecting tax-payers to pick up the dime for these disasters after the fact. The disasters are not preventable, but the damage is. More than 100 years ago after Galveston was flooded the citizens had the good sense to raise the city 16 feet before rebuilding. New Orleans they simply rebuilt, again below sea-level. Another disaster waiting to happen with billions in losses.

  42. kramer says:

    Bloomberg, for his part, praised Clinton and his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who had appeared on stage a few minutes before to announce that she and her husband plan to hold a CGI meeting in Brazil this fall to focus on development in Latin America.

    We have millions of people out of work here in the USA and Bill Clinton is focusing on development in other countries? … Yeah, he’s got his priorities right.

  43. jayhd says:

    Too late now – the risks should have been assessed before building in flood prone areas. Now all they can assess is the cost after disaster hits.

  44. ferd berple says:

    Bloomberg added, warning that a damaging storm like Sandy could happen again
    ============
    Get a grip. A storm like Sandy will happen again. and again, and again, and again…

    Question to Bloomberg: What year was it that damaging storms first started to not happen? And what happened to first make them stop?

  45. Tom J says:

    Porky & Wacky

  46. Bruce Cobb says:

    Fleecing people without them being aware of it, let alone consenting is an art form climatists like those two clowns have down to a science.

  47. _Jim says:

    ShrNfr says May 6, 2013 at 7:02 pm

    Roger Knights says May 6, 2013 at 8:38 pm

    Kudos for bringing the engineering aspect into this; ignore their recommendations at your own peril, Bloomberg.

    .

  48. rtj1211 says:

    There’s nothing wrong with risk assessment.

    Whether the assessments are accurate or not will depend on what theories, what accepted truths they base their calculations on and whether they prove to be accurate or not.

  49. Goode 'nuff says:

    Oh the Bubba bashing! When I get some time I’ll be back, I’ll put something on ya.

    The Congressional Budget Office reported budget surpluses of $69 billion in 1998, $126 billion in 1999, and $236 billion in 2000, during the last three years of Bubba Clinton’s presidency.

    I have to be careful talking about uncle Bubba though. One time down in Texas I said that “it sure was bad that Clinton raised taxes.” They proceeded to beat me to a pulp! I said, “watt-n-ell’ did you do that for??? All I said was that I regretted Clinton raising taxes.” Them, “Ohhh, we’re sorry… we thought you said Clinton was from Texas!” ;-( be back

  50. DD More says:

    What difference does it make to assess the risks if you never do anything about them. See flooding of the subway system and needing flood doors installed.
    Heavy rains overwhelm the subway system, disrupting the morning commute for millions. Sound familiar?
    The paralysis of the subway system this morning has happened before. On Aug. 26, 1999, and Sept. 8, 2004, to be specific. ….
    “We are very much tied to mass transit, which is a system that is obviously vulnerable to natural events,” Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said this morning. With “very heavy rain,” the drainage system gets inundated. “You can only design it to take away so much,” he said.

    Bloomy, you failed and we paid.

  51. Louis says:

    “If you can’t measure a risk, you can’t manage it,” Bloomberg added

    Bloomberg wants to “manage” everything we do, including every breath we are allowed to take, and climate change gives him the excuse to do just that.

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.” — C.S. Lewis

  52. _Jim says:

    Goode ’nuff says May 7, 2013 at 10:16 am

    Oh the Bubba bashing! When I get some time I’ll be back, I’ll put something on ya.

    The Congressional Budget Office reported budget surpluses of $69 billion in 1998, $126 billion in 1999, and $236 billion in 2000, …

    Repeat after me (while you click the heels of your glass slippers together):

    “and congress had nothing to do with it”
    “and congress had nothing to do with it”

    Check who was ‘in power’ 1995 onward into and beyond 2000:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

    .

  53. Tom in Texas says:

    “budget surpluses… during the last three years of Bubba Clinton’s presidency”

    No doubt due to the repatriation of Corp foreign profits (e.g. AAPL $1XXB currently) with a tax holiday (cut). Taxes were paid first where-ever they were made, then the IRS gets a second dip.
    Thus, the money stays where it is made.

  54. Goode 'nuff says:

    Yeah, ok, points taken. I never was a fan of Bill Clinton. We always wished he had been ‘raised in Texas’. Heh, my mother told him straight to his face that he wouldn’t get anywhere in politics way back when he first ran for governor. He didn’t do much for Arkansas, outside of the Walton’s.

    But honestly, it kind of scares me who the Republicans will nominate next. I will definitely look to see if they have a Romneyised past. See…

    http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2012/08/mitt-romney-lied-to-husband-of-woman-he.html?m=1

    I am glad Mitt didn’t win. Not happy with Obumble but look what we have to work with. I do know something Pappa Bush did to cover up something really bad in his son’s past too. The evidence of that scandal was swept out.

  55. Goode 'nuff says:

    After Bubba Clinton was gone the Bush crime family Republicans had a majority in Congress and Senate. IT WAS Spending run amuck! Still is.

  56. Dudley Horscroft says:

    Under para 3: “Perhaps the sole effective solution is a fundamental change in landuse. It implies to move, when and wherever possible, the infrastructures and other assets to higher ground. They would be moved not only vertically, but also laterally.” This I must see, the Empire State Building marching north up to beyond Harlem. As far as Albany, perhaps? Will that be high enough above sea level (even when all the Climate Hot Air Talk (CHAT) melts the Antarctic, and we can grow green (green, of course!) peas at the south pole?)

Comments are closed.