Misuse of FEMA hurricane debit cards

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Super-cyclones :eyebrow:

We get cyclones every year, there is no evidence that they are increasing in strength, now wouldn't a warmer world have less temperature variability and thus less atmospheric circulation?
 
A_Wanderer said:
Super-cyclones :eyebrow:



the Category 5 cyclones.

sorry -- that might have been lazy terminology as now memory serves and there's predictions of super-cyclones/hurricanes that by the end of the century there will be bigger than the largest Category 5's recorded.
 
Irvine511 said:




yes, yes, we're on the same page -- i was pointing out the deliberate inclusion of "theory" as many tack on to things like Evolution because most people don't understand what a scientific theory actually is and think that any noun modified by the word "theory" gives said word the same level of fallability as JFK assassination theories.

as a point of comparison, does anyone make a concerted effort to tack the word "theory" onto plate techtonics?

Suggesting that "theory" be eliminated from the description is the easiest way to get the uninformed to buy into the concept. That is why junk science may be a better descriptor here.

Using isolated pieces of data (a couple of bad storms, a picture of an area of Antarctica, etc.) all fills the emotional aspects of the theory, but would not be tolerated as science. The politics drives the level of scientific inquiry, and the environmental groups who benefit from these theories rely on the public's short memory to forget the past scares that never materialized.
 
nbcrusader said:
Suggesting that "theory" be eliminated from the description is the easiest way to get the uninformed to buy into the concept. That is why junk science may be a better descriptor here.



i never suggested it be eliminated, i merely suggested that the useage of the word in front of some scientific theories and not others creates the suggestion that some theories are more acceptable than others.

after all, most of the ID/creationist movement is predicated upon the protestation that "it's just a theory!"

seems as if many dissention from Global Warming relies on the same blueprint.


[q]Using isolated pieces of data (a couple of bad storms, a picture of an area of Antarctica, etc.) all fills the emotional aspects of the theory, but would not be tolerated as science. The politics drives the level of scientific inquiry, and the environmental groups who benefit from these theories rely on the public's short memory to forget the past scares that never materialized. [/q]


yes, because that's all the data supporting man-made global warming is -- a picture and some really bad storms.
 
seems as if many dissention from Global Warming relies on the same blueprint.
NO! none of the serious debate is like this, it is issues of how effective the climate modelling techniques are, the energy balance of the Earth, the degree of specific feedback mechanisms and the rates of change as a dynamic system shifts from one point of stability to a new one and how this may be recorded. Taking isolated events and using it for political gains is bogus, using Hurricane Katrina and blaming it on GWB because of global warming is bogus, taking the hot weather from one year to the next is bogus.

I want a world where people both understand something and question it because it is a theory!

And the picture of catastrophe from climate change is probably going to be just as much as a fizzer as the population bomb, we can always adapt.
 
A_Wanderer said:
I want a world where people both understand something and question it because it is a theory!

The average American does not have time for that, and it would really slow down donations to environmental groups.
 
Well let them give their money away to groups to stop global warming and let them watch those same groups obstruct nuclear power with obfuscating red-tape.
 
nbcrusader said:


The average American does not have time for that, and it would really slow down donations to environmental groups.



those environmental groups! rolling in cash! fat cats, all of them! university professors lighting their cigars with ignited $100 bills!

just so long as we never pause to consider our actions -- let's make sure we continue to give people an "out" so they feel no worries about filling up the gas tank and screaming about $3.23 a gallon.
 
Last edited:
A_Wanderer said:
I want a world where people both understand something and question it because it is a theory!



and the point is -- there are two political "sides" to the global warming debate, and both use these techniques.

only it seems as if there is more evidence for one "side" than the other.
 
Irvine511 said:
and the point is -- there are two political "sides" to the global warming debate, and both use these techniques.

only it seems as if there is more evidence for one "side" than the other.

That's the point - your one side has more evidence argument is false. This goes to the point of this sidetrack argument - there needs to be an honest debate on global warming.
 
Irvine511 said:
those environmental groups! rolling in cash! fat cats, all of them! university professors lighting their cigars with ignited $100 bills!

just so long as we never pause to consider our actions -- let's make sure we continue to give people an "out" so they feel no worries about filling up the gas tank and screaming about $3.23 a gallon.

You may make light of the situation, but environmentalism is a multi-billion dollar industry.
 
Irvine511 said:




and the point is -- there are two political "sides" to the global warming debate, and both use these techniques.

only it seems as if there is more evidence for one "side" than the other.
This is falsifiability - if it is really a scientific theory then anthropogenic global warming has to have the ability to be proven wrong, a great service is done by looking at the pieces of the puzzle that don't fit, you can have a lot of evidence for a model but it may only be one piece that disproves it.
 
A_Wanderer said:
This is falsifiability - if it is really a scientific theory then anthropogenic global warming has to have the ability to be proven wrong, a great service is done by looking at the pieces of the puzzle that don't fit, you can have a lot of evidence for a model but it may only be one piece that disproves it.




agreed -- however this paragraph does not in any way validate the following quote, as much as the oil and gas and car industries would like you to believe:

[q]That's the point - your one side has more evidence argument is false. [/q]



it's akin to "teach the controversy."
 
LA Times editorial

June 17, 2006

"MOVE OVER, RECKLESS CONSUMERS. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has outdone your irresponsible spending by racking up a debit card bill so outrageous it could have been created using Mad Libs. Sex-change operations, vacations to the Dominican Republic and wild nights at strip clubs were all bought on the government's dime by both con artists and legitimate victims of Hurricane Katrina. But try to keep that knee from jerking — although FEMA's oversight was lacking, wasted money is an inevitable byproduct of providing rapid emergency assistance.

The tawdry expenses are listed in a report released Wednesday by the Government Accountability Office. Though the headline makers were select items purchased with debit cards that FEMA gave out immediately after Katrina struck, the centerpiece of the survey was an estimate that about 16% of the agency's more than $6 billion in overall hurricane relief payments were improper and potentially fraudulent. And that figure is probably on the low side because it only accounts for certain categories of fraud, such as misrepresentation of identity and duplicate payments.

Some misuse of the FEMA-issued debit cards, however, is hardly shocking. The aim of the $2,000 cards was to give individuals immediate aid to be spent according to his or her judgment, rather than earmarking items that the government guessed would be of greatest assistance. For every "Girls Gone Wild" video purchased, thousands of families used their cards for clothing, food and temporary shelter without having to deal with federal red tape. Bad spending decisions are an unfortunate side effect of a clever and responsive policy.

The 16% of improper expenditures is indeed high for a federal aid program — food stamps and unemployment insurance, by comparison, had respective rates of 5.9% and 10.1% last fiscal year. But these are established programs, not on-the-fly responses that had to process a sudden rush of 2.6 million claims. Unlike a permanent safety net, disaster relief's top priority is to help as many people as fast as possible, which comes at the price of reduced efficiency.

But just because FEMA faced a daunting task does not mean it should be given a pass for its sloppy oversight. The GAO cited several quick fixes that should be put into effect immediately, most notably simple tests for misrepresentation when citizens register for federal disaster assistance. FEMA's response thus far — cutting expedited payments to $500 — misses the point and will undercut relief efforts in future catastrophes.

It's easy, and necessary, to criticize FEMA's across-the-board incompetence in responding to the largest displacement of Americans since the Civil War. But obsessing about the spending habits of refugees comes perilously close to blaming the victim. "
 
nbcrusader said:
Disappointing.

I guess if Gore & Co. want to shout their one-way conversation, this is where you send in the cardboard cutouts.



:rolleyes:

the main point is that, as A_W notes, global warming does deserve more study, we don't yet know exactly what's going on, the atmosphere is complex, etc., this does not become justification to give equal time, weight, and credibility to dissenting arguments from the broad scientific consensus that human activity contributes to global warming. there are discussions to be had about how much, to what extent, what the effects will be, etc., but it is just a mistake to demand equivalency just as it is a huge mistake to demand equivalency between evolution and creationism/ID.

it's not a yes/no question; it's a how much/to what extent/what will happen question.
 
There is plenty of room for debate, I just hope it takes place. Setting the ground rules so that you don't have to listen to scientific evidence that directly refutes the evidence used as the basis for global warming is hardly scientific.

There are two elements that must be covered for Gore to carry the day: (1) that the earth is actually warming and (2) that human activity is causing this warming.
 
And I would say 3) Is the warming beneficial or detrimental and 4) Is it cheaper to adress the warming or just adapt to it.

Of course global warming and curbing emissions are great places for the anti-corporate left to jump in and make demands.
 
A_Wanderer said:
And I would say 3) Is the warming beneficial or detrimental and 4) Is it cheaper to adress the warming or just adapt to it.


This is sort of off-topic, but this weekend at my grandparent's my dad was spouting off about how Michigan used to be in a tropical region, long before there were any humans to blame for global warming. Well, if you only know one thing about Michigan, know that we write the book on Lake Effect snowstorms and have 8-month winters. Even so, dad said that our state law still prohibits live trapping of alligator! :lol:

(which actually is only half funny now because they recently found an alligator thriving in the wild north of here)
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:


This is sort of off-topic, but this weekend at my grandparent's my dad was spouting off about how Michigan used to be in a tropical region, long before there were any humans to blame for global warming. Well, if you only know one thing about Michigan, know that we write the book on Lake Effect snowstorms and have 8-month winters. Even so, dad said that our state law still prohibits live trapping of alligator! :lol:

(which actually is only half funny now because they recently found an alligator thriving in the wild north of here)

Don't forget, the artic was a tropical zone
 
It is not reasonable to compare our climate to any other time beyond the last 10,000 years or so, since we're in between ice ages.

After all, if we're going to talk about the Arctic being a tropical zone, it was 55 million years ago and we've gone through a tremendous amount of species through that time. If we have a great extinction now, I doubt many of us are prepared for the next 55 million years.

Melon
 
But at that time the earth was in a greenhouse state, the planet was hotter all over and the oceans were a lot less stratified (even to the extent of global anoxia in the Creataceous). The Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum is what this article adresses, which was the Earth in a state of rapid climate change that had nothing to do with humanity.

There is absolutely no controversy that over geological time scales the Earth has gone from greenhouse to icehouse states (right now we are in an interglacial period). The models that we use to project global climate are built off the records we have, the models are pretty poor at providing predictions at the moment (not a slight, they are very dificult things to master), it does highlight the need for more research before wasting tens of billions if not hundreds of billions of dollars on "solutions" that themselves are useless.
 
melon said:
It is not reasonable to compare our climate to any other time beyond the last 10,000 years or so, since we're in between ice ages.
No, that is unfair - we have a history of climate information in the geological record and it should be used and understood, the state of the system be constantly changing but the interactions and parts that make it up still existed (to one degree or another), if we are pushing the Earth towards a greenhouse state or even a methane clathrate burp then we have to look to the past to understand if it could happen, it is the principle of uniformatarianism.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
Even so, dad said that our state law still prohibits live trapping of alligator! :lol:

(which actually is only half funny now because they recently found an alligator thriving in the wild north of here)

Stray dogs and snapping turtles in Alabama's coastal counties (Mobile and Baldwin) are glad to hear that the state is going to begin holding controlled alligator hunt seasons this year.

~U2Alabama
 
Back
Top Bottom