FEMA edict to U.S. states: 'Provide a Climate Plan or Lose Funding'

Was4186770h/t TriplePundit – FEMA, the US Federal Emergency Management Agency, has issued draft guidance which demands that states include an assessment of climate risk in their 5 year disaster plan, or risk losing federal funding.

According to the FEMA draft guidance;

“Key concepts under consideration include strengthening specific requirements for:

…assessing future risk in light of a changing climate and changes in land use and development. This will ensure that the mitigation strategy addresses risks and takes into consideration possible future conditions in order to identify, prioritize, and implement actions to increase statewide resilience;

supporting states in fulfilling mitigation commitments, including FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants management performance, throughout the five-year plan approval period. FEMA seeks opportunities to build and maintain mitigation capabilities and advance hazard mitigation proactively during plan implementation, and not solely at plan update and review;

clarifying that “formally adopted by the state” means plan adoption by the highest elected official to reflect the importance of plan implementation as a means to demonstrate risk reduction as a statewide priority;


coordinating and integrating the mitigation planning process with the whole community, including agencies and stakeholders with mitigation capabilities that are responsible for economic development; land use and development; housing; infrastructure; natural and cultural resource management; and health and human services. Engaging agencies and stakeholders with data and authority early in the planning process facilitates both successful plan development and implementation.”


The section on hazard assessment contains the following injunction;

“The risk assessment must provide a summary of the probability of future hazard events that includes projected changes in occurrences for each natural hazard in terms of location, extent, intensity, frequency, and/or duration. Probability must include considerations of changing future conditions, including the effects of climate change on the identified hazards.”

There is a threat of funding sanction against states which fail to fulfil the key requirements, the first of which is an assessment of the risk of “future climate change”;

“If FEMA determines that the State is not maintaining the mitigation plan and, therefore, not meeting mitigation commitments, FEMA may take corrective action, such as revoking or suspending the plan approval status. Corrective action may impact eligibility for certain FEMA assistance until such time as FEMA determines that the plan meets the requirements and restores plan approval status.”

With the threat of a lethal global Ebola pandemic looming, and an elevated risk of a repeat this year of last year’s brutal winter, if Great Lakes temperatures are any guide http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/14/water-temperature-of-the-great-lakes-is-over-6-degrees-colder-than-normal/ , it’s a comfort to know that Federal agencies have prioritised states devoting time and resources, to determining what they will do if the world warms a little.

Thanks to Eric Worrall for this story.

On the face of it, this seems to me to be little more than blackmail.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 20, 2014 8:20 am

And Fed gov uses that blackmail technique on School lunches, Education, Transportation, Health and Medial, Housing, Fema, Environmental, Criminal Justice and in all other areas where they provide states funding. There is no longer such a thing as :states rights”. We are all statists.

Jim G
Reply to  william
October 20, 2014 8:25 am

What a system! They take our money, literally at gun point (try not paying your taxes and see if eventually they don’t show up armed), and then they make us jump through hoops to get a little of it back.

Reply to  william
October 20, 2014 8:47 am


george e. smith
Reply to  George Hetzel
October 20, 2014 11:31 am

Maybe My five year plan will be based on some Biblical wisdom.
As I recall, there were only 10 virgins, instead of 72; and that is more appropriate for California anyway. Five of them were wise, and brought oil for their lamps. The other five were foolish, and depended on FEMA, for their illumination. That too is typical of California.
So I’m going to get a gallon of oil, and store it in my refrigerator, so that it doesn’t overheat and self ignite.
Then when the plague of locusts hit my back yard, I can put the oil in my Roundup sprayer, and have myself a locust roast with my own personal napalm flamethrower.
Well my oil stash might be too much of a burglary magnet.
Californians in some counties, are going to be voting in the polls in a couple of weeks, to outlaw hydraulic fracturing in their county. So far as I know, no California County will be voting in this election, to completely outlaw hydrocarbon burning automobiles from being owned, or sold in or driven in their county . That would include no Piuses, which also run on fossil fuels.

Reply to  George Hetzel
October 20, 2014 10:05 pm

… 10 virgins in Kalifornea ? Where are they going to find 10 virgins ?

Danny Thomas
Reply to  william
October 20, 2014 10:33 am

Wow! I feel this is a good idea. By most indications climate change is occurring, but the question is the extent and how damaging or even IF damaging. I can’t see a real negative as most states not bounded by water will likely see growing season changes and the like, but that’s still a consequence so why not plan for it? Did I misread this:”assessing future risk in light of a changing climate and changes in land use and development.”
This comes across to me as prudent contingency planning.
Am I missing something? When a major catastrophe occurs isn’t FEMA one of the first places states look to for aid? Prudent planning in advance of something that we can actually forecast to some extent doesn’t come across as wrong minded. Yes, it may be a bit heavy handed to threaten in order to have the information gather. Asking nicely (the first time) might be a better approach but what’s the track record of the history of doing it that way?
I had an epiphany the other day when it struck me that I know what’s wrong with this country. We just don’t care about each other any more and the anonymity of the internet allows us to just spew at each other. It seems that if it’s not “our way” (no matter what side one is on) then it’s just wrong and the name calling begins no matter the consequences, nor to whom. So, I know this post doesn’t fit the thinking of many others here and I’m fully expecting I’ll hear about it. I can only ask that responses be reasoned and impersonal.

John A
Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 10:58 am

I completely agree with you. Whether you call it “Climate Change Planning” or “Emergency planning for extreme weather events” is pretty irrelevant.
Of course that won’t stop some people from blaming Obama.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 10:59 am

The thing is Danny, the climate IS changing just as it has every day. The Feds believe it is warming and want a plan dealing with that. However the United States is cooling over the last three decades as NASA’s own “climate at a glance” can verify.
They would not be happy with a plan based on cooling.
The idea of this kind of coercion is morally repugnant to me as well.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 11:22 am

Hi Latecomer,
I appreciate that perspective, and of course I see a completely different perspective from the GW, AGW, and CAGW side. That’s why I’m on this site as a buddy of mine is maybe even extreme CAGW and from my research I just don’t see it. Our planet is not in (and from my knowledge has never been) in a static state.
There are comments below that suggest getting 50 different perspectives might prove of some value. My fear is that those perspectives would be either red or blue and that would serve no one and be more of the same.
I just didn’t read this requirement as being slanted towards warming, but I saw “changing climate”. Which is what I based my thoughts on.
Frankly, I can just imagine the rhetoric if this request wasn’t out there and some CC related event occurs. I’d expect an uproar based on “why didn’t we see this coming and plan for it”. My point of view.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 11:27 am

@Danny Thomas & John A
The fact is that you cannot explain rationally what there is to prepare for. Might as well prepare for an alien invasion. Sure, you can get yourself upset about it but concrete measures cannot be drafted based on your beliefs regarding alleged future events… and whose prediction has failed to come pass on every single case.
Irrational beliefs, such as that this site or its readers stand in the way of “fixing” the climate, are but one example of the kind of problems you actually need to deal with.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Brute
October 20, 2014 11:39 am

Hi Brute,
Honestly, I believe I can. Growing seasons are changing, so land use will change. Glaciers are melting, so land use and water will be (are being) affected. CO2 levels have increased, so agricultural production will be modified.
I’m not a scientist, but the above are things I have seen with my own eyes (except the CO2 part LOL). There are those much more educated in related fields that can make reasonable suggestions around which prudent planning can occur.
Don’t misread me. I’m not an alarmist in any way. I’m firmly on the fence not based on “belief” but based on historical evidence and research. This is not intended to be a political discussion as that will lead us down a path of zero benefit. The hope is “cooler heads” (warmer heads—again lol–just made that up) will prevail.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 11:32 am

Hi John,
You’ve just described the very windmill at which I’ve chosen to tilt. On any thread I chose to immerse myself in, I’m trying to change the tone of the conversation. We’ve forgotten about “we” in this country and seemingly only focus on ourselves. We complain that our representatives can’t get anything done never once looking in the mirror. Not being on the “winning” side (no matter which side) brings on the name calling and hateful rhetoric. Few solutions are generated that way.
Completely off topic and posted with apologies. I thank you for your words.

george e. smith
Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 11:36 am

Well as I recall, the very first law of Military planning, says that Military plans work extremely well up until the point where one first makes contact with the enemy.
After that, they are irrelevant.
So is climate disaster planning.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  george e. smith
October 20, 2014 11:50 am

Hi George,
Well said, as it relates to war and climate catastrophe. My question is aren’t folks reading more in to this request for information than what it says? I’m truly asking as I don’t read it other than to say something like……so, hey states, what do ya’ll see changing and what should we do about it?
I don’t see a disagreement that climate is changing as it always has. But if this question isn’t asked, how can we plan well.? Seems like a valid question.
Did you read the request differently?

george e. smith
Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 11:44 am

Well John A. I’m guessing you probably never knew about a fore runner of “Obama”, also a Democratic Party President, who in my view, was one of the top three; possibly even the top one.
He had a sign on his Oval Office desk, that read “The Buck stops Here .”
What is your basis, for believing, that the POTUS does not have full control over the FEMA agency ??

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 12:01 pm

The government is only capable of solving the last crisis.
Never the next one.
Today’s government – as a matter of executive policy and emphasis! – has declared that Climate Change (controlling CO2 and the world’s energy production and energy supply) is the single most important foreign and domestic issue they will fight. (Except when a racist democrat fund raiser demands the InJustice Department respond to a made-up event, or when a national democrat Hispanic racist fund raiser demands they admit all illegal aliens who want to come here or when a ….)
Today’s government has placed climate change ahead of fighting Islamic terrorism, fighting disease, fighting fraud waste and abuse, fighting invaders, and everything else. Except collecting taxes from democrat donors. That they will not do ….

Danny Thomas
Reply to  RACookPE1978
October 20, 2014 12:40 pm

Hi RA,
I believe you and I have conversed before. Thanks for your response.
I don’t agree with your perspective. This seems so anti Obama/Democrats that I don’t see anything but political reasoning behind this post. If I may be so bold, can I get you to replace the political slant with it having come from an unbiased or even a Republican administration (same request, just different players) in a what/if scenario and tell me honestly what your response would be then.
I’m really not trying to set you off on a tangent, or insult you as that’s not my intention. If you could evaluate for me in as much of an apolitical fashion as you can I’d really appreciate your perspective. I see it as prudent, but I’m a fence sitter so maybe that’s my bias.
I hear way more about Ebola and ISIS than I do CC.
Thanks again!

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 12:04 pm

You know the earth is an open system heat engine…. With energy inputs from the rest of the solar system.
How do we plan for that? How do we even model that correctly?

Danny Thomas
Reply to  brantc
October 20, 2014 12:44 pm

Hi Brantc,
I don’t think that’s what the request entails. There are certain knowns (extended growing seasons, Higher CO2 levels, melting(ed) glaciers,. Things like this is what I’d expect the reports to entail. Of course we cannot plan for an unknown asteroid that hits the earth, but if there’s one in close orbit that “might” hit us at some point in the future should there not be at least a discussion about what we’d do?

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 12:59 pm

Regarding your comment that ” we just don’t care anymore”. I would suggest that you continue to read through current and past posts here at WUWT. It should be obvious that most of the comments suggest that many who talk here care very much for the rest of the world. Also note that at WUWT, commenters do not “spew” at each other as can be seen at many of the liberal left orientated msm sites around the globe. There are rules which are enforced here at WUWT, which severely limit obnoxious comments and “spewing”.
The problem with FEMA is that they “believe” that they know that continued warming is guaranteed to continue globally in the future. So they are instituting regulations for their absolute belief in further warming. That “belief” has blinded them to what is actually happening around the globe. This is why we argue against their blind belief system and meaningless regulations.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 1:18 pm

Danny les quote from FEMA
““The risk assessment must provide a summary of the probability of future hazard events that includes projected changes in occurrences for each natural hazard in terms of location, extent, intensity, frequency, and/or duration. Probability must include considerations of changing future conditions, including the effects of climate change on the identified hazards.”
There is a threat of funding sanctíons”
They are forcing usa states to project changes in hazards due to climate change. I live in Spain and I can smell that rat all the way from here….it’s political. And I suppose it will cost the democrats in future elections?

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
October 20, 2014 5:09 pm

Hi Fernando,
I understand the perspective, but I’m not sure I see it the same way. I didn’t read “hazard’s” in to the request. Please tell me if I missed that specific.
Please understand that I’m trying to be as apolitical and unbiased about this as I can. I don’t have my mind fully set on where we are and what we can do about it. I’m an unabashed fence sitter. My research leads me towards changes in the climate that includes: extended growing seasons, glaciers that are melting, increase CO2 in our atmosphere, just to name a few.
Because of my understanding, not the leanings of those on the left nor the leanings of those on the right, I see no reason against collecting a set of data to poor over and plan with.
There is no more validity to those that say “we’re gonna burn up” than there is that say “we’re gonna freeze”. Changes are occurring, but that’s nothing new in the history of our planet.
I lived through a time in the early 70’s where folks were predicting a coming ice age so I have the fact that that didn’t happen as a filter when either side of this “debate” profess to know one way or another.
My read of the article leads me to see a prudent request for information. Maybe it’s in a heavy handed fashion but in our superbiased current society, I’d expect that red states wouldn’t comply to a “please” and blue states might tend towards coming “catastrophe”. Probably, the reality will be somewhere in the middle so I see no harm in asking!
Looking forward to any unbiased (as you can) communication on this as I believe that with a more appropriate tone we’ll all stand to achieve a better result.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
October 20, 2014 5:12 pm

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I didn’t read hazard to mean catastrophe. I tried to put a neutral spin on the word hazard based on the first sentence of the request:”assessing future risk in light of a changing climate and changes in land use and development.”
If our government doesn’t do “risk assessment” I can just imagine the uproar for it NOT being done.
That is my thinking, and I apologize for the lack of clarity.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 1:25 pm

Danny, the problem is that none of the things you mentioned (CO2 levels, melting glaciers, growing seasons) will have any significant implications over any 5 year period. The request is silly.
If FEMA is requiring states to have a 100 year plan, or a 500 year plan then the argument might possibly be made. But this is a 5 year plan.
This is a waste of time. What possible reason could they have other than to attempt to draw attention to an issue that is so far in the back of peoples minds that it is essentially irrelevant.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  DHO
October 20, 2014 5:22 pm

On this very thread, folks are complaining that FEMA is ineffective (or some variation). Then, when FEMA is attempting to gather information, they’re being castigated for that. Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t.
By establishing a 5 year outlook, then based on that they could then decide if a 10 year, 20 year, and so on, projection is prudent. There is obviously no overall consensus as to what’s really going on.
I just don’t agree that looking at climate change is imprudent. There are potential benefits to some of the changes, and potential risks to others. I just named a few, and frankly I’m not a scientist. But I cannot see a negative to having the conversation.
My CAGW buddy and I have had a similar discussion in that I don’t see that “the sky is falling” based on my research. And I can’t get him to see that there are other major issues that we need to give at least equal, if not greater concern. But, as a reasonably thinking individual, I see no harm in doing the evaluation.
I respect your point of view, and that of others on this thread, but only one other person has actually respected mine as having any validity. And I think I’m about as middle of the road as it gets on this topic.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 1:27 pm

I’m not intending to pick a fight with you, but this” Also note that at WUWT, commenters do not “spew” at each other as can be seen at many of the liberal left orientated msm sites around the globe.” Is exactly what I’m referring to.
I reading through responses to my posts and comments towards others, there is plenty of “spewing” that add nothing to the conversation but only reinforce the bias of the poster and add absolutely no value. I’ve been belittled under different topics. I understand that I come to this forum willingly, but I’m truly seeking knowledge and information. More political labeling and name calling can be found pretty much anywhere. My hope is to locate sources that can rise above that nonsense.
If one is able to remove (as much as they can) their own bias, they may find a completely different perspective.
This article does not refer to Global warming, but refers to climate change. Yet many are name calling (liberal is a name). It is what it is.
I cannot disagree that some of what Fema and EPA does is wrong minded, but much is right. Castigating the entire organization is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Even this Fema request, if read through un (non?) biased eyes will lead to a different evaluation than if read with a negative predisposition. Try it. I’d love to hear a response under that refinement.
Sure wish I could figure out how to respond directly to your note. For some reason I wasn’t emailed an opportunity to do so and can only hope you’d get the via the new comments notification.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 1:40 pm

“Wow! I feel this is a good idea. By most indications climate change is occurring, but the question is the extent and how damaging or even IF damaging. I can’t see a real negative as most states not bounded by water will likely see growing season changes and the like, but that’s still a consequence so why not plan for it?””
And if a state stipulates, “There is a 1% chance of being impacted by climate change” then FEMA and the EPA will disagree, and force them to change their statement to what they expect. The net result is 50 states that all agree that climate change is likely to spell doom unless action is taken.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  kcrucible
October 20, 2014 5:39 pm

Hi Kcrucible,
I appreciate your perspective, but it seems to include a lot of assumption: “And if a state stipulates, “There is a 1% chance of being impacted by climate change” then FEMA and the EPA will disagree, and force them to change their statement to what they expect. The net result is 50 states that all agree that climate change is likely to spell doom unless action is taken.”
Not intending to be argumentative, but this administration will not always be in power. So by trying to look at this specific request without a preconception, it just comes across as a prudent and reasonable data gathering request.
Climate change doesn’t necessarily have to lead to negative consequences but an analysis of the known changes and related land use modifications isn’t negative in my eyes.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 6:02 pm

Which brings us back to what FEMA considers the threat; an inadequate response is only inadequate relative to a previously determined threat.
A “we propose nothing as we are worried about nothing” denies the need for a plan. FEMA must already have at least thr parameters of threat determined. What are they? The latest missibe from Obama?
We need to know FEMA’s official position on CAGW. Anyone??

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Doug Proctor
October 20, 2014 6:53 pm

Although I respect your right your your opinion, I do not understand the need to know FEMA’s official position on CAGW as it relates to them requesting analysis and planning. I just don’t. I don’t have predisposition for or against FEMA as being some sort of enemy. I do however, have an expectation of a professionally run organization that has and will survive administrations of both Republicans and Democrats . As such, I have an expectation of them to do prudent due diligence. Maybe I’m pollyanna about this, but I don’t think I am. Or maybe, just maybe, FEMA is performing the very duty for which it was created. Is that something that can even be considered?

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 8:19 pm

Danny, since FEMA speaks, acts and has the power to punish other Americans on your behalf, and is threatening to do do, wouldn’t you like to know just what it is “your” position is?
Bureaucrats rule our world. Mostly they do this with secrecy, principally because the senior officer shifts with the political wind, and having an open rule or agenda or purpose limits future maneuvering. Here is an opportunity to understand an official position that has been given to them, not created by them.
If FEMA insist on a CC plan, then there is an expectation for each State; the answer may be up for debate, but the question is not.
Wouldn’t yoi like to know if deep down your government has slready decided, regardless of what might be learned, that 4.5C is the future to be feared?
Huge social, political and economic shifts are riding on what certain powerful people choose to bet YOUR future on. Wouldn’t it be in your interests to know what the bet is, as soon as possible?

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 3:16 pm

@Danny Thomas. There is no evidence that CO2 is warming the atmosphere let alone warming it to levels that would require any mitigation. No matter how much anyone says this people like you claim otherwise. What evidence of warming? You will reply glaciers melting even though they have been melting for hundreds of years (in case you don’t understand what that means, that means it is not CO2.) You will reply temperature record, even though the warming comes from cherry picked starting points, cherry picked datasets, and mathematical fudge factors (in case you don’t understand what that means, that means we are not measuring any “warming” and the 30’s and 40’s were likely significantly warmer), You will go on and on with evidence that doesn’t stand up to even basic scrutiny because you want to believe it so much. AGW doesn’t exist. Get over it.
The reason “we don’t care about anybody anymore” might be because 1) you didn’t bother measure how much people care about other people (which is why you like AGW science) and, 2) you think government intervention equals caring. It never occurs to people like you that government intervention could hurt people. (in case you don’t understand what that means, it means people who care about people could be fighting against government intervention). I care that’s why I tell everyone that there is no evidence of AGW.
This isn’t about science its just politics. You really seem like a troll.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  JohnnyCrash
October 20, 2014 7:23 pm

Is there zero room for alternative opinion on this site?
I don’t recall saying CO2 was causing warming, I did say there is evidence that warming is occurring. Since your post is based on your assumption that I meant it was CO2 caused, the balance of your comment is moot.
But to treat you as a reasonable person I’d like to respond to a few things. Is ice melting not an indication that warming is occurring at least in some locations? Are growing seasons becoming longer at least in some regions?
As you seemingly wish to present yourself as some sort of analytical, please provide proof that I’m a believer in AGW as I’m frankly not. I am a believer, in climate change (and it case you don’t understand that it means that it’s becoming different that what it was before) as the climate has changed throughout the history of our planet.
Your condescending tone is immature, and I really don’t care that you consider me to be a troll as I’ll just assume the bigger words were too tough for you.
I didn’t come to this site for a fight, but will not just stand by and be belittled by anyone. I do, however, thank you for providing irrefutable evidence that “we don’t care about each other”. The anonymity of the internet allows the immature to thrive and I see you’re doing quite well.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 3:37 pm

@ Danny…you write ” I reading through responses to my posts and comments towards others, there is plenty of “spewing” that add nothing to the conversation but only reinforce the bias of the poster and add absolutely no value. “.
There is always some sparring between comments and/or off topic remarks on threads. Most of the conversation stays well on topic and remains fairly polite, especially when compared to the many liberal media sites, many of whom censor comments from sceptics while the accepted believers can make any inane comment they wish to make, including derogatory comments against sceptics or anyone who does not agree with the way that they see it.

mike restin
Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 7:36 pm

You see Danny, many of us understand that since there is no enumerated power for FEMA to demand or threaten the states this is more federal BS.
Many of us recognize that the federal government bureaucracies are way out of bounds in most areas and need to stop creating more laws, rules and regulations.
The people within the EPA helped establish and run asue and settle scam.
The EPA director communicated with NGOs using a secret email address (Richard Windsor I believe) and somehow all the emails were lost and all the hard drives were destroyed.
Plus, having a lying thief writing and approving EPA rules is unsat. Any documents with John Beale’s fingerprints on them should be voided.
FEMA totally failed with Katrina and Super Storm Sandy and now you think we should want to give more money to mis-manage.
It goes to the core; the IRS, Border Patrol, State Department, Justice Department, Obama Care, VA, Secret Service, CDC, Terrorist Catch & Swap, Poorly Executed War Plans and the School Lunch Program.
I find it remarkable you have any faith in our federal government.
The worse part by far is their only plans to save us from Man Made Climate Change and therefore provide the world’s salvation is to give government more tax money to piss away.
or my favorite
make hundreds of billionaires out of poor Wall Street millionaires with a carbon trading scheme.
No one has explained how either of these solutions reduces floods and drought unless they plan on using the money to build more dams and levees.
Maybe we could ask the EPA to request permission from Sierra Club.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 8:19 pm

@ Danny Thomas
At the time I am posting this comment you have post 31. You have made it clear that you would like to see FEMA gain greater control over individual states with increased regulatory powers and all under the banner of ‘Climate Change’. Your comments reveal a firm belief in the political meme of climate change which is just one of the latest politically correct versions of the same meme. Others do nor share your views and most know that climate changes. It always changes. Been doing so for millions of years and will continue to do so.
With your 31 comments so far you have not made a convincing argument that FEMA should have the unyielding powers that you so desire. But I must admit that you have been very much engaged to express your views and desires.
But I ask, why do you feel the need to inject the political ‘climate change’ meme to those duties that FEMA has been tasked with and has been doing for years?

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 8:48 pm

What nonsense. There is not a shred of empirical evidence supporting the theory of runaway anthropogenic global warming (now parading under the banner of “climate change” as a replacement label for the warming scare that didn’t happen).
All of the climate models predicting CO-2-induced catastrophe have been thoroughy discredited. This is simply an attempt by FEMA to strong-arm the states into wasting tax money fighting an imaginary bogeyman that is making a lot of people rich, fattening universities and government agencies (read: NASA, NOAA, NSF) with research funding, destroying our power grid, and eviscerating what’s left of our crumbling economy.
Ten or 20 years from now people will look back on this scare and marvel at how humanity fell victim to the global warming hysteria. It’s sad to see so many otherwise rational adults victimized and made fools of by a self-serving cabal of scientific fraudsters and their political cronies.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 9:17 pm

kirkmeyers and others,
Exactly right. Excellent analyses.
Also, does anyone else here detect a beckleybud / H Grouse / Edward Richardson sockpuppet? Just wondering…

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 11:26 pm

Respectfully, the issue with the edict from FEMA does not lie in the assessing risk to locales based upon likelihoods of changes that might require mitigation.
The issue with the edict lies:
-first, in who determines how and by whom the cost of the planning is paid for, the states or FEMA/Feds (FEMA says they will provide grants, but only with guidance that they support/provide and on which the subsequent planning for implementation be based?);
-second, in who determines whether a suitable plan is being adopted with potentially costly mitigation steps that must be followed in each of five-year plans (hmmm…where have we heard of five year planning before…?);
-third, in who determines whether said FEMA-mandated five year plan is being followed with appropriate adherence (i.e. local monetary expenditures and local actions).
The encouragement to plan for rainy days, stock enough salt to plow the roads, and build dikes to prevent high water where storms cause high water would seem like excellent advice to me as well.
The heavy-handed threats throughout the edict are where most, be they Democrat or Republican,should be extremely concerned. Edicts like this one have a way of cutting both ways and hurting all involved. When issued by an organization whose mandate is to help everyone in times of emergency, regardless of cause of emergency, I am very alarmed.
If the federal government feels a threat to a populace within the federal boundaries is not being addressed (when local citizenry have the largest share of vested interest as it is their homes at stake), the federal government can and should step in with aid, not blackmail.

David A
Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 21, 2014 4:03 am

Danny, Please think.
First of all;…
Do you know that NOW all states (where such events happen) have plans for fires, flood, earthquakes, extreme snow, droughts, hurricanes etc.?
Do you know that none of these things are increasing?
Do you know many are currently decreasing?
Do you know that there has been zero mean SL rise off the coast of Calif over the past decades.?
Do you know that SL rise is actually slowing down?
To unconstitutionally blackmail states to write detailed planning based on all wrong computer models is mission creep for FEMA in the extreme. States should and do plan for such events. Those political leaders that do so poorly, should be voted out of office. FEMA is a classic example of Government failure that costs far more then it produces in benefits.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 21, 2014 7:49 am

Hi Danny. I think it’s a great idea, too, but only because it’s a way for the states to assert their sovereign rights and kick the government out. FEMA is unConstitutional. Period. 5 year plans re: AGW mean nothing. Stalin tried 5 year plans, too, and eventually that country failed.
States should start saving for those rainy days and not depend on the central government for anything. It can’t even run the Post Office. We’re talking another form of welfarism, except this time the states are the recipients. Time for everyone and every state to get off the government teet.
The only plan every state should have is what it’s going to do D.C. falls. DC can’t last much longer with its debt and mismanagement.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 21, 2014 9:54 am

@danny. There is a lot of room for different opinions on site. There are not many that share your desire to hand over more power to the government for any reason, much less a non existent one. If you are not a troll, then I apologize; however, you sure seem to be here just spout off the very basic populist cherry picked proxy evidence of climate change. You said you were on the fence, which means you give credence to the AGW argument, which is CO2. I argued against AGW since it is the basis FEMA is using here for another power grab. You want to call it regular old “climate change”, but FEMA is definately banking on the fact that people are thinking AGW.
Ice melting is not an indicator of warming, it is a proxy for many different things, one of which is warming. “warming” means the temperature is increasing. Ice melts once the temperature exceeds the freezing point. So you don’t know if the temperature is going up or down you just know it is warm enough to melt ice. However, are the glaciers melting or are they sublimating? Are they shrinking because snowfall is less but the melt/sublimation rate has stayed the same. Are they shrinking because of soot? Does the fact they have been melting for 150 years matter?
Again, growing seasons changing is a proxy for temperature. It could mean better farming techniques, more rain, more CO2 in the air, higher temperature (for some crops), more moderate temperature, etc. I am also trying to understand when we start saying growing seasons are changing. Are we going back 20 years, 50 years, 1000 years?
I used a condescending tone to match the tone and content of your posts. What got me was your repeated claims that you were so reasonable and intellectual and that you were firmly on the fence. So anyone not on the fence is not reasonable and intellectual. Then your reasons were straight off the evening news: melting glaciers and growing seasons!
Again, you had an epiphany that “no one cares about anyone.” That is a feeling, sir, not a measured quantity. Don’t you see the irony? Melting glaciers = stay on fence. One man’s interpretations of the reasons people don’t like FEMA = the reasons all people don’t like FEMA.
Anyone who does’t like FEMA does so because they care about people. Let me give you a little rundown. Katrina is the great example. Because of reliance upon government a bunch of people had no flood insurance, and did not prepare for a flood. Because everyone was afraid of looting, another job the gov fails at, everyone had a good reason to stay. During the event, the military did all the rescuing and riot suppression. FEMA then comes in after everything is over, and hands out money to people, which they use to buy supplies at walmart who had spent a week moving mountains of supplies across country all on their own because they saw what was happening long before anyone else. New Orleans is a perfect example of what happens with disaster money. For 50 years New Orleans had money for bigger sea walls, but the money “disappeared”. FEMA doesn’t save lives, it encourages people to be unprepared.
Normal people who live on the coast or below sea level choose on their own to purchase flood and hurricane insurance as needed. They also stock a week or two of supplies. They in fact take into account the climate and weather of the area as close to perfectly efficiently as is possible, without any need whatsoever for the government to get involved.

Mario Lento
Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 21, 2014 6:29 pm

Danny Thomas October 20, 2014 at 10:33 am wrote: Wow! I feel this is a good idea. By most indications climate change is occurring, but the question is the extent and how damaging or even IF damaging. I can’t see a real negative as most states not bounded by water will likely see growing season changes and the like, but that’s still a consequence so why not plan for it? Did I misread this:”assessing future risk in light of a changing climate and changes in land use and development.”
This comes across to me as prudent contingency planning
Danny: You sound like a nice guy. So I am going to respond to you a little here.
First, Climate change is a very specific strawman code word statement. It implies that CO2 is changing the climate and that it will heat up with a tipping point of no return. Recall not too long ago, the term was Global Warming. But when that stopped, the new political agenda was to point to changing climate – which CAN NOT EVER BE PROVED WRONG. I say that because climate always changes – and it has changed much more significantly than we see today –examples worse drought in the early 20th century, Medieval warming, Little Ice Age and so many more examples in recent history.
The only proof that CO2 caused warming is the models. The models are all known to be drastically wrong. Drastically! There has been 17 years of warming and 18 years of no warming through today –with more recent trend of cooling.
So planning for warming, at HUGE cost, when it only is happening in today’s models, not in reality, is fool hardy. It’s political. And politicians need useful pawns who want to be do gooders to enable them. The was a term used in politics called useful idiots. Well – today, most people are idiots when it comes to what they think about political issues.
When you say prudent, that is a code word which on the face of it sounds good,,, because prudent means “acting with or showing care and thought for the future.” It is designed to make you feel like you’re smart for agreeing with them. After all, who is against being prudent?
The problem with this so called prudent action is that the future is unknown. If anything, it would be much more prudent to plan for abundant cheap energy to keep people warm. Really people are dying in the hundreds of thousands from cold in northern areas because of the agendas put in place by pro AGW politicians. They agendas necessarily makes energy more expensive –much more expensive. So the supposed prudent planning is in fact killing people in an attempt to reduce CO2 to prevent what is NOT happening. The climate is not warming due to CO2. Rather CO2 is skyrocketing and the climate deviated from following the trend and is headed downward for who knows how long.
Note that the two countries in the industrialized world with the highest electrical prices are Denmark (wind turbines) and Germany (PV Solar). Germany is building many new brown coal plants in a PRUDENT attempt to get enough cheap energy to survive in the face of their not so prudent past green solar energy craze. Is it prudent to follow the recipe which now can only be mitigated by burning brown coal? Brown coal is much less clean than black coal.
It’s important to understand what’s happening in reality, not what people say that is based in nonsense. It is nonsense to “believe” we need to make HUGE COSTLY changes which will hurt the poorest people in an attempt to thwart something that is NOT happening!

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Mario Lento
October 21, 2014 7:56 pm

Thank you for a refreshingly reasoned response.
I’m new to this site and am unaware of the “hidden meaning” behind the term climate change to those who are not new. I appreciate that insight and can see how that can be assumed here when used by me as meaning something different than I intended. Heck, from what I’ve learned if the climate wasn’t changing that would be unusual.
On other sites, kind folks have shared much detail including graphs and charts and resources for me to use to learn.
I’m in agreement and have had a discussion that models are not effective. It seems that they average averages until a desired result is achieved. And by they, I’m referring to the CAGW folks. I’m familiar with the “hockey stick” and “the pause” and those certainly give me pause when I read the CAGW propaganda.
I don’t know how it’s come across that I’m a believer that CO2 is a hazard at this time. Please enlighten me as to what I’ve done to cause folks to assume they know what I’m thinking. If it’s due to talking in code it’s unintended.
I’m beginning to learn that both sides of this issue are political in nature leading to passionate, if misguided presumption. I knew that from what I’ve seen on the CAGW side and it’s been thrust upon me here.
This whole FEMA conversation comes across, from the direction of folks here, as some sort of “conspiracy theory” from the perception of this outsider.
I’m not those policy makers, and I appreciate what you’re saying. But wow, others have not been so kind in their foisting on me the decisions of others (as I’m sure you’ve seen). I’m human, too, and realize I’ve become needlessly defensive.
I saw the FEMA request as prudent and will research what you’ve shared. I am here to learn and will look elsewhere also. I know we cannot believe all we read or hear, so this has led me to my quest for information.
I don’t believe myself to be that idiot voter to whom you refer. I don’t buy the advertising, but instead seek out data from which I can base as reasoned of a decision as I’m capable of.
Prudent? Another code word? There are things that one cannot say here, and things one cannot say on CAGW sites. Based on the reaction I’ve had from most here, this is not a resource but instead is a blodgeon. Makes me wonder how many others seeking only information and not politics as usual have been turned away. Think this is something for the specific folks that have jumped all over me may be able to learn from if they’re capable of learning at all.
While I do not fully buy in to this side of the discussion I also do not buy in to the other side. But I am, and will continue to seek out education.
I truly thank you for your response!

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 23, 2014 9:31 am

Can we get back to the topic of Fema?
In support of my view that the FEMA request is reasonable.
The Department of Agriculture can provide from $150,000 to $500,000 to assist a rural community that has experienced a significant decline in quantity or quality of drinking water due to an emergency, or in which such decline is considered imminent, to obtain or maintain adequate quantities of water that meets the standards set by the Safe Drinking Water Act. This emergency is considered an occurrence of an incident such as, but not limited to, a DROUGHT, earthquake, flood, tornado, hurricane, disease outbreak or chemical spill, leakage or seepage. (CAPS MINE).
Both Brady, Texas, and Blanco, Texas have recently had such low water levels due to drought they’ve had to seek out alternative sources. (Just two examples, there are others in Texas).
There are reports that the state of Texas was aware of radioactivity in the Hickory Aquifer in such levels that recycling plants could not accept the used water pipes and water heaters from the area. There was a white paper detailing the hazard.
There is much distrust here towards the federal oversight but in Texas at least the state oversight is certainly no better so federal oversight is needed.
These are a couple of reasons for my support for the request. Since the Fed is often times where states turn to for assistance in matters such as these, then the fed gathering information is acceptable to me. Maybe FEMA is not the correct agency, but would the agency matter?

Mario Lento
Reply to  william
October 21, 2014 5:47 pm

Stop the Coming Revolution! Vote for change –away from today’s Liberalism.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
October 20, 2014 8:22 am

What a bunch of thugs in D.C. Divorced from reality, with a fawning media gushing over them.

October 20, 2014 8:24 am

States should demand that FEMA specify exactly what climate disasters they are referring to and prove they present a hazard, since the current most recent 15 year period suggests no such need. They should also demand that FEMA show authority to make such demands. Would be good to see a bunch of states (most likely the Southeastern states) join together to make these demands and refuse to be bullied by FEMA.

Reply to  Col Mosby
October 20, 2014 6:54 pm

Maybe a better option would be for the Southeastern and Southern, the entire Midwestern and half of the Western states join together and vote for the succession of the New England states as well as a couple around the Great Lakes and California. Those states that were voted out could name themselves whatever they want and would not have to worry about pesky states/populace being concerned over their new Progressive government run country.

October 20, 2014 8:24 am

Climate change covers a lot of ground. Wind storms, droughts, and surface temperature among them. If FEMA is concerned about temperature, the planning should focus on lower temperatures because, according to the climate reference network, the continental US has cooled slightly since the network was placed in service some years ago. If drought is the concern, the Palmer index says there is no trend. If hurricanes – down. If tornadoes – down. It seems that planning should focus on most “climate change” trends getting better and temperature getting lower.

October 20, 2014 8:24 am

“The risk assessment must provide a summary of the probability of future hazard events that includes projected changes in occurrences for each natural hazard in terms of location, extent, intensity, frequency, and/or duration. Probability must include considerations of changing future conditions, including the effects of climate change on the identified hazards.”
Perhaps FEMA would allow states to provide summaries as accurate as IPCC’s predictions have been.

Reply to  Dave
October 20, 2014 9:11 am

And how are the states to produce these probabilities? The GCMs endorsed by IPCC cannot predict ENSO, the AO or any other water circulation patterns that have such a large impact on our weather. This demand is totally asinine.

October 20, 2014 8:25 am

….that’s easy
Just say you’ve decided to do nothing…because nothing has changed

Ian W
Reply to  Latitude
October 20, 2014 9:59 am

There has been no change in global temperatures for 18 years and catastrophic events are reported to be at their lowest level. The precautions put in place and contingency disaster plans that this state created in 1996 are therefore adequate for the probability of any change in temperatures. A continuous watch will be maintained on global temperatures for the extremely low probability chance of any warming and, given the recent temperature trends, for the higher probability chance of cooling.
Should FEMA initiate any defunding of this State on the basis of invented “climate change” then an extremely public legal action will be taken against FEMA, FEMA directors in person, and the scientists who have been funded to provide data to them. As part of any such legal action an in depth discovery process is envisaged.

I think that some states have governors that would respond in that way – I hope so.

October 20, 2014 8:26 am

States should demand that FEMA provide specific predictions of climate change and demonstrate that they have a record of making accurate predictions in the past.

Reply to  arthur4563
October 20, 2014 1:07 pm

Wouldn’t that make too much sense, though?

Tom O
October 20, 2014 8:26 am

So does anyone have any idea if it is possible to resurrect even moron level intelligence in DC? I think the joke where the genie grants 3 people a wish, where the second one was to put a 100 foot impregnable wall around DC to protect it, and the 3rd, when he was assured that the wall would prevent anything from passing through it said “fill it with water,” is really not a bad idea. 6 billion people could breathe a sigh of relief, and 300 million could perhaps find freedom again.

October 20, 2014 8:28 am

Use some special wordsmithing to allude to FEMA masters being one of the main risk factors. Or go over the top with the wording so that it becomes a parody of FEMA authoritarian demands. It was done this way around the edges of the Soviet fist, in that earlier era of official state insanity.

October 20, 2014 8:29 am

I think the offense is more accurately termed extortion, not blackmail. Blackmail would entail the states having done something they were ashamed of.
Secondly, this may be a sign that FEMA does not have enough to do. Any crisis worthy of attention seems now to be done by Czars, from the Ebola Czar down to the Asian Carp Czar.

Rob Potter
October 20, 2014 8:29 am

But that’s easy:
“In the next five years we expect the same level of risk for climate-related damage as we have had for the last 50 years”
Now give me my money!

Joel O’Bryan
October 20, 2014 8:32 am

The NCA will be the relevat document for planning.
Solutio: vote.

October 20, 2014 8:36 am

Yes it is easy: risk = 0. Next!

October 20, 2014 8:42 am

The states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana need to immediately prepare a mitigation/disaster avoidance plan for the expected 10 meter rise in sea levels prognosticated by Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Catastrophe. /sarc

Reply to  Phil
October 20, 2014 1:47 pm

I live in Idaho and my plan for that rise is to find a nice acreage near the new coast and build a bed and breakfast.

Two Labs
October 20, 2014 8:42 am

“We’re desperately trying to justify our own funding, not to mention our very existence.” That was in there somewhere, right?

October 20, 2014 8:42 am

They just have to put every plan they already have for climate related disasters (hurricanes, flood, fire,…) under the label climate plan. Change the label, get the funding!

October 20, 2014 8:49 am

You know, it says “climate change”, not global warming. I would love it if some state addresses cooling instead of warming in their plan.

Reply to  ScottR
October 20, 2014 10:33 am

That was my thought too, given that it is more likely to happen than warming at this point in time.

Reply to  ScottR
October 20, 2014 1:16 pm

No planning makes any sense unless there was enough evidence to support a large change in the climate, which would be either unusually cold or warm for a length of time. Otherwise, FEMA may as well be saying that we need to be prepared for this upcoming winter, after which we will need to prepare for the upcoming heat of summer, that will then be followed by preparations for the next winter. Mankind has already learned how to handle the changing of the seasons. The main times where mankind has suffered from changes in the climate is when it has been extra cold for a prolonged period of time. The occasional long lasting drought is the only worry from a warmer world.

October 20, 2014 8:50 am

This is well poisoning by Mr. Obama as he seeks to infest every aspect of government with climate alarmist garbage. He hopes to do this so thoroughly that it will take years and much effort to clear his parasites out of government.

Patrick B
October 20, 2014 8:51 am

So the States just need to add one sentence to their plans: “Our plan to address climate change is to observe global temperatures for changes. Given the lack of any change in global temperatures for the last 18 years, our plans for the next 5 years is to continue to observe global temperatures.”

October 20, 2014 8:52 am

I thought the U.S. government was forbidden from instituting a state religion?

October 20, 2014 8:52 am

“five-year plan”. Isn’t that what they had in the USSR and China? It worked a treat for them!

October 20, 2014 8:54 am

First of all FEMA is mis-named. It really should be named the “Federal Emergency Mis-Management Agency”. It and it’s brother agency the EPA, are employing a little known policy technique called FERN (Federal Enforcement of Ridiculous Nonsense).

Reply to  greymouser70
October 20, 2014 10:02 am

FEMA is the disaster police. They do little for evacuation or preparedness. They show up late, days late sometimes. They are overwhelmed by hurricanes. Tornadoes they can handle. By handle I mean they show up, distribute ice and MREs and will help you find a FEMA trailer if your house is gone. Useful help yes, for the ill-prepared. Is their money reason for states to bow to the AGW alter, no.

Reply to  RobRoy
October 20, 2014 10:54 am

RobRoy: Have you ever tried to live in a FEMA trailer? I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy. Most of them are about 35′ long and about 8′ wide and can be towed by a 3/4 ton pick up. They tend to fall over on their sides in high winds unless well secured to the ground. Most of them have a 3 burner gas stove a bath w/ shower that’s about 5’X4′, a narrow bunk bed, and if you are lucky a separate bedroom for the head of the household. Granted for temporary housing they are OK. But how long was it before the last person moved out of his FEMA trailer after Katrina?

Danny Thomas
Reply to  greymouser70
October 20, 2014 11:10 am

I’m new to the Watt’s related sites and am here to seek out knowledge. I’ve seen sites oriented towards GW and AGW. This preface is so you’ll understand that I’m not just a troll trying to spin things up.
Please help me understand the negative perspective of the EPA. I grew up in the 70’s when I couldn’t eat the fish out of a favorite haunt near Galveston, Texas due to pollution. My understanding is the EPA was formed in 1970 as a result of the need to stop poisoning of our common resources of land, water and air. Due to their involvement, pollution has been reduced now making things safer for us all.
Some have indicated organizations like FEMA and EPA are an infringement on “states rights”. Back in the 60’s and 70’s if one state wanted to use a river as it’s personal waste disposal system it could and that stuff just wound up downstream and the next state had to deal with it.
I don’t understand the perspective that I’m receiving from your post and asking honestly why folks are so against what seems to me to be a necessity.

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 11:54 am

Under the “Rivers and Harbors Act” of 1899, the Federal Government already had the authority to deal with pollution. In typical government fashion, “if a little is good, more is better”, and the principal effect was to delgate responsibility for determining “what and how much” to the bureaucracy, enabling congresscritters to say “Hey, it wasn’t me” when a particularly onerous decision was made. Despite, of course, the fact that Congress retains the power to overide if they wished.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  D.J. Hawkins
October 20, 2014 12:04 pm

Hi DJ,
I’m not familiar with the 1899 law to which you refer, but I can tell you that I have seen a change personally since the 1970’s and it’s been a much much needed change to the positive, so I can only base personal perceptions on that.
If I’m understanding you correctly, I believe you are saying that the EPA is just a “cover” for our representatives to hide behind when tough decisions are made all the while not taking advantage of their retained power to make changes. Can’t say there might not be something to that perception.
Does this impression of yours (assuming I got it at least near what you’d intended) lead you to be okay with the FEMA request, or against and then may I ask what leads you to that conclusion?
I’m trying to gain further understanding of how folks think about this?

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 12:54 pm

Danny: The EPA was created in the early 70’s primarily because some states were very pro-active in their response to pollution issues and others weren’t (or could have cared less). The passage of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act(CAA) gave the Federal government oversight over the states, and whether it was proper or not forced the states to comply with their own laws and imposed federal standards for pollution levels. Those two acts are primarily responsible for you being able to eat the fish you caught in Galveston Bay. They are also responsible for Pittsburgh, PA having clear skies instead of gray soot-filled air 24 hours a day. These are all good and worthwhile outcomes. However, the EPA has, in the last several years, become an activist agency that has (in the minds of a large number of people) exceeded it’s statutory powers by proposing and promulgating regulations that have very questionable scientific logic for these rules and regulations.The latest brouhaha is over the EPA ruling that (under the “powers” given to it by the CAA) Carbon Dioxide, a “Green House Gas” and a substance that is necessary for plant and animal life; is now considered to be a “pollutant” and thus must be regulated. This, in the minds of many of us here at WUWT, is simply going way beyond what the CAA says the EPA can do. Especially since the EPA did not even follow it’s own rules regarding proposed rules making.
Regarding FEMA’s proposed edict requiring states to consider “Climate Impacts” and detailing how they would “mitigate” such impacts in their 5-year emergency management plans and holding over their heads the threat they would lose federal funding for emergency relief is the same tactic that the Federal Highway Administration used force states to raise the drinking age to 21 or they would lose a significant amount of their federal highway funds. This is one area that could be construed to be a “states rights” issue. Further the term “Emergency Management” is an oxymoron. If something is ‘managed” it is not an “emergency” and FEMA has in the past been shown to be very poor managers of emergency response efforts.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  greymouser70
October 20, 2014 1:13 pm

Hi Grey,
Thank you.
As with any governmental agency, there is some good, some bad, and some mediocre. Not much different from any other large entity public or private.
So much of what I’ve read is so politically motivated that I can’t believe that even the posters believe all that they are saying. Folks have an inherent need to “win” even if they’re wrong. Bias just creeps in.
Can you share where the EPA has decided that CO2 is pollutive and no longer considered beneficial? I’d love to read up on that. I have a voice and am not afraid to use it (although getting in to that with one with much more scientific based education would likely lead to me getting my butt kicked).
Loved the quote about “emergency management”. I appreciate the thinking about the heavy handedness of the request but I did read “may” in the article and didn’t take it as threatening as some seem to have. I would wonder about what the responsiveness would be if a heavy hand wasn’t used. In our divisive nation, I could see blue responding to blue under the current admin and red responding to red should that administrative change occur.
I sense a distinct anti blue tone on this format which I see in reverse on the “other side’s” sites so this comes as no surprise.
I’m just hoping that if we all become “independent” in our thinking about this topic we might see some good in it and not all bad. I didn’t read “climate impacts” as warming. I read it as “potentially warming”, increasing CO2, melting glaciers, Arctic melting/Antarctic ice increases, etc. In other words, as a fence sitter I can see both sides. Rest assured, I speak no differently on the formats that lean different than this one.
Since we look to our government (meaning federal for this purpose) to address things for us, then I can see a valid need for them going to the states for input as each state will likely have differing impacts and differing solutions. As these could affect pollution, commerce, response, etc. I in looking at this as apolitically as I can, can see valid reasons for the request. Climate isn’t localized enough for it to be only a state issue in my eyes, and as there’s zero chance for any sort of global consensus as to the extent of the issue (or even if it’s an issue) then the fed is kinda the middle ground. (Hope that’s clear enough).

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 1:34 pm

@ Danny…just keep reading here at WUWT, and you will be able to gain understanding of what the global warming/climate change debate is all about.
I posted this next bit up above, but it also will fit here in answer to your question “No planning makes any sense unless there was enough evidence to support a large change in the climate, which would be either unusually cold or warm for a length of time. Otherwise, FEMA may as well be saying that we need to be prepared for this upcoming winter, after which we will need to prepare for the upcoming heat of summer, that will then be followed by preparations for the next winter. Mankind has already learned how to handle the changing of the seasons. The main times where mankind has suffered from changes in the climate is when it has been extra cold for a prolonged period of time. The occasional long lasting drought is the only worry from a warmer world.”.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  goldminor
October 20, 2014 5:33 pm

Hi Goldminor,
Thanks for that. I saw your original post and appreciated your view.
Humans are human and folks like to “win”. But there is an obvious orientation to this site. Heck, even the title says:”FEMA edict to U.S. states: ‘Provide a Climate Plan or Lose Funding”, but that’s not what the article says. Much respect to Anthony Watt, but what I saw said “May lose funding”. I cannot imagine that so called “red” states would contribute w/o a potential “hammer” over them, and I’d guess (only a guess) that blue states might have copious amounts of “data” to contribute. But all that is more of the same that we tend to get in this society.
What is the harm in asking for 50 perspectives? Without some prodding, sometimes folks just ignore what they see with their own eyes because they’re swayed by the forces of support of those that think the same as they do. (Maybe I should be on a site for “fence sitters”, but I’m not aware of one—-joking of course).
Preparing for land use, based on the expanding growing seasons (for example) just seems prudent to me. That is a fact based on recent recordings as opposed to the more undefined “winter”.
I’d foresee a true uproar if this kind of question wasn’t asked. I’m trying to be unbiased in my analysis of things like this, but I cannot say that many others are doing the same. And, to be clear, that propensity doesn’t exist only on this site.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 2:01 pm

Danny: A quick Google search of “EPA Endangerment Finding re: CO2” should give you plenty of reading material. The Google search turns up both pro and con assessments of the finding. From what I have learned over the years and as a geologist is that CO2 is a necessary component of life on Earth. Trying to regulate CO2 as a pollutant is one thing, but tying that assessment that it will lead to Catastrophic Warming and Climate Disasters is quite another. Indirect evidence indicates that for most of the past 500 million years CO2 levels have been above 1000ppm and global temperatures have been near 24° C. We are at nearly the lowest temperature and CO2 levels in that long stretch of time.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  greymouser70
October 20, 2014 6:03 pm

Hi Greymouser70,
I’ve read some about CO2. Some comes across to me as fairly common sense, some is waaaay over my head. From my understanding, some CO2 good, too much bad. Neanderthal in my thinking as I’m not a scientist. But once, our planet was much like Venus in it’s atmosphere, and I don’t think we’d do well. Those are extremes and not what I perceive as being what FEMA is asking the states to do.
But I must have missed this in the article:”Trying to regulate CO2 as a pollutant is one thing, but tying that assessment that it will lead to Catastrophic Warming and Climate Disasters is quite another.”
We may indeed be at the low end of those historical “ranges” but climate change appears to be occurring based on at least some evidence. My research does not lead me to expect that change to be catastrophic, but prudent planning for any change that we can document doesn’t seem wrong minded.
I see a heavy handed request for assessment and proposed response to climate change. I’m not seeing that is specifies “global warming”. This is part of my point. It seems that many are reading this article differently than I and I’m hoping to talk about why that is. If it’s “just politics” then I probably don’t stand much chance of finding an unbiased conversation and that’s what I’m hoping for. As there is no “fence sitters” website that I’m aware of, I am stuck with being considered a “troll” on sites that lean as this one does, and sites that lean away.
My quest is for reasonable conversation, and I’ve found much of that here. I’ve also read the name calling (liberal is a name, troll is a name,) and I’m okay with that as I am not thin skinned. (Oh, and I’m am liberal in some matters but conservative in others). But I also see a pretty high level of intelligence here and hence retain hope that I can find others that will look at this with me (not for me) and discuss the issues in an unbiased way.
I appreciate your sentiment and mean no ill in my perspective of what you offered.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 2:19 pm

Basically the EPA did its job cleaning up the air and water from real pollution. But now, they keep looking for new things to regulate, and have been given the job of regulating CO2 as a pollutant – CO2 was declared a pollutant by our supreme court in an offhanded way.
The EPA also keeps re-defining pollutants, making not dangerous levels into dangerous levels of things like mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide, etc. There are certain levels that are acceptable – you can’t get to 0.0%, and don’t really need to.
And, if you think CO2 is a pollutant, you are mistaken and I can’t help you there.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
October 20, 2014 6:18 pm

Where did I say CO2 was a pollutant? I said it’s increasing. And the rate of increase is increasing. I base this on personal research from the NOAA site.
I’m okay with the EPA redefining pollutants because as science and technology changes so do the things that are created. Some are not considered pollutants at the time of their development, but later are found to be.
I can’t say I’m comfortable with allowing anyone to put anything in to our water, air, etc. without safeguards. Who’s the preferred overseer if not the EPA? Business? I’ve lived through that once and it led to unsafe air, water, and land. There are many scientifically oriented minds on this forum, but not all of us are. With that in mind it seems the “trust but verify” adage comes in to play.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 3:00 pm

@ J.Philip Peterson: Regarding the reduction of pollutants. You correctly note that it is impossible to get to 0.0%. You can spend $75 Billion to get the level to 0.5%. But to get it to 0.01% you would probably have to spend $200 Billion. There is a phrase in economics called “the point of diminishing returns” which basically states that the expenditure of money to get to set figure (say 95% of what ever your goal is) it will cost X dollars. To get to 99% of your goal it will cost you the same amount of dollars as it took you to get to 95%. The same principle applies to reducing pollution levels. But we are getting off the main topic here.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 3:05 pm

The EPA has declared CO2 a pollutant and made draconic laws about that. Far from the original work

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 6:34 pm

Danny Thomas,
This is a science site. In fact, this is the internet’s Best Science & Technology site for the past 3 years running.
That being the case, your opinion matters little — unless you have measurements to back it up.
Therefore, please post empirical, testable measurements showing the global harm, if any, resulting from the rise in CO2.
Take your time. You may need to do a lot of research, because no one else has been able to identify any global harm from CO2.
And if the rise in CO2 has not caused any harm… then it is “harmless”, no?
We can post verifiable measurements showing that the rise in CO2 has been beneficial to the biosphere: the planet is measurably greening as a direct result of more CO2.
Therefore, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial. We get it free of charge. Life could not even exist without it. CO2 is as essential to life as H2O.
So please explain: where does your “pollution” comment come from?
But first, post those measurements of global harm — if you’ve got ’em.
If not, well, then get in line with all the other debate losers. Lots of company there.
CO2 is harmless at current and projected concentrations, and CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere.
^That^ is a testable hypothesis. Falsify it — if you can. Using scientific evidence, of course.
Otherwise, you’re either on the wrong site of the debate, or you will have to admit that the demonization of “carbon” [CO2] has been so thoroughly deconstructed, that only scientific illiterates still parrot that nonsense.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 20, 2014 7:03 pm

I’m beginning to believe that one that is not of the “beliefs” of those here is only to be ridiculed. If you are one of the so called “scientific” then I challenge you to show where I said the increase in CO2, or the rate of increase in the increase of CO2 is harmful. I look forward to that. And in responding in kind to your condescending tone. I’ll be happy to wait.
The pollution to which I was referring was in many forms prior to the EPA, oil and distillates, benzenes, freon, etc. I’ll not bother to list others as I believe that if you read what I wrote and not what you assume I mean, it will suffice.
There is no need to be disrespectful if one disagrees. This article is about FEMA’s request to have the states provide analysis an planning. I don’t see CO2 referred to in the request, and sans proof I have no predisposition about what FEMA intends to do with said information and planning.
I sought out this site for intelligent conversation, but at the risk of being “booted” I think that you should look in the mirror and see if you can find your “scientific mind”. Disrespect intended, as disrespect was received.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 7:04 pm

“Back in the 60’s and 70’s” was about 50 years ago. While you are time traveling can you toss in something about slavery and something else that you may have on your mind at the moment.
We are at the end of 2014 now.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  eyesonu
October 20, 2014 7:08 pm

Wow. I see the level that some will stoop when unable to speak intelligently on a topic. Deflect.
I see zero evidence in this post so what’s your point? Just wanna spin me up? Wrong address, return to sender.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 7:17 pm

FEMA’s entire job – and the billions they spend each year doing it – are specifically intended to make it LOOK LIKE FEMA is trying to prevent and solve future problems. I’m a trained and certified FEMA emergency responder.
No, they do NOT mean anything in this 55-mile-per-hour-requirement EXCEPT require funding for their trained puppies non-government-planning-agencies to be able to force the states and local governments to SPEND MONEY to hire thousands of CAGW-approved “bureaucratic experts” to “create approved plans” by “certified bureaucratic experts” (in CAGW of course) to “plan for” non-existent problems in non-existent areas against the future climate catastrophes that CAGW invents.
It is NOT hurricane or flooding or drought planning. It IS “spend-more-money-on-the-administration’s-central-planning network-of-university-funded-university-trained-central-planners” …. And I have been in their classrooms and lecture halls and offices. And police departments. And agencies.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  RACookPE1978
October 20, 2014 7:32 pm

Hi Ra,
I appreciate your perspective. I too, have spent a fair amount of time involved with governmental agencies, but they are not all bad as is being portrayed. I’m not intending to be any sort of apologist as I agree that bureaucrats tend to create bureaucracy out of self interest.
But “their entire job” is just too encompassing. I wish we could trust the states to take on the challenge, but based on my experience that trust was lost. I assume your 1978 has significance and it does to me too (assuming I’m correct). Did we not have common experience that led us (our representatives of that time) to feel the need to create this entity?
Ah, well we could damn the existence of many of the very entities you describe (Universities, law enforcement agencies, etc.) if that were the only criteria. Say la vie.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 7:21 pm

Danny Thomas,
I am not ridiculing you. I simply challenged you to post any measurements you might have, showing that CO2 causes global harm.
But your attitude is clear: you believe that CO2 is a pollutant. Following your [measurement-free] disclaimer, you write:
I’m okay with the EPA redefining pollutants…
Well, I am not OK with that. CO2 is not a pollutant by any reasonable definition.
Life could not exist without CO2. Further, CO2 is at it’s lowest concentration in the entire geological record. The biosphere is starved of CO2: more is better. We need more CO2, not less.
Opinions that are not based on facts and evidence have little credibility here. They are merely baseless assertions. We can find those anywhere.
If you want credibility, post measurements.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 20, 2014 7:42 pm

You have belittled me. I’ve stated I’m no scientist, but I’ve spent hours on the NOAA website and CO2 has increased based on the Mauna Loa sampling station since 1958. And in the past decade the rate of increase has increased. Go do the research for yourself as you’ll never believe that one so stupid as I could possibly be accurate.
And again, I challenge you and your analytical mind to prove where I said that those amounts of CO2 were harmful. Actually, I believe the term I used was beneficial.
I sought this site for learning but as I’m not a member of the BORG (look it up if you don’t get the reference) I must be destroyed.
At least the folks at Curry treat people like people and not like enemies. But my mistake and bad on me for assuming I’d find reasonable intelligent conversation instead of talking down.
Look in the mirror my friend, look in the mirror.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 7:46 pm

Danny says:
You have beliettled me.
Before, you said you were being ridiculed. All I really want is a measurement to support everything you are arguing. But you have posted not one single measurement. So spare me the thin-skinned hurts. Be a stand-up guy, and either post measurements, or admit that everything you have said is your personal assertions, and nothing more. Measurements, or no measurements. Binary: Yes/No. Either/Or. You got ’em, or you don’t.
Then you say:
I wish we could trust the states to take on the challenge, but based on my experience that trust was lost.
Huh? “Trust”?? Where did that come from?
The federal government expropriated states rights when it arbitrarily gutted the 10th Amendment.
The result was an explosion in the federal bureaucracy’s drone numbers. The deadweight there is astounding. If 90% of all federal ‘workers’ were surplused tomorrow, the states could easily take up any slack. That’s how the Constitution was written; this is the United STATES, not the United Feds. To the extent that we get away from the Constitution’s original intent, we the citizens lose out to the rent-seekers in the federal bureaucracy.
Because federal employyees are, by and large, rent seekers who feather their own nests at the expense of productive citizens. We certainly do not need self-serving bureaucrats to insert themselves into a debate like this where one side — theirs — has not one corroborating measurement! Their entire argument consists of baseless assertions. That’s why they have already lost the debate.
Finally, it’s clear that this is the only climate site you’ve ever visited. Because you are being treated with kid gloves here. Try going on SkS or any alarmist blog, and tell them your scienti9fic view is that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere; there is no measurable downside.
You really don’t know what being insulted is. Here, your feet are just being held to the fire of scientific veracity, and you don’t like it. That’s all.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 20, 2014 7:53 pm

Do your own research. States treat, and have throughout the history of this country, neighboring states as waste disposals. States steal water, and so on.
I trust state no more than I do the fed. and in some cases less.
If your argument is that states have no waste in their bureaucracies, then I just plain call bunk and will waste no further time on your nonsensical posts.
You owe me an apology and I doubt you have that ability in you. So lacking that. Move on.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 21, 2014 5:23 am

I was curious if there was a pseudo scientist on this thread that could read, so I left it for overnight. I wake up and check and see that no one has proven where I said CO2 was harming the planet. I’ve been challenged my many to do this or that and I may indeed, but NOT until one, just one of you shows where I said that.
Take a look in the mirror folks. I said I’m no scientist and am told this is a “scientific site”. Is that not belittling?
I shared personal knowledge of the 70’s and am told it’s 2014. Guess history only matters if it supports “Your” side of the discussion? Finally, when someone calls me “Danny Boy” and I stoop to that level I’m called out.
There are so many hypocrites here it’s not funny. And DB, you’re one of the biggest.
I’m not providing any data till YOU show me the answer to my above question.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 21, 2014 10:14 am

Okay pseudo scientist. I left this thread alone and waited over night to see if you’ve learned to read. Apparently not, as I’ve asked you multiple times to show where I said once. Just once. That I said CO2 increases were causing global warming.
Once you have decided to stop being a hypocrite and asking others to do what you are unwilling to do yourself, we’ll talk. Until you “prove” that what you’re saying I said is true, nothing else that you have to offer is valid.
Happy to wait!

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 8:11 pm

Danny T,
I owe you an apology? OK then, I apologize that you found it necessary to stray onto non-science subjects.
Let’s cut to the chase: either you have measurements to support your assertions… or you don’t.
If you don’t, then you would be better off just reading comments from folks here who closely follow the scientific evidence. Learn something from them. Most have followed this debate for a long time, and they are up to speed on the evidence. By your own admission, you’re not up to speed on the subject.
So if, as you say, you are giving only a layman’s unscientific opinion, then you probably got it from the media, no? Where else? Maybe an alarmist blog? If we wanted that, we could just buy the New York Times.
This is a science site, and one of the very best. All manner of climatologists, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, geologists, and others educated in the hard sciences give reasons here for their views. We always ask them for scientific evidence, and empirical measurements. Because without them, it is nothing but someone’s assertion. Their uneducated opinion. And you know what they say about opinions…
So you can be ‘insulted’ and ‘belittled’ when someone asks you for verifiable facts. But you are deflecting from answering a straightforward question, which has been repeated several times.
If you don’t have any facts, and you are just pontificating with baseless assertions, that’s OK. But don’t expect to change any minds here without scientific evidence. And so far, you have posted none at all.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 21, 2014 6:12 am

The EPA completed its good work on the air and water by 1977. Since then it has been in bureaucratic mission creep and institutionally captured by the watermelon environmentalists. They have contorted the plain language of their authorizing legislation into a complete caricature of its original intent. They have been implicit in the expansion of their remit through highly questionable coordination with litigants to expand the definitions of their authority in the law.
Humans have evolved with environmental hazards. We let things get out of control in the 1900-1970 period but those issues took a very short time to reverse. We are now getting into the ridiculous territory of cleanliness standards that never existed in nature. A case in point: The ozone standard for the Los Angeles valley – when the first Spanish explorers arrived, it was already a smoggy place, as the scrubby pine trees along the rim emit ozone as a byproduct. The early photographs of the area (hint: long before the automobile) already show a hazy brown sky in the area, but the EPA wants the air to be nearly ozone-free.
The states were never legally able to “use a river as its personal waste disposal system”. The fact that previous common law provisions were not used in a tort to make amends was not an excuse to rewrite the federal system to remove state ability to regulate. All the dumping actions were illegal since about 1400 in the English Common Law that our legal system is based upon. Add to that the Teddy Roosevelt era Waterways Act and there are all the levers already in place to handle this. The problem was always the will to enforce provisions of common law. (Granted cases originating solely within common law are much more difficult to argue, but once precedence is set the subsequent cases are easier.) This pattern of not enforcing standards with the existing tools and then passing even more intrusive law to “tackle this pressing issue” is a pattern that has dominated the 20th and now the 21st centuries.
Abolishing the EPA and replacing it with a much smaller office of enforcement at the Department of Justice is a much better way to handle this area. It would also force Congress to actually legislate the individual regulations and quit allowing unelected bureaucrats to write law. If they did this with all the departments, the Code of Federal Regulations would finally be able to fit on one desk. As it is, the CFR amounts to the tyranny of law that several of our founders warned about. It is hard to say you are truly free if you have probably unknowingly violated 20 laws or regulations before breakfast.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 21, 2014 10:39 am

Danny Thomas [H Grouse? Edward Richardson?] writes that he never said CO2 was bad. But he wrote:
….some CO2 good, too much bad.
Without defining “too much”, that is just a worthlerss opinion. Worthless, because it could mean anything.
Danny writes:
Where did I say CO2 was a pollutant? I said it’s increasing. And the rate of increase is increasing.
That sounds like fear. Fear of a harmless, beneficial trace gas. So what if it is increasing? If your bank account is increasing, would you be afraid? You need to cite whatever you believe is harmful about CO2. Based on all available evidence, some of us think that more CO2 is a net benefit. We can quantify that with measurtements; the planet is greening due to the rise in CO2. But that scares you. Why?
The reason people are responding to you like they are is because of your non-answers. Repeating what we hear in the media all day, evey day, gets us nowhere. This is a science site, it isn’t People Magazine’s gossip thread. If you have a position you will have to defend it, without resorting to complaints about how folks should respond to you.
The problem is that you are giving us nothing but mass market pablum. If you want respect, start producing scientific facts, measurements, and evidence. We hear baseless opinions on the news all day, every day. Start backing up your opinions with facts, and you will do OK here.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 21, 2014 11:00 am

So you’re admitting you’re fallible? Can you say, you’re wrong? Do you have that in you?
You’re presuming I am in fear of the fact that CO2 is increasing based on the Mauna Lau sampling site with data dating back to 1958, and that those rates have increased in the past decade. If you’ll look back, you’ll see I provided that source to you before. I went through each and every year.
Based on the way you’ve responded, I didn’t bother to send it to you as you’d just find some way to try to make sure I’m wrong and you’re right. So by sharing the source, you could go and do as I have done and research it with your own eyes.
And further, if you have indeed gained the ability to read, you will find that I posted in the comments that I actually do agree that some increase in CO2 can be beneficial. But no, you chose to try to slight me when all the while it is you who is being obstinate and not doing your research.
Go look. I’ll wait.
And while you’re there, please provide an exact quote where I have cited “media” as you term it. I’ve not read a People magazine in lots and lots of years. And I’ve not been afraid to tell you and everyone here that I’m no scientist. I’m not afraid to admit my shortcomings. But at least I’ve gone to NOAA of my on volition as I know that I don’t know it all so I’m willing to learn. Apparently that’s a foreign concept to you. And, when I find one not as knowledgeable as I in certain topics it’s a teaching moment and not an opportunity to scorn, belittle, and castigate.
My FACTS are provided above. Once you’ve done your legwork and learn to be reasonable, this can continue. Just as I said before, whether you like it or not, people just don’t care about other people any more and you are proving to be a classic example.
Instead of being a blowhard, prove what I said to be wrong. Don’t interject your assumptions, like stating that I FEAR the increase in CO2. I was led to that research to find out what was happening. Fact. It’s increasing. Fact. The rate of increase is increasing. Fact. I do not fear that increase (at this time).
I’m happy to bring up the level of this conversation, but I’m also happy to stoop to whatever level at which you want to continue. Your choice.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 21, 2014 11:27 am

Danny Thomas
October 21, 2014 at 11:00 am
Now, now. Let us all – as you requested up above in your string of comments – be “independent” thinkers.
Don’t just mimic what the government has paid people to mimic.
OK. So, you claim CO2 levels have increased since 1958. Yes, they have.
But, before those measurements, CO2 was steady.
Temperatures went up over 15-20 year intervals,
Temperatures were steady over 10-15 year intervals,
Temperatures went down over 60 year and 1000 year periods.
Today, as CO2 levels increased measurably,
Temperatures went up over one 22 year period,
Temperatures were steady over a 15 year period, and over what is now a 18 year period,
Temperatures went down over a 20 year period.
So, CO2 has increased since 1958.
That has fed many billion people and improved the lives of everyone on the planet.
What do you fear so much that you want tens of thousands to die every year for 86 years, just to avoid “possible” (unnamed!) hazards that “might” happen after the turn of the century?

Danny Thomas
Reply to  RACookPE1978
October 21, 2014 11:47 am

Well said. What do I fear? My answer: Nothing, at this time. Your assumption is that I do fear it. My question? Is that not a presumption on your part? Especially since I’m stating clearly that I do not fear it.
And the comment that I want: “tens of thousands of people to die” is ludicrous, but I ask anyway, based on what? Where did I say that? Are you not putting words in to my mouth? Where am I wrong?

Danny Thomas
Reply to  RACookPE1978
October 21, 2014 12:24 pm

I wrote this for DB, but since it applies so well to you, thought I’d share:
“Honestly, your bias is showing. I’ve done nothing and stated nothing that indicates I fear CO2 levels based only on my own research.
You assume you know me or that you know I have a motive and you know nothing about me.
If there is one good “scientist ” here who’s basing their analysis on data and not on assumptions, bias or predisposition, that good “scientist” is ME. Either act like a scientist, or give up the name because the way you are behaving is the opposite of being a good scientist. And that comes from me, a non-scientist who obviously acts more like one that you.
Quit being a hypocrite. You chastise me for not doing my research and not supporting some thesis that you think I support and then you don’t do your research and base your findings on NOTHING. Come on man, even if you can’t find a way to have a realistic conversation with others due to the cover of the shield of anonymity of the internet then at least be real with yourself.”
I said it last night and I’ll say it again today. Apologies are in order, and I’m looking forward to receiving yours is you’re a stand up person of any substance.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  RACookPE1978
October 22, 2014 5:06 pm

You asked me to think about this and I have.
I’ve been mulling over your comments towards me about “me being responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people”. While I appreciate your giving me credit for some amazing level of power and influence I assure you I don’t.
I’ve done some number crunching and find that the top “energy sector” companies in the world using this definition:”DEFINITION OF ‘ENERGY SECTOR’
A category of stocks that relate to producing or supplying energy. This sector includes companies involved in the exploration and development of oil or gas reserves, oil and gas drilling, or integrated power firms.” from this website:http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/energy_sector.asp.
Using this source for what’s considered the TOP 250:http://top250.platts.com/, plus I added several that Forbes considered to be part of their top 25 (about 10 of them not included in the Platts). Then adding a few companies like Koch, GE, Westinghouse and a couple others I discovered they generated well over $450 Billion USD of PROFIT in 2013.
To be clear, I’m not anti capitalism. But if say 1% of those profits were used would not those same “tens of thousands of people” not be better served than if I voted as YOU ASSUME I would since my resources are paltry in comparison?
Food for thought. I expect no response. Just wondered if you’d considered placing your currently misplaced assumptions on other than little ole me?

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 21, 2014 11:41 am

‘Danny Thomas’,
All you posted were commonly available numbers showing the rise in CO2. That is insufficient. Your “facts” are worthless pablum, because they do nothing to support your fright.
Your premise is that CO2 might be a big problem. But you have posted no evidence — no facts — to support that belief. None at all.
An unsupported belief is very much like a religion, no? Believers in the “carbon” scare tend to be religious fanatics who do not need any scientific evidence; their belief is enough.
But most folks here want evidence. Note that ‘evidence’ is not pal-reviewed papers, or computer climate models. Evidence in science means verifiable raw data, and/or empirical observations.
You have posted no evidence to support your Belief. Nothing at all, really. So once again I challenge you to post verifiable data showing that CO2 is a problem; showing that CO2 causes global harm. Show us that we need to “do something!”™
Because without scientific evidence showing that CO2 is a problem, rational people will conclude that if there is no such evidence, then CO2 is simply not a problem.
Falsify that. If you can. Otherwise, you are the one who is wrong.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 21, 2014 12:08 pm

You are attempting put words in my mouth and are making a poor assumption. Have I not said I’ve been to other sites? Those sites (and this one) have said CO2 is increasing. Having an inquiring mind, I went to see if that was true. I found it was. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is coming from your mind.So there is no need for me to “Falsify” anything. So why are you?

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 21, 2014 12:20 pm

Honestly, your bias is showing. I’ve done nothing and stated nothing that indicates I fear CO2 levels based only on my own research.
You assume you know me or that you know I have a motive and you know nothing about me.
If there is one good “scientist ” here who’s basing their analysis on data and not on assumptions, bias or predisposition, that good “scientist” is ME. Either act like a scientist, or give up the name because the way you are behaving is the opposite of being a good scientist. And that comes from me, a non-scientist who obviously acts more like one that you.
Quit being a hypocrite. You chastise me for not doing my research and not supporting some thesis that you think I support and then you don’t do your research and base your findings on NOTHING. Come on man, even if you can’t find a way to have a realistic conversation with others due to the cover of the shield of anonymity of the internet then at least be real with yourself.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 21, 2014 12:42 pm

‘Danny Thomas’ says:
CO2 is increasing. Having an inquiring mind, I went to see if that was true. I found it was. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is coming from your mind.
You’re not fooling anyone here. We can see where you’re coming from. It’s all politics.
As usual, you have no data or measurements to show that increasing CO2 is any kind of a problem. Scientists have been looking diligently for any evidence that the rise in CO2 has caused global harm. They have found nothing, after more than 30 years of searching. If there was anything to find, they would have found it by now.
Your comments are politics, not science. If you want to be credible here, you need to post facts and evidence to support your point of view — whatever it is at the moment. Hard to tell, becaus your comments are so vague.
Take a stand, ‘Danny Thomas’. Right or wrong, take a stand. Support your beliefs with evidence, whatever they are. So far, you have not done that.
Finally, quit fishing for apologies. When we’re wrong we acknowledge it. But you will have to show where we are wrong. So far, you’ve failed to do that.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 21, 2014 1:03 pm

At least I’m still a human.
Here’s my stand. Based on the evidence at hand (changing growing seasons, melting glaciers more predominate than expanding) CC is occurring. This is not unusual in the historic context of this planet. Based on the evidence at hand, I do not fear it and I support continuing research no matter where it takes us. Based on the evidence at hand, I’m a far better scientist than you will ever be. You base conclusions on your biased assumptions without evidence to support those conclusions. My proof for that conclusion is in this thread and since it will not be accepted by one as unseeing or closed minded as you there is zero reason for a thinking person to try any more to get you to look at yourself for what you are.
You may think you are better than me, but at least I can admit my shortcomings. I can question, research and decide for myself. I’m not in support of castigating FEMA for the request to the states for their expectations for changes based on the changing climate and I support planning for land use changes as a result of the same CC.
Just because you repeat that you’re “right” (quite obvious based on MY assumptions) and I’m wrong makes in no more accurate and in fact because you continue to stand by your assumptions it makes you appear much less scientific and much more muleheaded (less open minded) than I ever have been. At least I can think for myself.
One of us is a stand up guy, and that’s not you!
Happy to answer any non biased, questions on my stand.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 21, 2014 12:57 pm

DT says:
I said I’m no scientist…
Then DT says:
If there is one good “scientist ” here who’s basing their analysis on data and not on assumptions, bias or predisposition, that good “scientist” is ME.
A good scientist follows the Scientific Method and it’s hierarchy: Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law.
So far, you’re chock full of conjectures. That means ‘opinions’ in your case. And yes, you have a heavy predisposition to believe that there must be a problem with the rise in CO2. You are desperate to find some way to support your belief. That is called confirmation bias, and your posts reek of it.
Start supporting your talking points with data, and we will get somewhere. Otherwise, what’s the difference between your comments, and what any of us can read in the newspaper?
We don’t need more parroting of pop science. We need answers. And the way to get credible answers is to support your conjectures with verifiable evidence. But that is something you have consistently failed to do.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 21, 2014 5:39 pm

For some reason I had a reply directed at Anonymous, and then the same post that comes as being from you so I’m duplicating with additional commentary specifically for you.
Not sure why this comes up as leaving a reply to Anonymous, but it is intended for the person that says I’m full of conjecture and supports that with inaccurate conjecture on their part. That just makes me laugh.
If I were concerned about CO2 in the atmosphere, I’d be happy to do all I could as a non-scientist to support that. But since I’m not concerned about CO2 levels. the rest of the post is moot. Can you or anyone tell me how to make that more clear.
The folks that chose to assume they know what I’m thinking are so far off base it’s unbelievable to me.
It’s a very simple concept folks. I read that some believe CO2 levels are increasing. I don’t believe everything I read so I did some research. I found a NOAA site with CO2 reading on Mauna Loa in Hawaii that has been taking CO2 readings since 1958. I reviewed those numbers, added them up and viola`. I found CO2 levels have been increasing. And, being curious. I separated out the past 10 as a reasonable comparative sample time and discovered that the rate of CO2 increase is increasing in that time.
I’ve found that our atmosphere was once similar to Venus. And now it’s not. And it’s ebbed and flowed over time since. Therefore, no fear.
Ya’ll are just stamping your feet due to your own predisposition and trying to superimpose your bias on me. But you are just wrong!
The assumptions comment is directed towards you as you continually assume that you know what I’m thinking. So prove it, if you such an accomplished scientist. You cannot, as they are assumptions from you mind as you think I have some sort of agenda. And those assumptions are wrong.
The fact that I researched CO2 based on NOAA provided data as compared to your assumptions that I fear CO2 is my theory based on evidence that I’ve conducted personally and versus assumptions you’ve made. Therefore, I conclude that you are a poor scientist and I’m much better than you as one.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 21, 2014 1:00 pm

Danny Thomas
October 21, 2014 at 11:47 am
And the comment that I want: “tens of thousands of people to die” is ludicrous, but I ask anyway, based on what? Where did I say that? Are you not putting words in to my mouth? Where am I wrong?

Your policies. Yes, they were killed by your policies. And those were the ones “easily” counted and reported in a small country by a reputable, civilized government. I will let your imagination dwell tonight on the millions in poverty-stricken countries who have no concrete bridges, no refrigerators, no lights, no stoves, no storage … cooking what little food remains unspoiled by the heat and UN-poisoned by the vermin and insects over dung fires in unlit, unheated, uncooled dirt-floor mud huts. Those millions will die as well. We just cannot count them in a neat government report that you can read. But they are dead as well. Because YOU despise the benefits of benefits of CO2 that occur now, and irrationally fear the 2% chance of limited problems from potential global warming that “might” occur 86 years from now. If the warming happens at all. If that future warming is in fact actually linked to a potential future rise in CO2 levels.
The policies and energy prices and energy restriction YOU are demanding (though couched in your soft language/argument style of pink clouds of non-constructive phrases) by YOUR politics of CAGW fears killed 24,000 in the “civilized” UK alone due to “energy poverty” and “energy deprivation” CREATED because of your fears of the (deliberately exaggerated) CAGW-caused Global Warming.
I am not putting words in your mouth. YOU are demanding policies that DO “put words in the mouth of politicians who ARE killing people every day, every year.
If I were to put words in your mouth, they would be: “I, Danny Thomas, apologize for confusing the world with my fears and conflicting statements about the benefits of better, more efficient, more effective use of more CO2 in today’s world to better help and serve all of mankind, especially those who are most poor who desperately need and desire clean food, clean water, more power, better roads, more bridges and better sewer treatment. I, Danny Thomas, will work all the harder to make sure more beneficial CO2 is released to benefit all living now around the world, all the while hoping that today’s natural temperature variations will continue to warm our planet in order that more people may live better, longer lives in better health and more tolerable conditions.”

Danny Thomas
Reply to  RACookPE1978
October 21, 2014 5:52 pm

OMG. Another self touted scientist assuming some policy is my policy. Where did you get your factual data? Not presumptions or assumptions, but factual data?
My policy is that I’m okay with FEMA gathering data and holding a hammer over states “heads” to get it leads you to blame me for deaths? That’s not even a small enough concept to be called a stretch. That’s just absurdity spewed by one who presumes to know me and has no idea where I stand on anything except CO2 (no fear) and that CC is occurring.
Taking your ridiculous assertions to such an outrageous supposition should lead you to seek medical care as those voices in your head must be becoming deafening.
You do not know me and if you’re carrying enough guilt around with you that you feel the need to try to unload them on others, I feel only pity.
I have stated and will state again, CO2 is increasing, the CO2 increase is increasing and at an increasing rate.
Get it yet? Or do you need an adult to explain it to you.
You, if anyone, should be ashamed and apologizing. You might be quite surprised what I’m for and what I’m against, but other than the topics at hand it’s none of your damn business unless I tell you it is. Whatever you assume in your feeble mind is your choice.
Move on. You obviously do not comprehend clear concise written word. What you read between the lines comes only from you!
If you’d like to discuss science and not YOUR politics, there maybe something there for me to learn. But SPEWING THIS NONSENSE is a waste of my time.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 21, 2014 1:56 pm

@ db and RAC…notice how DT speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He also likes to freely insert extra meaning into your words, via assumptions, presumptions all of which have no basis in reality.
One point that I am curious about is how does he manage to insert his comments directly after other comments, instead of his newer comment being placed at the bottom of the line?

Danny Thomas
Reply to  goldminor
October 21, 2014 5:54 pm

More rhetoric.
Specifics please!

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 21, 2014 3:46 pm

goldminor, good point. WUWT?
‘Danny Thomas’, AKA H Grouse, says:
Based on the evidence at hand, I’m a far better scientist than you will ever be.
But who would know, since you have posted no evidence that isn’t found in any ordinary newspaper?
Next, Mr. Assertion says:
You base conclusions on your biased assumptions without evidence to support those conclusions.
DT is blind if he thinks I have not posted evidence. Such is confirmation bias among the alarmist contingent’s hoi polloi.
I’ve posted literally hundreds of charts and graphs, and even numerous pal reviewed papers, all documenting the fact that there is no evidence showing that CO2 is either harmful, or any kind of a problem. If an honestly unbiased observer was reading this, he would see that mountain of evidence. But Mr. *ahem* ‘Thomas’ claims he cannot find it. So let’s try a different tack:
In science, the onus is on the one making the conjecture. But DT has never done that. His conjecture is obvious: We could very well have a problem with CO2 emissions!
I say: prove it. Post any scientific evidence you can to support that belief. I’ve asked that about ten times in this thread alone, but DT has posted zero evidence of global harm from CO2. Hey, I believe that there’s a black cat under my bed. I know it! But when I look under my bed… no cat! See, ‘belief’ isn’t nearly enough here. DT needs to post scientific evidence, but so far, he hasn’t posted anything except mainstream media pablum. We’re smarter than that here.
DT’s agenda is clear: try to cast doubt among people who know better. But since readers here clearly know far more than DT, he is running into some serious push-back. He has no evidence, so he is trying to wing it. Good luck with that, bud.
Next, DT says:
My proof for that conclusion is in this thread and since it will not be accepted by one as unseeing or closed minded as you there is zero reason for a thinking person to try any more to get you to look at yourself for what you are.
Huh? That is just meaningless deflection, with a dollop of ad-hom mixed in.
You may think you are better than me, but at least I can admit my shortcomings.
I think just about everyone here is better at basic science than you are. Does that count? And no need to admit your shortcomings, they are on display.
One of us is a stand up guy, and that’s not you!
Assertions, assertions. Always more assertions. But… got evidence? So far, nada.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 21, 2014 6:04 pm

The “cutesy” just never ends on here.
CO2 exists, CO2 increasing, rate of CO2 increasing. Data source NOAA. Simple. Question. Are you willing to accept this statement? RE:”My proof for that conclusion is in this thread and since it will not be accepted by one as unseeing or closed minded as you there is zero reason for a thinking person to try any more to get you to look at yourself for what you are.” If not, then go look it up. I did.
Huh? That is just meaningless deflection, with a dollop of ad-hom mixed in.
I’m accused of being political? Such a joke.
Your assuming you know what I’m thinking. Not proof. So prove it!
As far as shortcomings. At least I’m honest about mine. You oughta try it. You ain’t no mind reader.
Where in the heck is the science in your preposterous assertions?

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 22, 2014 5:54 pm

Danny Thomas says:
… you chose to try to slight me when all the while it is you who is being obstinate and not doing your research.
Hey, I apologized! What did it get me?
As I’ve patiently explained to DT, scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. I have no “research” that I am obligated to post. As a skeptic, I just have a simple question:
Where are the measurements showing how much global warming is attributable to human emissions? That is a *very* simple question. But neither DT, nor anyone else can, or will answer it.
Without an answer to that question, nothing is quantified, and the carbon scare is simply unscientific nonsense.
Next, DT says:
…adding a few companies like Koch, GE, Westinghouse and a couple others I discovered they generated well over $450 Billion USD of PROFIT in 2013.
And your point is …?
DT, since you have such green-eyed jealousy over companies making a profit, then the answer is simple: go and buy their stock! Share in the profits. But, No-o-o-o! “Koch” is mentioned, so those companies must be demonized.
DT has the answer:
To be clear, I’m not anti capitalism.
Of course you are, through and through. Because your ‘answer’ is to expropriate the profits of successful companies, and spend their money on your own pet projects. That’s your stated proposal for these companies: take their money, and spend it on your own great idea.
When someone with no skin in the game wants to take away the earnings of others because he disapproves, but he will not part with a dollar of his own to fix the problems he has in mind, he is a complete hypocrite, no?
Danny seems surprised that we had his number after only a couple of comments. But most of us are adept at understanding human nature, and we can see where someone is coming from a mile away. DT may be a chameleon. But he’s not immune to accurate scrutiny.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 22, 2014 6:11 pm

More name calling? How uplifting! And so unexpected from one such as you.
The Proof I’m expecting from you is to prove your assumption that I’m AGW/CAGW. Waiting. Big baby. Can’t get your way so gotta name call. I too, can do!
I guess your just too stupid to get it so I’ll use big words: I NEVER SAID THIS “Where are the measurements showing how much global warming is attributable to human emissions? That is a *very* simple question. But neither DT, nor anyone else can, or will answer it.” IT’S YOUR ASSUMPTION IT’S WHAT I THINK AND IT’S WRONG. DID YOU UNDERSTAND THE BIG WORDS. IT WAS A JOKE.
And nice Cherry picking by using only Koch when I offered well over 250 companies in my post to RA. Would I be wrong in assuming you’d be the very first to accuse the AGW/CAGW side for cherry picking? Let me know if you don’t understand the question.
I in know way suggested to “take away” the profits. I asked 1% of the figure of over $450B USD wouldn’t be a better target for RA’s diatribe. There you go making assumptions. Is it possible, just even possible, that those entities might be willing to contribute 1% to save “tens of thousands” of folks as a goodwill gesture/marketing tool? Did you even consider that?
I think you are so brainwashed you can no longer think. Just spout.
Darn it. You just upped my post count.
Oh, pardon me, I need to pause to wipe the crybaby tears out of my eye so I can see the apology you offered. I’m having trouble with my vision..

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 22, 2014 6:41 pm

Just have a need to up my post count.
Is this the apology you offered and referred to:” Finally, quit fishing for apologies. When we’re wrong we acknowledge it. But you will have to show where we are wrong. So far, you’ve failed to do that”
Man, you’re wrong again.
If you want to stop this tennis match, I’m good with that. But if you choose to continue you’re biodegradable B.S. I’m good with that.
I will leave the choice up to you. Depending on your response, if any. I will respond in a fashion similar to yours. I will not be bullied by you or anyone.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 22, 2014 6:36 pm

Instead of your constant thin-skinned blubbering, why don’t you just try to answer the *really* simple question I asked?

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 22, 2014 7:03 pm

And that question is?

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 22, 2014 6:41 pm

Danny Thomas
October 22, 2014 at 5:06 pm
You asked me to think about this and I have.
I’ve been mulling over your comments towards me about “me being responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people”. While I appreciate your giving me credit for some amazing level of power and influence I assure you I don’t.
I’ve done some number crunching and find that the top “energy sector” companies in the world using this definition:”DEFINITION OF ‘ENERGY SECTOR’

Odd reply. I asked you to accept responsibility for the 24,000 excess deaths that occur din one year in the UK due to “energy deprivation” CAUSED BY the policies you demand to solve the non-existent problem of an admitted increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere …
You then divert to a count of the number of energy companies worldwide and their profits. Profits killed and limited BY the very policies you have been attempting to disavow and disown! I assume that somehow YOU think that by counting energy company’s profits worldwide, the deaths caused by energy deprivation are absolved.
Not so.
YOUR policies, the policies that you demand to absolve your guilt of the recent beneficial increase in CO2 worldwide because of your fear of some perceived future possible problems caused by that increase in CO2, are causing those deaths. The price of energy worldwide IS HIGH because of the deliberate restrictions on energy development and restrictions on its distribution, and requirement and taxes on its prices. The price of energy is high BECAUSE your governments WANT IT HIGH because of the CO2 fears that they exploit, they develop, they promote, and they inspire, NOT because the energy companies want it high.
YOUR government policies caused those high energy policies and high energy prices that are killing those people. Not the profits that enable those companies to run. The profits you abhor and despise. the profits you blame for the evils of the world. Evils I find at the governments’ feet, under the governments’ hammer of repression ans slavery.
Energy company profits are higher when economies expand and when markets are open and when energy is accessible. NOT when governments interfere in each operation with the threat of shutdowns and penalties and the requirements of excessive EPA-literature and legalists. Their job is easier when the governments do their job, not when they legislate hospital stays and medicines and paperwork and hiring and firing and coal.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  RACookPE1978
October 22, 2014 7:02 pm

Oh, I misunderstood. So you’re not an American? The American government is not your government? Wow. Color me embarrassed.
The price of energy is high. And it’s not at least in part because of a profit motive? Huh?
I’m really not sure what planet you’re on. Would you be willing to share? It’s ALL the fault of government? Private enterprise has zero responsibility to our world? They take our collective resources and modify them and sell them back to us. Much of which comes from “government” (yours and mine) land? And they have ZERO responsibility? Private entities should have unrestricted access to public lands and not be subject in any way to taxes? Are you familiar with the $24B (2013) provided by My government to:” Support the Development and Production of Fuels and Energy Technologies?
Let me see. Profit margin of 10% on $1 equals .10. Profit margin on $2.00 equals .20. Additional return on the same investment is .10 per same unit of measure. You have no investments in the stock market? Mutual funds? Bond funds? 401K’s? Pension funds? Any sort of retirement account? Treasury funds? Money markets? Are you saying you’ve taken a personal stand in such a way that you have zero benefit from anything other than cash under a mattress? (Oh, shoot, cash is government backed by my government).
The fear of CO2 that I’ve emphatically and undeniably have stated I do not have? That’s MY bad?
Thank you for giving me that much power. As king of the world, I hereby and henceforth use my unconstrained power to banish you from the island. (Are you still there?)

Alan the Brit
October 20, 2014 8:56 am

Whilst I fully understand the need for States to initiate an “emergency disaster” plan in general, to enable resources to be mobilised at the earliest opportunity, & I am sure most if not all States have such a plan, it is the veiled threat that smells so much, the “or else” mentality. One could end up with the unintended consequence of the State losing funding because it failed to prepare a plan in time, losing funding, then not being able to afford to make a plan as a result!

October 20, 2014 9:04 am

The states should just project present trends into the future: Increased CO2, increased biosphere including forestation, no warming, decreased hazardous weather events. Conclusion: emit more CO2.

October 20, 2014 9:06 am

It will take multiple people in 57 states (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws ) weeks to prepare a summary and submit their plans for approval. This is part of an overall jobs program.

Reply to  BillyV
October 20, 2014 9:12 am

Most of government is a jobs program, and it’s Too Big To Fail.

Reply to  PiperPaul
October 20, 2014 10:05 am

Paul or others, Please define: “Failure”.

stan stendera
Reply to  PiperPaul
October 20, 2014 6:46 pm

Barack Obama

Michael F
October 20, 2014 9:07 am

This sounds like a fantastic opportunity to put some real science to work on the policy level. Individual states can use data to describe their basis for evaluation of the true risks. Make FEMA come back and tell them they must adhere to the IPCC diktat and watch the debate unfold from there.
The states have a chance to take this lemon and make some non-alarmist lemonade.

Reply to  Michael F
October 20, 2014 10:06 am

Brilliant, by using actual empirical data and some true science with fact based projections, FEMA and the present administration could be hoisted by their own petard.

Reply to  RobRoy
October 20, 2014 10:47 am

Unless you are in a state like I am here in Maryland, where we are a monolithic Democratic state and they are all in when it comes to Climate Change. As we prepare to build an off shore wind farm 10 Nautical miles off shore in the Atlantic, I ponder the first major hurricane that comes along and wipes it out. The lunacy just hurts.

Michael F
Reply to  RobRoy
October 20, 2014 10:53 am

You know, we could take this further. The template for this sort of thing is pretty basic. I bet we could crowd-source a risk-mitigation plan and post the data. Bureaucrats and PR/journalist types with little to no detailed knowledge of scientific fields love to cut and paste, hence the atrocious state of science reporting. Give them something easy to grab, with lot’s of solid references to actual data and who knows what might happen. Just sayin’…

Mike H.
Reply to  RobRoy
October 20, 2014 3:50 pm

Michael F, this is a crowd-source site.

October 20, 2014 9:10 am

It’s comforting to see the US has progressed to the famous Five Year Plan that worked so well for the USSR. Time to queue up:

October 20, 2014 9:12 am

Blackmail from our own gubbermint….

October 20, 2014 9:22 am

The jackboot on the neck grows heavier.

Schrodinger's Cat
October 20, 2014 9:23 am

Global warming induced severe winters should cover it.

October 20, 2014 9:26 am

Just more US government tyranny run amok under the guise of some fictitious and delusional disaster preparedness program….
More $billions will be wasted to address a problem that doesn’t exist, implemented by a federal government agency that shouldn’t exist, under usurped power that was never meant to exist, paid for with money printed money that pretends to exist..
What could possibly go wrong?

Peter Miller
October 20, 2014 9:36 am

Triple distilled BS.
We are going to have to stop climate bureaucrats breeding, or the world is doomed to end in a bout of malignant stupidity.

October 20, 2014 9:36 am

We need to figure out how to position the adoption of Global Warming as synonymous with Racism and hate. Everyone who believes in Global Warming is a misanthrope.
Maybe we can eliminate some government branches? I know, I know, but I can dream can’t I?

October 20, 2014 9:42 am

Regional climate models have no known skill. Any assessment based on that cannot be better than a purely random choice. If I were to write it I’d fill it with inanities and get the cash.

October 20, 2014 9:45 am

This will go to the courts.

Greg Woods
Reply to  Caleb
October 20, 2014 10:32 am

What doesn’t?

October 20, 2014 9:46 am

The concern is “climate change”, not “anthropogenic climate change”. Does this indicate that FEMA does not agree with the IPCC mandate? The polling must not favor the “consensus” view.

October 20, 2014 9:48 am

They were created to assist us in event of natural disaster, now they are telling us how we will act. Fascism.

Reply to  Gregory
October 20, 2014 6:14 pm

1979, Pressed by state governors, President Jimmy Carter creates the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
On Oct. 18, 2005, President Bush signs a Homeland Security appropriations bill that takes responsibility for preparedness out of FEMA

I found this on a website called A Short history of FEMA.
I wonder if it’s still true or if FEMA is trying to be relevant, for once.

Larry Ledwick
October 20, 2014 9:51 am

This is nothing new, only the cause célèbre has changed. When I was a state emergency planner in the late 1970’s and 1980’s the magic issues to be included in plans were Crisis Relocation Planning. CRP was for developing plans to evacuate large metropolitan areas to reduce the military value of nuclear strikes on major cities and protect population and to facilitate planning for large scale evacuations for other hazards like major hurricanes.
You know like the evacuation plans that the State of Louisiana and New Orleans totally ignored during Katrina. The plans existed, but the politicians simply were unfamiliar with the plans, ignored them, or were too afraid to actually implement them in a timely manner when they could do some good.
Another major push of that period was hazardous materials planning after some major incidents involving derailed trains, leaking chlorine tanks etc. and in Colorado concern about movement of old chemical weapons stocks to destruction sites and movement of radiological waste from the Rocky Flats plant to long term storage.
The way it works is the State has to include the proper buzz words in their state plan and some pages/paragraphs on the issue that satisfy their local FEMA regional office to get their buy off.
If the local FEMA office staff is zealous on that specific topic you have to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s to get the plan approved. If the local FEMA staff is pragmatic on that particular issue, you sort of wave a few buzz words around and move on.
What usually happens is that the State and FEMA folks work out a compromise where the plan has the proper buzz words and reference to the cause célèbre but the wording is structured so that it includes the issues both are really worried about under those headings as secondary usage. For example buying real time digital mapping resources under the guise of response planning for sea level rise, but really intending to use it for other emegencies. That way everyone is happy. The FEMA folks have their buzz words to make the head office happy and the State gets the funding with broad enough guide lines that they can tweak the use of the funding. They make it into dual use applications that fulfill the technical need to service the cause célèbre but really is intended to fulfill other needs. For example lots of communications upgrades and on site command center vehicles were purchased under the guise of supporting hazmat response but were also useful for flood response (highest real risk for most jurisdictions) and other emergencies. The Comm Vans were also nice pieces of eye candy to impress the local politicians and provide good photo op backgrounds for media interviews during emergencies and to show off during community events.
Properly done pragmatic planners and State Officials will do what they really need/want to do, but will just dress it in climate change clothing. In those cases where the FEMA folks for that state are zealots on climate change a lot of money and effort will be wasted on useless flood inundation maps for 20 meter sea level rise planning and similar boondoggles.
Smart state staffs will use the cause célèbre of climate change as justification for essential equipment and facility/staffing upgrades and just take the money and run.

Robert Liang
October 20, 2014 9:52 am

The edit does not seem to specify a warming climate risk assessment. The states could assess a no change or cooling climate for the next 5 years. If FEMA objects then it would an interesting court battle.

Reply to  Robert Liang
October 20, 2014 10:06 pm

My thoughts also. A mitigation plan for cooling, warming, neutral. All bases covered.

October 20, 2014 9:59 am

Would be great if some (or all) states put together plans for dealing with global (or even just local) COOLING.
That would probably give the FEeble-MindedA$—les a major hissy fit…

Thomas Englert
October 20, 2014 10:13 am

Indiana faces a dire shortage of grain silos for storage of the massive record corn an soybean harvests due to CO2 pollution.
We need federal aid to build more storage capacity and conversion of power plants and individual home heating units to burn corn.
The current and potential future disaster of over food production requires we act now before we are literally buried by grain level rise. It’s the precautionary principle.

October 20, 2014 10:16 am

The same funding-based edict can be used on all types of organizations, not just states–think Boy Scouts, schools, churches, local govt., student loans, and any individual seeking an income tax refund from the IRS as in the case of ACA enforcement at the individual level. Better get your form letters and AGW statements ready.

Leo Smith
October 20, 2014 10:25 am

Everyone is obsessed with having a Plan.
Our local idiots were requested by te EU to have ‘regional [lns’ and ‘consulation’
spo they sent me a questionarrire.
First off, they asked me a load of questions about race, religion and ethnicity and sexual orientation. I told em it was none of their damned business.
Then they wanted to know whot development my area would benefit from.
“None at all”, I replied.”Its nice the way it is actually”.

stan stendera
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 20, 2014 6:53 pm

Planning is figuring out what is not going to happen.

October 20, 2014 10:42 am

Easy, US citizens and institutions should simply quote the Constitution as their guide.

October 20, 2014 11:00 am

Nevertheless, “Global warming did serve a couple of useful purposes. The issue has been a litmus test for our political class. Any politician who has stated a belief in global warming is either a cynical opportunist or an easily deluded fool. In neither case should that politician ever be taken seriously again. No excuses can be accepted.”
David Archibald, in Twilight of Abundance [Regnery Publishing, Washington DC, 2014], cf.

Neil Jordan
October 20, 2014 11:04 am

FEMA already has a policy on sea level rise, which is the big issue for coastal land use decisions:
Sea level rise by 2001, predicted in 1991 (and predictions haven’t changed materially since then), was between 1 foot (30 cm) and 3 feet (91 cm). FEMA evaluated the lower and higher scenarios with respect to flood risk and damage claims in its mapped Special Flood Hazard Areas. These are areas with elevations at or below the 1% annual chance (“100-year flood”) Base Flood Elevations.
[begin excerpt]
This report contains the findings and conclusions concerning how the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) would be impacted by a rise in relative sea level. Based on information recently released by the United Nations on the range in the magnitude of potential rise in sea level, two primary sea level rise scenarios were examined, a 1-foot and 3-foot increase by the year 2100. Under both scenarios, the elevation of the 100-year flood would be expected to increase by the amount of the change in sea level.
Based on these findings, the aspects of flood insurance rate-making that already account for the possibility of increasing risk, and the tendency of new construction to be built more than one foot above the base flood elevation, the NFIP would not be significantly impacted under a 1-foot rise in sea level by the year 2100. For the high projection of a 3-foot rise, the incremental increase of the first foot would not be expected until the year 2050.
[end excerpt]
Years later, sophisticated Monte Carlo and climate models were applied to the problem, relying on the Rahmstorf method for foretelling future sea levels, summarized in this PowerPoint,:
The modern techniques foretell more damage than the 1991 study, thereby justifying the actions that are being proposed.

Reply to  Neil Jordan
October 20, 2014 1:34 pm

The sophisticated analysis isn’t that good. I reviewed this work as shown on the slide pack in the .mil site, it has several mistakes.

Neil Jordan
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
October 20, 2014 9:58 pm

Correct. The biggest oversight is the inconsistency with FEMA’s stated policy on future sea level rise. See FEMA’s FAQ page at:
[begin quote]
Q: How will FEMA account for sea level rise on FIRMs as part of the OPC study?
A: FEMA maps existing flood risk, therefore, sea level rise will not be included in the OPC study. The BFEs, which are the elevations of the 1% annual chance coastal flood above current sea level will be depicted on the revised FIRM panels.
FEMA does not map predicted long-term changes onto FIRMs but rather depicts the existing conditions and current risk of flooding from coastal hazards at the time of publication. Substantial changes to areas along the California coast following the OPC study may trigger a re-study and the issuance of FIRM revisions when the effective maps no longer reflect the actual risks. Future re-studies may be local or regional, rather than state-wide. To mitigate against the effects of long term climate effects as well as extreme flood events that could occur at any time, FEMA encourages communities to regulate development in SFHAs to higher than the minimum standards required for compliance with the NFIP regulations. Requiring the first floor elevations of new and substantially damaged or improved structures built one or more feet above the BFEs depicted on the FIRMs is an example of a higher standard to mitigate flood risk.
[end quote]
More detail on FEMA sea level analysis is at
“…Estimates of the following return period SWELs were made at each of the 15 long-term tide stations in the study area: 50-, 20-, 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent annual chance. These estimates of extreme SWELs will then be applied spatially along the coast to specific shoreline reaches for mapping onto Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)…”
Note that sea level will be estimated from actual tide gauge measurements, likely less than a millimeter per year rise. At another location on this web site (it might have been changed), I downloaded an excerpt where FEMA states:
“Sea-Level Rise – FEMA does not map predictive long-term changes onto FIRMs, but rather depicts the existing conditions and current coastal flood hazards at the time of publication. The current sea level rise that is measurable from 50-year hindcast data will be applied in the analysis for the CCAMP studies; however, future looking estimates and impacts of sea-level rise will not be part of the CCAMP studies.”

October 20, 2014 11:04 am

Every junkie knows how this system works. The prize is always in sight but always out of reach. Except we’re not talking about prizes.

Leonard Weinstein
October 20, 2014 11:06 am

The urgency of this effort should be limited, due to present pressing problems such as illegal immigration, and possible health issue outbreaks (especially Ebola preparation) as examples. However, I think the overall goal is quite reasonable and desired, as long as the purpose is not centered on AGW or CAGW, which are not likely problem areas. The possibility of more cold periods is a more dangerous and also more likely coming problem than warming, so this scenario should be examined and prepared for. The lack of clear plans for land use, possible limitations in water resources, local flood, storm or fire events are potentially real problems, as these type events do happen. States have had a tendency to depend on Federal help every time a large emergency has happened, and should be more prepared to do more themselves.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
October 20, 2014 11:22 am

“the lack of clear plans for land use…” Leonard, lefty gov has big plans for land use and that includes your land. Why would the government provide better plans for land use than the private sector. They will be telling you what trees you can cut, what holes you can dig, how big house you can build…. Before long, they will be helping you to death. They will be running the economy. They will be making your choices for you, or at least giving you a list of approved choices for you to choose from.

george e. smith
October 20, 2014 11:06 am

My five year plan Mr. Federal Emergency; My Arse ! is to take out a one million US dollar insurance policy against having any future need for Federal assistance, for mitigation of any future happenstance, ruled by a competent court of law, to have been solely due to, and caused by, some specific aspect of climate change.
I have quotes of $1.66 for the next ten years, or $1.95 for life. I’ll take the lifetime plan, as I intend to stick around, to see these idiots tarred and feathered in the town square.

Gary Pearse
October 20, 2014 11:11 am

This is how it is done! Republicans will inherit a liberal infrastructure that they will probably not be able to do a lot with and will be forced to move more to left. Bush didn’t budge it. It happened in Europe a long time ago. The “Conservatives” of Europe are left of the Democrats in US (but not for long) and that is how they got that way.
You would need a type of leader that they don’t make anymore coupled with an asteroid strike or something almost as big to straighten it all out. There will be a tight web of dependence on a central government of states, municipalities and individuals that will be unchangeable. The civil service will end up employing half the country and Agenda 21 will be a checklist that you have to consult before breakfast. I used to think this was impossible to happen in the USA, but a strategy of selected immigration, facilitation of illegal aliens who vote left, education that teaches left and decries individualism, sacrosanct multiculturalism and an atmosphere of fear infused into the population that makes them behave and obey. They’ve banned Mark Twain and Shakespeare from schools. Walt Whitman isn’t far from being banned as well for his:
“Resist much, obey little.”
― Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass
Eventually we will have book lists put together by the UN for use in schools and Universities…. Is there anybody out there concerned about what is happening?

tom s
October 20, 2014 11:12 am

Ahh yes, govt extortion. HEY FEMA GO blank YOURSELVES!

October 20, 2014 11:15 am

In the game of pure politics, this is meaningless because the states will just prop up puppet GW programs to satisfy the requirement.

October 20, 2014 11:21 am

I thought FEMA was supposed to have the plans for emergency management.
I think their homework is due tomorrow, and they’re just threatening the smart kids on the playground to come up with something for them to turn in… or else.
Meanwhile, you wouldn’t believe how good some of those FEMA people are at online solitaire and Sudoku. I’d put ’em up against any bureaucracy on the planet ;o)

Sun Spot
October 20, 2014 11:21 am

“The risk assessment must provide a summary of the probability of future hazard”, put in a negative risk assessment for probable Global Cooling (near future) and a positive assessment for the possible moderate warming (as observered in the past).

October 20, 2014 11:22 am

Colorado plan: require lifeboats on all office buildings.

Jeff L
October 20, 2014 11:27 am

You know what would be really fun is if republican controlled states assessed the primary risk was cooling & not warming & mitigation issues associated with cooling. That would give the Obama FEMA people fits !

Mac the Knife
Reply to  Jeff L
October 20, 2014 12:10 pm

I like it! Provide lots of graphs and figures and statistics (infilled, adjusted, spliced, and curve ‘fitted’, of course!) as needed to illustrate the imminent global cooling threat. Provide pictures of polar bears, seals and penguins on ice floes in Lake Superior and Lake Michigan, just for good measure.
Make it a three ring circus comedy that leaves everyone laughing at the mere mention of ‘Climate Change Mitigation’!
Laughter IS the best medicine!

Reply to  Jeff L
October 20, 2014 7:25 pm

It would be interesting. For the short time that CO2 remains as a climate driver (warming) the government could begin burning fossil fuels at an increased rate to save the world. Just think all the nations forests would be set ablaze to save the world. FEMA then gets credit for saving the day!

Sun Spot
October 20, 2014 11:35 am

@Danny Thomas October 20, 2014 at 10:33 am; “By most indications climate change is occurring, “, Danny boy let me correct you, that should read “By all accounts climate change is always occurring, ” sooooo I don’t get your point?
@Danny Thomas October 20, 2014 at 11:10 am; “I don’t understand the perspective that I’m receiving from your post”, Danny; the perspective is nothing alarming is happening so why do you want to think that something alarming is happening? Why does the EPA want to think something alarming is happening?
Maybe its all about the money.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Sun Spot
October 20, 2014 11:46 am

Hi Sunspot,
Correction noted and well received. Poor wording on my part.
Who said I’m alarmed. I’m firmly on the fence. I can see both sides of the discussion and I see where both sides feel the human need to “win”. My point is (and I believe we agree) that the climate is changing (as always), so why not prudently plan for the changes we can document? I just see no harm.
Maybe we read this request differently. I read this:” assessing future risk in light of a changing climate and changes in land use and development. This will ensure that the mitigation strategy addresses risks and takes into consideration possible future conditions in order to identify, prioritize, and implement actions to increase statewide resilience;”.
As a fence sitter and not an alarmist (poor term) or (and I despise this term) a denier, I’m without a bias, I see zero harm in gathering input. To the contrary, I can imagine the rhetoric if this request isn’t made and something happens in the future. The outcry would be deafening. From either side.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 2:36 pm

There is nothing wrong with gathering input. It is the policies that are being implemented around the globe based on preconceived notions, which they label as settled science. This is wrong. Science is rarely if ever settled. They are setting up a “mitigation strategy” based on the belief that co2 has caused the recent spate of global warming. Yet Nature has proven all of their projections/predictions/forecasts wrong for almost 2 decades as of now. If you continue to read here at this site, you will see that many good scientists are also disproving the settled science of co2 causing catastrophic global warming.
Then there is the political side to this story. As much of the push to immediately implement global warming strategies is coming from political activists along with some political figures who continually push for policies to combat perceived future global warming that will lead to supposed severe hardships. Even though there is no indication in long term historical studies of the past climate to indicate the veracity of their claim. In fact history shows us that mankind benefited greatly from the warmer clime. We, here today, are living proof of that.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  goldminor
October 20, 2014 6:46 pm

How do we KNOW that to be true? I read nothing in this article that says CO2 and mitigation.
I have a CAGW buddy that has shared much of that side of the discussion, but I don’t buy it. But I do believe in prudent planning. Did I misread the article? Did it say CO2?
I read:”assessing future risk in light of a changing climate and changes in land use and development. This will ensure that the mitigation strategy addresses risks and takes into consideration possible future conditions in order to identify, prioritize, and implement actions to increase statewide resilience;”
Climate change could be cooler, warmer, more ice, less ice, higher sea levels, lower and so on. I’ll go further and say that it would be imprudent to not do this analysis and planning.
I don’t come to this site with a predisposition towards some unknown (that it’s about CO2). It may well be, but how is one to know that? All I did was read the article and using my own mind came to the conclusion that ‘huh, might be prudent. What can it hurt to do that research and plan based on the findings”. What am I missing? I understand the undercurrents, but they’re assumed from what I see.
I’ve been tasked many times to come in to various scenarios with “fresh eyes” so I ask for your appreciation of my perspective in arriving here in that manner.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 3:36 pm

@Danny Thomas. Everyone seems to “see both sides” except for you. If you could you would see that the AGW side is wrong.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 21, 2014 10:49 am

Danny says:
I see zero harm in gathering input.
I see zero harm in your paying for it.
Do we have a deal?

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 21, 2014 2:08 pm

@Danny Thomas..””I don’t come to this site with a predisposition towards some unknown (that it’s about CO2).””…””I’ve been tasked many times to come in to various scenarios with “fresh eyes” so I ask for your appreciation of my perspective in arriving here in that manner.””
The basic issue is that I do not believe your words to be true. Your comments from the beginning belie your stated intent in the words above or anywhere else. You certainly have some level of preconceived thought. You have not come here with “fresh eyes” to listen to the thoughts of others. You like to play elaborate word games, and you like to twist the intent of others into imagined forms of your making. That sums up your interactions on WUWT.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  goldminor
October 21, 2014 5:59 pm

When I say I “believe” something I’m asked to prove it.
So, goldminor, prove it!
You guys just want to “gang up” on me. Fine. I said up front I’m not a scientist. I’ve never been one, and will never be one.
But those of you who say you are scientist don’t think you’re talking out of “both sides of your mouths” when you say you “believe” something based on assuming you know what I (or anyone else) is thinking.
Put up, or shut up.
This is not science, it’s being a hypocrite!

Björn from Sweden
October 20, 2014 11:52 am

five year plans….really?
They just dont care anymore. Here!, in your face, a five year plan. Obey or else…

October 20, 2014 11:57 am

They should file plans for two contingencies:
A) nothing happens and therefore nothing is needed.
B) a severe ice age erupts and therefore we have to build massive numbers of coal/nuclear plants and start burning tires to stay alive.
No one said which direction the plans had to be skewed towards…

Mac the Knife
October 20, 2014 11:58 am

This edict is not about real planning for ‘climate change’. It is all about propoganda and public indoctrination that leads to more Climate Change funding and bureaucracy justification.
The states that submit their plans for AGW mitigation …. er, Climate Change mitigation can trumpet their efforts to ‘save the world’ and why they need more money to ‘save it’. FEMA, in like kind, will provide some matching funds for the state kleptocracies, trumpet their ‘achievements’ at Progressive Climate Change management, and demand even more money to ‘save the planet’. The various in-the-pocket NGOs (ex.: Sierra Club, etc) will file law suits to assist black mailing (‘green’ mailing?) states into compliance with the FEMA dictats.
Every hurricane, tornado, heavy rain, drought, mud slide, brush fire, and blustery day that causes property damage or causes human deaths becomes further evidence of “Why We Must Act Now!”

October 20, 2014 12:02 pm

Does FEMA say what risk scenario is to be used, so we will know what outlook is THE legally defining position facing the American people?
Each State’s “exposure” is subject to the range of change that might occur, but which one is the one that MUST be prepared for?
This is an intriguing line to follow as we will learn what level of micromanagement by the Feds is considered legal by the Feds and acceptable to the State.
Big Brother, or the individual? So much for the American principles of personal power these days. But the Founding Fathers were designing for a Nation of adults ruling themselves. It seems under the Democrats these days the idea is America as a Nation of children beseeching Dad to decide on their behalf as they are incapable of figuring things iur for themselves.

October 20, 2014 12:12 pm

Danny Thomas at 10:33.
Brilliant! But is there the option of recognizing positive changes for the State? Would a longer growing season mean the State would have to present possible increase in population, increased need for infrastructure and estimates for increased GDP and tax revenue, to reflect the social impact of an improved life for its citizens?
Interesting position possible for a skeptical legislative, or at least a setback for the warmists who claim no good will come of a wsrming planet.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Doug Proctor
October 20, 2014 12:55 pm

Hi Doug,
From my perspective, why not? Extremism isn’t a good approach to either the prudent planning or the discussion. Based on our understanding of CO2 increases (documented) would there not be benefits to ag production? What then would be the results? We should plan for that. Water levels may rise which might offset some of our droughts (if the water’s near enough to the location in need). Now the loss of glaciers may have negative impacts and we should evaluate that equally. And is it possible that man is having some impact on the rate of change? Worth talking about.
Thanks for thinking about this in an open fashion. I think we need more of that than the “they’re dumb” thinking that I see as being of no benefit to the discussion. The pros should be addressed as well as the cons, and on an equal footing. If we take the politics out of this analysis I just see this request as prudent and appropriate responses should be valid, no matter from what angle they come.
I drive my CAGW buddy nuts as I speak with him the same and I cannot seem to get him to even consider that we don’t have all the information. I thank you for the discussion as I have to assume that most here are anti GW,AGW and certainly CAGW. But isn’t the point of effective communication to achieve something and not just throw out nonsense?

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 4:15 pm

Danny, I have read a number of your comments, and you refer a number of times to “glaciers melting” being a problem we must pan for. I am interested in what US state does melting glaciers pose any serious, or even a moderate problem? I am aware Alaska has several glaciers, Washington three, Montana, and California each have one, but I am unaware that the melting of any of them poses any problem whatsoever. Are you aware of any such problems?

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Bert Walker
October 20, 2014 7:46 pm

Hi Bert,
I didn’t want to disrespect you by not responding, but I’ve been so disrespected here (not by you) that I’m not going to expend much further energy.
It was one example, and like many of the others is regional in nature. I’m not aware of glaciers in Texas (LOL). But Greenland is a concern (I know it’s not a state).
Growing seasons have changed, etc.
I’m a little disturbed and exhausted by the treatment I’ve received here and will expend my energy elsewhere. Just didn’t want to leave you hanging.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 4:54 pm

Yes Danny, glaciers melting? – are you aware of Hubbard Glacier in Alaska the largest tidewater glacier in North America – advancing. Also Taku Glacier (Recognized as the deepest and thickest glacier known in the world), the largest glacier in the Juneau Icefield (Alaska), also advancing.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
October 20, 2014 6:36 pm

Hi J. Phillip,
And in Alaska, Exit Glacier and Mendenhall are retreating as well as many that I don’t recall the name of in Glacier Bay. Greenland has much ice melt occurring. Arctic has reduced ice, and Antarctica has some advancing ice.
Those are exactly my point. I didn’t say GW. Neither did FEMA. It said CC. So what is imprudent about gathering data and analyzing and planning based on the results? Is it being suggested that we no longer do that? We gather data about all kinds of issues in all kinds of ways in our “information age” so I just don’t see the harm in doing so here.
I’m being leaned on heavily on this thread as if I’m some sort of pariah, when I’m speaking of what I believe to be a prudent request (if heavy handed) by FEMA. Other than for political reasons I’ve not had but one person that agrees, and I’m not seeking political views as that just leads to more of the same that we can generate on any political topic. Please provide an apolitical reason for just ignoring CC, if you’re aware of one.
What would be the response you’d expect if our government ignored potentially beneficial or potentially harmful occurrences? I think there would be an outcry. Therefore, I see no harm in a prudent investigation of states expectations and responses as they relate to climate change. No matter on which side of whatever political aisle one may perceive themselves. I think that to ignore it may actually be worse. And please note , I said CC and not GW as I’m not convinced that any GW that’s occurring will be catastrophic in nature. I also don’t by that we’re headed towards an Ice Age as there is no more valid evidence to that. I only mention this so I’m not being painted as AGW or CAGW as I’m just not.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 6:48 pm

Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 at 6:36 pm
Greenland has much ice melt occurring. Arctic has reduced ice, and Antarctica has some advancing ice.

Antarctica has “some advancing ice” ????
In June 2015, only six months ago, just the “excess” Antarctic sea ice at 2.05 million sq kilometers was as large as the ENTIRE area of Greenland’s 2.16 million sq kilometers.
Your administration IS using their hyped CAGW “crisis” to kill millions and destroy the economic freedom of billions. Yes, they ARE ignoring the positive benefits of greater warmth, and funding their catastro-physicsists and the bureaucrats that feed the government-academic-bureaucratic complex to create just the energy control they seek.
And they are well aware they are using you to do it.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 6:56 pm

Danny Thomas,
You post the same talking points that we see here ad nauseum. There is a better way to convince people of your point of view.
Simply post verifiable, empirical, testable measurements that back up your baseless assertions.
I don’t think you have any such measurements. Prove me wrong.
As for your claim to want a “prudent investigation”, that has been done for more than thirty years now. If there was any harm from the rise in CO2, it would have been trumpeted throughout the media. But not one measurement indicating any global harm has ever been found.
So prove me wrong, “Danny Thomas”. Post those measurements.
If you can.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 20, 2014 7:06 pm

I’ve responded to one previous nonsensical post of yours but I do not like to conduct business on such a low class level.
I apologize openly to this forum for my bit of a temper tantrum in the previous post although I fully stand by the words.
I have no need for any sort of discourse with such as you. You got me to bite last time, but I will no longer as I know of and about your kind and wish no further dealings with your ilk.
Have a great day.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 7:09 pm

So. No measurements.
Why am I not surprised?

Sun Spot
Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 7:31 pm

Danny boy, you seem willfully ignorant of climate science and don’t seem to differentiate between imprudent and prudent either in planning or action. I suggest you quietly read every article at this site for the next six months, follow the science then come back and comment when you have been informed.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Sun Spot
October 20, 2014 7:36 pm

Well spottie boy!
I’ve done a fair amount of reading, and I do not appreciate the disrespect and belittling commentary.
I will return when you show the ability to act like an adult. Which apparently will be never for you.
I thought I picked a reasonable site to post questions, feedback, and learn. What I’ve learned is that if one is not OF THE BORG, One must be assimilated or destroyed.
I will look for adult conversation elsewhere.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 20, 2014 8:29 pm

“Spottie boy”??
^That^ from the same guy who whines about being ‘belittled’ because he can’t show a simple measurement to support his assertions.
You say:
I thought I picked a reasonable site to post questions, feedback, and learn.
That you did, but the failure is entirely on your part. You have no interest in learning anything. Rather, you want to preach.
When feedback amounts to asking for simple corroboration of your assertions, you cry about being belittled, disrespected, etc. That is simply deflecting from what was asked.
If you want to learn, then you need to start at the beginning: with the Scientific Method, and it’s corrollary, the Null Hypothesis.
Every physical process can be measured. Measurement is only difficult if the effect being measured is so far below the error bars that it is indistinguishable from noise. But of course, that means that man-made global warming is so minuscule that it does not matter at all.
So you are stuck, Danny Thomas. Either post a measurement showing the amount of global warming attributable to human CO2 emissions — or admit that there are no such measurements that you can find.
A third choice is to complain that people aren’t being enough kissy-face for you. Well, that is bound to happen here when someone makes baseless assertions, which they cannot back up.
You want respect? Then admit that you have no scientific evidence to support your beliefs. Otherwise, post it. But your comments about your hurt feelings are getting tedious. Let’s stick to science, ‘K? Thx bye.

Paul Courtney
Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 21, 2014 8:41 am

Doesn’t the P/A act (that’s “passive/aggressive”, in case you feign ignorance of that, too) get old, Dan? dbstealy asked for a link, too hard, eh? How ’bout this-give us a link to an AGW site where you posted your fence-sitting position up against your “CAGW buddy”, nuts or otherwise. Show us how you wore ’em out.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 21, 2014 11:02 am

‘Danny Thomas’ says:
…we don’t have all the information.
After studying the issue for well over thirty years, there is zero scientific evidence showing that CO2 is a problem.
We will never have “all” the information. But after 30+ years, with thousands of scientists studying the question, if there was a problem they surely would have found it by now. But no one can identify or quantify even one problem due to the rise in CO2.
You are trying to influence readers with vague, inconclusive comments. If you start to cite specifics, you will get respect here. Take a stand, don’t be so namby-pamby! You get respect by taking a stand and defending it, not by making the same shallow statements.
If you continue to just parrot what you hear on the media, there are probably places where you will get a better reception. But if you want respect here, take a stand. Defend it. If you’re right, people will agree with you. If you are corrected, then be a stand-up guy and acknowledge it. That’s the scientific method in action.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 21, 2014 11:04 am

I’ll not respond directly to this note as I’m awaiting your response, and the associated research from my questions on my previous reply. This is only to acknowledge that this note was received but because the basis for your comment is off there is no reason to do more with this at this time.

Reply to  Doug Proctor
October 21, 2014 5:49 pm

Danny Thomas,
So don’t respond. I am happy to comment without you:
You certainly don’t follow the scientific method, do you? Skeptics have no conjecture to defend. The alarmist cult has promoted the belief that CO2 is bad. Evil! They have demonized “carbon” incessantly.
You have bought into that scare. Deny it if you want, but all your comments imply that we had better keep investigating CO2 — even though it has been investigated thoroughly for more than 30 years. The verdict? CO2 is harmless, at current and projected concentrations. More is, in fact, better for the biosphere.
CO2 is, after all, just a tiny trace gas, that has risen from 3 parts in 10,000 to only 4 parts in 10,000 — over a century and a half. Since the biosphere is starving for more CO2, it is gobbled up as soon as it’s produced.
You probably don’t believe that. That’s OK. Just so everyone understands that scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] have nothing to prove. That onus is entirely on the side of the alarmist crowd. But as usual, you are trying to put skeptics into a box, where they mjust prove something. Science doesn’t work that way. The proof is your burden.
Taking the CO2 situation at face value, there is nothing to be alarmed about. The ‘carbon’ scare is a false alarm: not one alarming prediction has ever happened. Climate alarmist predictions were all wrong; 100.0% of them.
When one side is completely wrong in all its predictions, then rational people will decide not to listen to them any more. That is the situation with your alarmist pals. They have cried “Wolf!!” far too often. Now, no one believes them any more. They lied too much. Now they have no credibility.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 21, 2014 6:17 pm

Why? So you can puff out your chest as the big know it all bully haven beaten me up.
You, and others, started off on me so I’m willing to stay and finish it.
Have you not read where I said I agreed that the current levels of CO2 are not alarming to me? Have you not read where I said the levels and some increase is beneficial? Yes, I said some level because pure CO2 would make it a bit challenging for this conversation to continue, can we not agree?
Should we continue to study our atmosphere?Heck no. No reason to worry about anyone anywhere on this planet injecting bad stuff of some kind (sarcasm). Is CO2 a component of our atmosphere? Fact?
You are choosing to read so much in to what I’m saying that you are being completely ridiculous!
I told you I just started investigating this site so I’m not aware (and frankly don’t care) what else you’ve posted elsewhere. I’m only referring to the nonsense you’ve posted to me and about me. With NO BASIS IN FACT. If my actions are on display here, are yours not?
I don’t need to try to put you in a box as you’ve already done that. I chose to investigate for myself and as of right now I’m firmly on the fence and since I see that there is a raging debate with both sides being equally outrageous (you included) and nonsensical and superpolitical I doubt both. If you “believe” that to be wrong, fine. I’m okay with that.
But I’m still hoping you’ll “prove” the BS you’re spewing. You’re no better than the CAGW side. You have an agenda, have already made up your mind, and require no input from anyone outside of your sphere. And to me, that’s sad.
I have had discussion with my CAGW buddy and his spewing is the same as yours only from the other side.
Dr. Brown said it well in his discussion about debates in science. At least he based his assertions in fact. You make assumptions about me with zero fact, but only your bias and predisposition.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 21, 2014 7:42 pm

1. The only ‘agenda’ skeptics have is to tear down any scientific conjecture, like CO2=cAGW, that raises it’s head. That is the duty of scientific skeptics.
2. Skeptics have nothing to prove. So please stop with the demands that we have something to prove. We don’t. You do.
3. You started this. But you seem to forget that.
Look, there are a million things you can get excited about, from collapsing fisheries to incoming asteroids. Most of them matter a lot more than “climate change” <–[the code word for the ‘carbon’ scare].
Why don't you expend your energy on those other things? The reason is obvious: you have bought into the media scare. You're a True Believer in a climate crisis, but you do it like a chameleon. Like Chicken Little, you're trying to stir up some concern, at the least.
Well, baloney. There is nothing occurring now that has not happened in the past, and to a much greater degree — and when humans were emitting no CO2. So you barge in saying we have to ‘investigate’ CO2 some more, as if it hasn’t been investigated to death already. If there was anything to find, they would have found it a long time ago.
To be honest, you sound like a government worker who is surrounded by other gov’t bureaucrats, and all of them sing the same company song. Well, here it’s different. Here, it’s ‘put up or shut up’. I’ve asked you repeatedly to produce any evidence you can, showing that CO2 is a problem. Produce one simple measurement. But you haven’t.
Why don’t you either step up to the plate, or admit you have zero evidence? Then everyone will know exactly where you stand. Not everyone knows where a chameleon stands.
Where I stand is obvious. I wear my heart on my sleeve: CO2 is completely harmless, and it is a beneficial trace gas. More is better. Falsify that, if you can.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 21, 2014 8:02 pm

You’re just being a jerk.
You’ve made assumptions about me, and you’re wrong. Period. Either Prove it or just shut up. Everyone, whether they have the gumption to admit it, knows that you cannot prove it so you just deflect and deny.
You spew your politics and me under the guise of science. Pshaw!
All I “started” was to disagree with the slant of many unreasoned on this thread by using my voice. Apparently free speech is disallowed here. I’m allowed an opinion, am subject to learning, and may or may not change that opinion. That is not for you to dictate.
Evidence for what? You’ve lost all credibility. CC is happening, CO2 is increasing. Get over it.
There are plenty of reasonable folks in this world with whom I’ve had and with whom I will have good conversation. There is no further need to expend any energy on YOUR KIND. Take that however you wish.

Ryan S.
October 20, 2014 12:23 pm

Wow, the lunatics are in charge of the asylum in the US. What would North Dakota’s plan entail? Trying not to smile at the prospect of a slightly less brutal winter?
How about Montana…will they decide to delay putting on the winter tires one whole week or just a couple days.

Brock Way
October 20, 2014 12:24 pm

Pretty smart by the warmists – now there will be race among states to vie to have the most alarming outlook. This is exactly what has already been happening in the military and elsewhere.
Because I am psychic, I will now predict the next phase…
Federal Government: We’ll give you $100 million to study the dangers of climate change if you will write a piece on how climate change threatens you.
Heartland Institute: Okay, we’ll take your $100 million, Uncle Sucker.
Press: Heartland Institute reverses course, says climate change dangerous, inevitable.

October 20, 2014 12:37 pm

If you are talking about disaster preparedness, I would agree to have stuff in place:
Have enough snow plows. Have enough icebreakers. Have enough salt for the roads. Have enough 24/7 (power on demand) power plants in place. Don’t build on a flood plain (this would include New Orleans).
Just be prepared for disasters that have been happening since the beginning of time {tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, earthquakes, floods (you forgot not to build on a flood plain), and tsunamis}.
Oh, and most importantly – DON’T drive on the railroad tracks!

October 20, 2014 12:47 pm

As illustrated here – “you make choices, and you live with them”

William R.
October 20, 2014 12:58 pm

It would be easy for any intelligently-led state government to comply. “Our climate change plan is as follows: we plan to not waste money trying to guess about weather further out than a week, nor waste more money taking ineffectual action intended to prevent such events. Our citizens will be able to pocket those savings, thus strengthening our private economy and government’s fiscal health. As such, when inevitable unpredictable weather events do occur, we will be in a better position to get through it.

October 20, 2014 1:08 pm

Sure’ climate change – the risks of another Little Ice Age are greater than any carbon related butterfly wing buffet.

Gunga Din
October 20, 2014 1:22 pm

What all totalitarian governments, no matter the philosophy behind them, is bureaucracies. Sometimes the take over is quick and bureaucracies are set up afterward. Sometimes elected officials delegate authority to bureaucracies.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
October 20, 2014 1:48 pm

OOPS! Typo of omission.
“What all totalitarian governments, no matter the philosophy behind them, is bureaucracies”
Should be:
“What all totalitarian governments, no matter the philosophy behind them, have in common is bureaucracies”

Mike McMillan
October 20, 2014 1:44 pm

There is a threat of funding sanction against states which fail to fulfil the key requirements, the first of which is an assessment of the risk of “future climate change”;
“If FEMA determines that the State is not maintaining the mitigation plan and, therefore, not meeting mitigation commitments, FEMA may take corrective action, such as revoking or suspending the plan approval status. Corrective action may impact eligibility for

FEMA’s illiterate bureaucrats spelled ‘fulfill’ wrong, used ‘which’ when they should have used ‘that,’ and then iced the cake by using ‘impact’ as a verb.
We should make government pensions conditional.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
October 20, 2014 9:37 pm

In English English, “Fulfil” is correctly spelt. The double ‘l’ comes in inflections such as “fulfilling” and “fulfilled”, but not in “fulfilment”.

October 20, 2014 2:19 pm

They tried to do this under ObamaCare, saying that any state that failed to expand Medicaid would lose ALL federal Medicaid dollars, but the Supreme Court struck it down. They should not be allowed to make unrelated federal funds contingent upon following capricious regulations promulgated by unelected bureaucrats.
When the federal government establishes a pattern of using coercive tactics, using federal tax dollars as a weapon to force states to comply with arbitrary rules, it’s time to take that money away and return it to local authorities. FEMA funding could be returned back to 50 state emergency agencies tomorrow, and nobody would miss it for a second.

Reply to  KTM
October 20, 2014 3:56 pm

Your statement: “When the federal government establishes a pattern of using coercive tactics…” took place many decades ago when the national speed limit of 55 MPH was forced upon all 50 states with the threat of cutting highway funding.
That ship, as they say, has already sailed. I predict this trend will continue to get more aggressive until chaos reins.

Reply to  eastbaylarry
October 20, 2014 4:44 pm

Oh, and you must accept Common Core (UN agenda 21 education) or we will hold back your education funding…

October 20, 2014 2:30 pm

They want risk assessments. Give em risk assessments. Risk management is just as much a pseudoscience as Astrology.
I can write a climate risk assessment in five minutes.
I can write your horoscope in six minutes.
All you need to do is pull facts and numbers out of your ass and be generous with fashionable buzzwords. In Risk management, there’s no backlash or consequences for saying things could happen but don’t. There’s just no feedback.

Bruce Cobb
October 20, 2014 2:52 pm

By “climate plan” I think they mean “weather plan”. That means plan for everything; floods, droughts, colder, hotter, more snow, less snow. Oh the absurdity.

F. Ross
October 20, 2014 2:53 pm

Just another federally mandated waste of tax payer money.
Requiring the 57 states to predict/project what they, with all their super models, are incapable of (correctly) predicting; what’s not to like?

October 20, 2014 3:00 pm

I think the states risk assessment plans should be formulated based on what has actually happened over the past 100 years. The plan should also specifically state “As climate models have not been validated and have demonstrated no predictive skills, they will NOT be used in preparation of our plan.”

October 20, 2014 3:35 pm

What’s the big deal? Most states could honestly perform the assessment and conclude that there is no elevated risk due to climate change.

Svend Ferdinandsen
Reply to  RH
October 20, 2014 3:55 pm

Exactly. FEMA mentions only changing climate, so where is the global warming that should give us all these changes. They can just look at statistics and make some guesses. Eventual guess on some cooling prehaps.
Unfortunately the pawlow effect has set in, so whenever climate change is mentioned most peoble think of warming and all the scaring stories.

October 20, 2014 4:49 pm

In human history, during what period and in what location and in what landscape has the human condition improved most quickly? Under what rules did human society organize itself in these conditions? In the last twenty years, ask the same question. For insights into an understanding of the nature of the discussion about FEMA and the EPA undertaken here, the answer to these questions may be of help. For a more specific course of inquiry relative to the EPA, search EPA and DDT and malaria and EPA and property rights.

Jimmy Finley
October 20, 2014 4:49 pm

I can see some things to be planned here, and so I would hope the States do it right. New York City (and other areas), in the wake of Sandy, needs to assess the loss of coastal wetlands that can take storm surge. They therefore need to build up things like entrances to subways so they don’t become flooded. They can take the billions needed out of the rich retirement benefits they pay their giant bureaucracies – after all, it’s for the good of all.
Other states with no marine coast could take action following Anthony’s work, and relocate and renew all the broken temperature monitoring sites in their states, in order to develop a “long-term baseline for monitoring climate changes”. However, referring to various databases regarding rainfall, and tornados, and so on – coupled with the idea that a warming globe should see a decrease in weather events related to the conflict of warm and cold masses of air, they could simply punt on these events. States in the North, which were so bitterly affected by last winter’s brutal cold (and the scandalous “propane shortage” that drove prices from under $2/gallon to as much as $6 or $7/gallon) should submit a plan to greatly accelerate fracking in order to maximize propane reserves, while concomitantly cutting back on the installation of wind and/or solar power sources, which fail to meet winter needs, and boosting natural gas-fired power plants.
In this case, vicious compliance based on the most recent “global weirding” is probably the order of the day.

john robertson
October 20, 2014 5:31 pm

A simple state plan for FEMA, In 4 parts,
In winter ,survive and prepare for spring.
In Spring plant and prepare for summer.
In Summer, enjoy and plan for fall.
In Fall harvest and stock up for winter.
Climate change? Seasonal? Hypothetical?
Of course if any State succeeds in forcing FEMA to define this Climate Plan, it will collapse the meme.
As for any changes in the weather, have adequate reserves set aside to weather the storms.
But how does a State do this when faced with a deficient Federal Government.

Ron Ginzler
October 20, 2014 5:43 pm

Before FEMA, states would respond to their own disasters. The President might throw in some Federal help. So might neighboring states. Volunteers, churches and charities, too. Now we have to spend huge amounts of tax dollars planning for disasters and having the plans vetted by a bureaucracy. But most disasters don’t follow the plans anyway, and bureaucracies are notoriously stupid, slow-moving creatures. I liked the old system better.

Ian Livingstone
October 20, 2014 5:52 pm

I have been a frequent visitor to this site for about 6 years, but due to previous employment have not felt able to comment until now! This is a terrible idea and I’ll tell you why. I am an emergency planner and was head of the environment and health desk in the UK Cabinet Office until last November so I am speaking from direct experience and authority on this matter. When developing emergency plans you should always complete a risk assessment of your potential risks, so for somewhere like California the big ones will be wildfires and earthquake, Florida will be hurricanes (and storm related events), and other places will be snow/blizzard and so on. Pretty straight forward. When I develop a plan for a particular event it will be based on the risk of the hazard; this will be a combination of likelihood and consequence. If significant enough I will develop a plan, maybe a range of plans, test them, implement them and hopefully never use them. The issue about climate change – whether you agree one way or the other, natural v anthropogenic etc – is that it is a complete red herring. If I develop a hurricane response plan for Florida – which they will have – it makes no difference if there are more hurricanes or they are more powerful. My plan will be to deal with a large hurricane hitting a major metropolitan area. Now what would make my risk assessment/plans different would be if Florida was to experience extreme cooling. My point is that a changing climate makes no difference to emergency planning because you are already planning for the major risks which could hit. If something increased in risk because of increasing likelihood or consequences then it might appear higher on a risk assessment and therefore require plans that currently did not exist, but the chances of this occurring are low; but fundamentally the science behind it is so poor, modelling so bereft of anything meaningful you would naturally need to discount it. In short,a waste of time. Oh and for interest one of my main contributors to my previous job was the UK Met Office….but I’ll save that for another day.
PS Anthony great site and keep up the good work.

Reply to  Ian Livingstone
October 20, 2014 6:09 pm

The presumption behind a need for a climate change threat response plan is thst the threat and hence necessary response plans are different from “ordinary” threats. Otherwise FEMA is simply asking for whatever was done already under normal procedures of government. Which again brings us back to: what is FEMA’s position on what scenarios we are likely to experience.