Legislation to Create a National Disaster Review Board

[Randy Zipser]

Nothing should be off limits.

Ordinarily, I totally agree with you, John.

However, in the case of a specialty Board such as the NDRB, it is absolutely essential that unresearched-scientific claims and certainly all claims with political overtones must be restrained in the NDRB's findings, so as to give the public the assurance that the findings are trustworthy, truly independent, and without any preconceived bias. The NTSB is an apolitical body for that same reason.

That said, if the NDRB can definitively prove that "long-term climate change" or "global warming" (whatever one wants to call it) is a direct factor in the cause of the natural disaster, something that might be very difficult to prove, than it should not necessarily be off limits in the findings. In that case, climate-change shouldn't be barred by Charter, as Mike suggests, rather "self-policed" by the Board as a matter of responsible practice.

If the NDRB becomes a reality, over time our society will be the ultimate arbiter of which viewpoint above is the better one. Perhaps, there really is no one "correct" answer...only opinion.

 

[Mike Smith]

If anyone is interested.... Spent 1.5 hours yesterday talking with NBC News’ Evan Bush about the NDRB. He just called a few minutes ago and told me the story will be filed this afternoon meaning it will probably be on NBC Nightly News. He said they would probably use ~15 seconds. Unless they dig out some old file footage, I won't be on camera. Still this is a step forward for the NDRB.

If a review board thinks that global warming was a factor in a disaster, they should be able to say so, just as with anything else they think was a factor.

John: Sincerely appreciate your support of the NDRB!

As to your climate change comment, let me explain my position and I think you will agree.

Your operative word is "think." Just like one cold wave does not disprove global warming, one extreme rainfall event does not prove it. Last week's catastrophe was a weather event, not climate. If they have to talk about climate change, that means extra NDRB staff with different expertise plus politics. My whole plan is designed to minimize politics so we can get to the truth and have the recommendations acted upon. Mentioning "climate change" guarantees it will turn off half of the population.

Want to make sure little progress is made toward doing what we can to lower CO2? Keep introducing climate change into everything. There was a massive poll taken of Americans. Here is one of the results: "As a theory of political change, the proposition that scaring people about weather extremes will lead to increased support for changes in energy policy has comprehensively failed. Climate advocates might consider returning to the drawing board and consensus science." See: What Americans Really Think About Energy and Climate

People are sick and tired of hearing about climate change. Ask yourself a question: If you were burying your daughter precious daughter today, do you think you would want to hear about...

• Climate change
• Solid methods to keep this from ever happening again so your daughter did not die in vain?

We can't have both. As the You.gov poll demonstrates, people are sick of that topic. "Customers" of the NDRB will take a recommendation to, for example, investigate WEA-type warnings via satellite and something may be accomplished in a matter of months (investigating it). Something concrete will be done thanks to the NDRB. Now, have them say, "climate change was a factor..." It is just words. There is nothing concrete that can be done.

Finally, did you know the U.S. spends near $ 5 billion on its annual "climate assessments"? Absolute truth! It is their role to explain what effect, if any, climate change has on extreme rains in the U.S.A. or in that event in particular. What happens if the Climate Assessment staff disagree with the NDRB? You want them publicly criticizing each other? That is a sure way to make sure nothing beneficial happens.

Thanks again for the comment. As you can tell, I am passionate about keeping politics out of the NDRB (just as it has been with the NTSB; they don't talk about turbulence and climate change, even though others have [Climate Change Is Making Airplane Turbulence More Common and Severe, Scientists Say]) to maximize its effectiveness.

 

[Mike Smith]

The NBC News' story is here: Bipartisan support picks up for a natural disaster review board

I think the on-air story got bumped by the breaking news about the Air India crash.

 

[Randy Zipser]

If anyone is interested.... Spent 1.5 hours yesterday talking with NBC News’ Evan Bush about the NDRB. He just called a few minutes ago and told me the story will be filed this afternoon meaning it will probably be on NBC Nightly News. He said they would probably use ~15 seconds. Unless they dig out some old file footage, I won't be on camera. Still this is a step forward for the NDRB.

Mike, an article about the NBC Nightly News story referencing your interview today with Evan Bush is now posted on the NBC website. The link for this article is:

Bipartisan support picks up for a natural disaster review board

Excellent work! Looks like your NDRB idea is starting to gain some real traction and the NBC News story will certainly help to get it additional recognition by the public.

 

[Randy Zipser]

The NBC News' story is here: Bipartisan support picks up for a natural disaster review board

Wow, be both saw it at the same time!

 

[John Farley]

That said, if the NDRB can definitively prove that "long-term climate change" or "global warming" (whatever one wants to call it) is a direct factor in the cause of the natural disaster, something that might be very difficult to prove, than it should not necessarily be off limits in the findings. In that case, climate-change shouldn't be barred by Charter, as Mike suggests, rather "self-policed" by the Board as a matter of responsible practice.

If the NDRB becomes a reality, over time our society will be the ultimate arbiter of which viewpoint above is the better one. Perhaps, there really is no one "correct" answer...only opinion.

Mike and Randy,

This is pretty close to my position. I totally agree with you, Mike, that politics should be kept out of it. Problem is, if you say the NDRB cannot talk about climate change, you ARE injecting politics. Same thing if you say they have to consider climate change. There should be no limits, one way or the other. On that topic, or any other. That is the only way to truly keep it out of politics. They should be free to say whatever they conclude that the evidence indicates.

And congratulations on the NBC news coverage, Mike. Hopefully this is what it takes to get the ball rolling.

 

[John Farley]

As a Reagan Conservative (not Republican), I am ashamed of the R's. Evidently, wanting to fix what went wrong makes you a "loser." Texans, here's how to make your opinion known: Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

Meanwhile, Sen. Schumer is right on the money. Democrats, please support him and put in 2¢ in favor of the NDRB! Message Chuck | U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York

Unfortunately, Abbott is not the only R to make such comments. From the Texas Tribune:

After the event, in response to a reporter’s question about whether federal weather forecasters properly warned of the impending floods, Trump stood by his administration’s response, saying that “everyone did an incredible job, under the circumstances.”

He then bristled at the question and labeled the inquiring reporter “evil.”

“Only a bad person would ask a question like that,” he said.


I guess most of us on this list are evil. Personally, I thought the NWS did not handle this all that badly, although legitimate questions can be asked about FFW vs FFE. But nobody is "evil" or a "bad person" for asking such questions, IMHO.

 

[Mike Smith]

Personally, I thought the NWS did not handle this all that badly, although legitimate questions can be asked about FFW vs FFE.

We now know the FFE could have, and should have, been issued a full hour earlier than it was. Go to the updated piece below and scroll down. Comments and Questions About the Texas Floods - Updated 2:45pm Friday

Also, an anonymous NWS met wrote elsewhere that NWS mets get far too little exposure (his/her word) to flash floods and are not confident issuing them. Of course, that is something a NDRB would look at and, if appropriate, make recommendations.

Addition: please read the post attached from a Texan whom, I believe, is a weather aficionado. This is the difference between a FFW and FFE.

 

[Randy Zipser]

totally agree with you, Mike, that politics should be kept out of it. Problem is, if you say the NDRB cannot talk about climate change, you ARE injecting politics. Same thing if you say they have to consider climate change. There should be no limits, one way or the other. On that topic, or any other. That is the only way to truly keep it out of politics. They should be free to say whatever they conclude that the evidence indicates.

Good point, John.

Politics and "climate change/global warming" inevitably are going to clash no matter how careful one is to keep them separated in any discussion or context. So, one easy way to avoid any controversy is to simply "ban" one or the other.

I don't see it as that "black-and-white," rather as shades of gray. Here's what I mean. If the Board has difficulty finding a reasonably-plausible cause or explanation for some response/action taken (or not taken) in an atmospheric-related natural disaster, it would be very tempting to just "blame" climate change as a cause, and therefore avoid making more-difficult, unpopular, or controversial recommendation(s) to better handle a similar situation in the future. "Global warming" is very "low-hanging fruit!" In other words, the Board could fall into the trap of leaning on "global warming" theoretically as a cause of every atmospheric natural disaster. And, what politician or public citizen is going to refute or challenge this "conclusion?"

The key is to strike a balance: neither politics (where it can be shown to be materially relevant in a recommendation) nor reference to "climate change/global warming" should be banned totally from any consideration by the NDRB, but both should be treated responsibly, objectively, and in an unbiased/non-partisan manner as humanly possible.

John, I agree with your point that by banning either politics or climate change (or both) from any consideration by the NDRB is, in itself, a bias, which could possibly result in a misleading or inaccurate recommendation(s). As you said, let the evidence (wherever it may lead) speak for itself...

 

[Mike Smith]

The key is to strike a balance: neither politics (where it can be shown to be materially relevant in a recommendation) nor reference to "climate change/global warming" should be banned totally from any consideration by the NDRB

Randy, John and everyone,

Since we all want a NDRB that makes actionable recommendations and lead to fewer deaths, having considered this from every angle for 13 years, what possible global warming recommendation falls into that category? "More wind turbines?" Please think this though, John and Randy, and tell me what direct effect a climate change finding would have on saving lives. This is a sincere request. Are you saying the $5 billion we spend/year on the U.S. Climate Assessment is wrong and should be discontinued?

I am open-minded but I have never been able to think of a situation where a NDRB climate finding would be helpful. Please do this for me. Remember: it can't be theoretical or far-fetched and must be actionable in a reasonable amount of time for a reasonable amount of money.

Rep.Katie Porter's bill had someone slip an amendment into her bill charging her version of a NDRB with investing school shootings. I think we can agree that shootings are outside the intent and expertise of the bill. That's why defining the board's responsibilities is so important.

P.S. If you've never read an NTSB report, here's probably the most important weather-aviation report, ever: https://www.weather.gov/media/fwd/delta191/Delta191_Incident_Report.pdf This will give you a feel for what the recommendations of the NDRB should look like.

 

[Sean Ramsey]

I thought about this and at first I thought any NDRB panel member who landed on "Climate Change" would be akin to an NTSB member saying crashes were caused by planes being in the air. It wouldn't be helpful.

But, after thinking a little more there could possibly be actionable items directly tied to CC. I'm sure we all remember "Acid Rain" and the Ozone layer (although these may be more considered "Environmental"). Both were limited in scope and had specific causes where action could be taken to reverse their results. How can something like these specific type of things cause a natural disaster? I have no clue but anything is possible I guess.

Anything else that had a correlation to CC would be so slow in development it couldn't possibly be considered for an event driven board like the NDRB. Of course, unless they are so effective that we're able to avoid all future catastrophes and they had nothing else to do.

 

[Mike Smith]

Anything else that had a correlation to CC would be so slow in development it couldn't possibly be considered for an event driven board like the NDRB. Of course, unless they are so effective that we're able to avoid all future catastrophes and they had nothing else to do.

We can only pray they are that effective.

Thanks, Sean. Agree with you 100%.

 

[Mike Smith]

Everyone, this is one of the people for whom the NDRB will be established. We cannot let this level of flash flood disaster occur again!!

Anything that does not materially advance the "never let it happen again" goal should be set aside.


P.S. The headline is from the front page of the current e-version of the Daily Mail.

 

[Randy Zipser]

That's why defining the board's responsibilities is so important.

Mike, you are absolutely correct in what you think the NDRB should look like! I think we're all talking in circles about the same thing here, and our views are not really significantly different from one another. It's one thing to define the Board's responsibilities (absolutely necessary, we're all likely to agree on this point), but it's another to set limits on what is permissible for the Board Members to discuss, debate, consider, and finally, base recommendations on. "Global warming" and "climate change" are both hackneyed expressions that very likely will not be used as justification for the cause of any one-time event, so the "thoughtful" evidence gathered by the Board for each given event will take precedence and that issue will take care of itself, without any imposed limitations.

Remember: it can't be theoretical or far-fetched and must be actionable in a reasonable amount of time for a reasonable amount of money.

Absolutely. This is why "global warming/climate change," which operate on some as-yet undefined, open-ended time frame, are not going to apply in the Board's "actionable" recommendations. So, there's really no need to place any limitations here. The funds that have already been spent on "Climate Change Assessment" are not a waste of money, either, and should be continued because climate change is a very-long-cycled and important phenomenon for human survival to be studied.

Bottom line: the NDRB and "climate change" operate on vastly different time-scales, and that difference alone, should eliminate any possible conflict in the Board's "objective" findings.

P.S. Mike, please understand, I don't want to get into a sparring match over the intricate details of how a NDRB should be set-up or structured. I absolutely defer to your knowledge and expertise on this matter!

 

[John Farley]

Randy, John and everyone,

Since we all want a NDRB that makes actionable recommendations and lead to fewer deaths, having considered this from every angle for 13 years, what possible global warming recommendation falls into that category? "More wind turbines?" Please think this though, John and Randy, and tell me what direct effect a climate change finding would have on saving lives. This is a sincere request. Are you saying the $5 billion we spend/year on the U.S. Climate Assessment is wrong and should be discontinued?

Since you specifically asked, I would like to respond. Probably no need for an extended debate, as we are unlikely to totally change each other's minds on this aspect of the issue, even as we agree on most aspects of the issue.

Now, to answer your questions: No, I do not think we should stop spending money on the U.S. Climate Assessment. Rather, I think that findings from that effort might be considered by a NDRB. There are plenty of actionable things that could come out of a NDRB recommendation. Yes, more wind turbines could be one, along with tax incentives to move to cleaner energy. Will these IMMEDIATELY prevent a disaster from recurring? No, but they could over the longer term, if it is found that a particular type of disaster was in part a result of climate change. One of the biggest reasons we keep having disasters is because we do not think long-term. Like having development on flood plains that we know sooner or later are going to flood. For example, there is more development now in the Chesterfield Valley/Gumbo Flats in St. Louis County than there was before the 1993 flood. Yes, they built a bigger levee, but any levee can fail and they all weaken over time if not properly maintained. So when it comes to preventing disasters from recurring, it cannot just be short-term changes.