No.These types of things are unavoidable.
The full risk profile of our planet is immpossible to determine.
Should some great portion of the risk profile be determined, it will cover essentialy everywhere.
Even reducing it to stuff with a fractional percentage of a disaster per year will be forbiding.
And there is absolutly no way to impliment a country wide action and response network that does not end up running everything through the all powerfull department of saftey, which is politicaly and practicaly immpossible.
bottom land is always, flat, near water, productive, with many other resources on the hills and in the river, and then occasionaly, a trap
Just telling people not to live on fucking flood plains, goes nowhere......it is a perenial recuring problem that is so common and ancient that it has been recognised by archiologists, that
humans have exploited the resources in river valleys, built there settlements, and then denuded all of the vegitation, and then blam, a flood, and there settlement gets instantly burried, bad for then, awsome for archiologists who find all there stuff, in water logged soil, interesting organic artifacts are often in "perfect" condition.
This article is juggling two topics that essentially aren’t related.
The first topic is whether people will listen to weather warnings and change behavior in response to them in the first place. In that sense, it seems like a direct and urgent evacuation order should have happened, but I do still find the timeline rather short. Hindsight is 20/20 on that.
The second topic is the author’s opinion that the left-leaning section of media isn’t doing their due diligence.
Let’s be real here, the author of the article is using a cherry-picked event that happens to allegedly not be a result of climate change to try and discredit the general idea of climate change. I don’t think the author intended to discredit climate change as a concept but that’s how the audience will read it.
Sure, the New York Times got it wrong in this specific case and at least partially jumped to a conclusion, but it is established observed scientific fact that human caused climate change is causing and going to cause more extreme weather patterns moving forward.
It is also established fact that DOGE made cuts to the NWS and had to re-hire to stabilize the department as recently as last month. [1] Furthermore, the Trump administration intends to make deep cuts to the NOAA within its 2026 budget proposal. [2]
So while this specific event may not have been affected by budget cuts, we don’t know that for sure yet. Opposition Democrats are asking for investigations into that very question.
And even if NWS cuts didn’t affect this event, it’s still entirely fair for the political discussion to question the merit of making cuts during the same timeline as a preventable tragedy. At some point the administration must own the optics it generates for itself. If it didn’t want those optics it would commit to fully funding the NOAA and NWS, but because this administration has taken action to cut staff and funding, they do have to own the optics even if the optics aren’t always perfectly in line with the truth of the cause and effect. That’s just how politics work.
In other words, if I cut funding to the road department or even merely propose funding cuts and the next day my constituent hits a pothole, they’re going to blame me even if my actions didn’t directly create that pothole. And that blame is politically justified and warranted, because my political stance is that we are spending too much on road maintenance, when clearly that’s not the case.
I doubt this sad event could have been avoided, looking back, yes things could have been done. But based upon how funding is chosen and applied and who people vote for, things would have to been done differently for the last 40+ years.
This could be looked at as a result for bad choices our elected pols made over decades.
> There is NO EVIDENCE that the central Texas floods are the result of climate change.
This isn't how climate science or causality works in relation to climate change. The climate is a chaotic, complex sysem that does not have a single, identifiable nexus by which we can "prove" things happen.
Climate scientists know this and, instead of trying to demonstrate irrefutable proof, point to a better need for monitoring and warning systems, of exactly the type mentioned in this article.
It is unfortunate that the author felt the need to lean into this argument, as is it precisely this kind of perspective that leads people to become suspicious of monitoring and warning systems (by generally rejecting scientific argumentation) - the exact problem that the author claims led to avoidable deaths.
The whole approach is quite confusing to me - why identify the issue and then act to reinforce the issue?
Author uses a bunch of maps and charts to support their own narrative, one which all but ignores the reality they get at in the fourth paragraph:
> Furthermore, weather model forecasts indicated the potential for a major precipitation event over this historically flood-prone region during the prior days.
So the answer is yes. Yes, it could have been entirely avoided had the landowners built in such a way that respected the land’s tendency to flood. Yes, it could have been avoided if landowners took warnings seriously, paid attention to past flood events, if the state had put flooding mitigation measures on a river or area known for flash flooding, or if literally anyone had observed that putting dormitories at or near river level was a generally awful idea from a safety perspective.
The fact people died in one of the most predictable types of disasters out there, yet are still trying to weasel around blame or fault, is beyond shameful, and something we don’t need Op-Eds about so much as we need more people calling it what for it is:
Part of it that the commenters so far missed is that to do anything about climate change will affect profits for the oil industry and cause corporations aplenty to have to come up with new manufacturing materials and processes. It also means consuming less. The solutions are seen as a threat to owners of capital who will fight until the earth is in flames to do anything about it. Our politicians and many media sources are owned by these people.
The US has two political parties of roughly equal size.
One of those parties has gone completely off the rails into authoritarianism and science denial. Oligarchy is at the root of it: the barons can't sell "clean coal" and "drill, baby, drill" if climate change is seen to be tearing the world apart. Money über alles.
You'd think most people would be repulsed by such a party, but turns out that humans have a neat little exploit! Due to the fact that the parties are completely entrenched and about equally as popular, people intrinsically assume that their policies also have equal merit.
Basically, it started with Reagan[0] and the Republicans equating environmentalism with leftist (read - Communist, and therefore evil) agitation (through its links with feminism and the hippie/antiwar movement) in order to court business interests who favor deregulation and lax environmental standards.
The blame games on the climate and NOAA budgeting, Biden/Trump to blame etc. are just a smoke screen. The area is called Flash Flood Alley for a reason. The shallow soil, hilly topography, and local climate means that flash flooding is not an uncommon or unforeseeable event. So if local and state officials are serious about saving lives, there is one solution that they have the power to implement: zoning. Prohibit building anywhere within the high-water mark of a stream. Prohibit building anywhere water runs off (In Texas, they say, nothing is more dangerous than a dry creek bed).
So if you are a local or state level official, this is what is under your control. The problem tho is that unlike the hypotheticals, taking a stand on this would require action, and/or taking responsibility.
Part of me feels like the state should prevent people from building in places like this but we already do so much of that people end up just living in RVs and parking them in places like this which is worse.
The state requires flood insurance for property that is in a defined flood area, and that insurance is sometimes either quite expensive or in some cases just not available at all.
for anyone unfamiliar with Cliff Mass, he's a meteorologist here in the Seattle area, and a professor at UW, who has pivoted almost [0] entirely to this sort of "soft" climate change denial.
quite predictably, every time there's a major weather event in the news, he will chime in to give reasons why he thinks it shouldn't be blamed on climate change:
> 2018: Northwest Wildfires: Are We Seeing a "New Normal" Due to Climate Change or The "Old Normal"? [1]
> 2021: Is the Texas Cold Wave Caused By Global Warming? [2]
> 2021: Was Global Warming The Cause of the Great Northwest Heatwave? Science Says No. [3]
> 2022: Misinformation about Sea Level Rise [4]
> 2025: Why the LA Wildfires Have Little to do With Long-Term Drought or Climate Change [5]
> 2025: Seattle Times Climate Lab Misinforms about Climate Change, Sea-Level Rise, and Seattle Flooding [6]
the overall takeaway across all his reporting seems to be that everyone but him is over-exaggerating the effects of climate change.
and his "no connection to climate change" message often gets repeated beyond his blog, for example [7]:
> Mass also emphasized that the floods had no connection to climate change.
> “The climate change connection is non-existent. There is no trend in heavier precipitation in this region. There is no upward trend in floods,” he explained.
It's what always happens in Texas. People see cheap areas to build and recreate in without doing any historical research about risks. Local governments are also often inept and reactive because they're small town hillbillies who don't believe in climate change either and perhaps aren't even full-time public administrators. It's 97.5 for riverine flooding on the FEMA all causes risk map tool (until DOGE defunds that). Build and camp on high ground in high drainage density areas, create permanent reminders in the form of flood gauges to maintain awareness, and refund ATX NWS for the 2 senior flood prediction forecasters who were pushed out. And practiced preparedness plans and require insurance in AE flood zones for all those who live in those areas.
Flash Flood Alley exists from Medina county to the south to Cooke and Grayson counties in the north. Uvalde had 22" fall in 3 hours in 1935.
21 comments
[ 0.99 ms ] story [ 43.2 ms ] threadbottom land is always, flat, near water, productive, with many other resources on the hills and in the river, and then occasionaly, a trap
Just telling people not to live on fucking flood plains, goes nowhere......it is a perenial recuring problem that is so common and ancient that it has been recognised by archiologists, that humans have exploited the resources in river valleys, built there settlements, and then denuded all of the vegitation, and then blam, a flood, and there settlement gets instantly burried, bad for then, awsome for archiologists who find all there stuff, in water logged soil, interesting organic artifacts are often in "perfect" condition.
The first topic is whether people will listen to weather warnings and change behavior in response to them in the first place. In that sense, it seems like a direct and urgent evacuation order should have happened, but I do still find the timeline rather short. Hindsight is 20/20 on that.
The second topic is the author’s opinion that the left-leaning section of media isn’t doing their due diligence.
Let’s be real here, the author of the article is using a cherry-picked event that happens to allegedly not be a result of climate change to try and discredit the general idea of climate change. I don’t think the author intended to discredit climate change as a concept but that’s how the audience will read it.
Sure, the New York Times got it wrong in this specific case and at least partially jumped to a conclusion, but it is established observed scientific fact that human caused climate change is causing and going to cause more extreme weather patterns moving forward.
It is also established fact that DOGE made cuts to the NWS and had to re-hire to stabilize the department as recently as last month. [1] Furthermore, the Trump administration intends to make deep cuts to the NOAA within its 2026 budget proposal. [2]
So while this specific event may not have been affected by budget cuts, we don’t know that for sure yet. Opposition Democrats are asking for investigations into that very question.
And even if NWS cuts didn’t affect this event, it’s still entirely fair for the political discussion to question the merit of making cuts during the same timeline as a preventable tragedy. At some point the administration must own the optics it generates for itself. If it didn’t want those optics it would commit to fully funding the NOAA and NWS, but because this administration has taken action to cut staff and funding, they do have to own the optics even if the optics aren’t always perfectly in line with the truth of the cause and effect. That’s just how politics work.
In other words, if I cut funding to the road department or even merely propose funding cuts and the next day my constituent hits a pothole, they’re going to blame me even if my actions didn’t directly create that pothole. And that blame is politically justified and warranted, because my political stance is that we are spending too much on road maintenance, when clearly that’s not the case.
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/national-weather-service-hiring-spr...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2025/04/11/nx-s1-5361366/major-budget-cu...
This could be looked at as a result for bad choices our elected pols made over decades.
Even typing out this comment feels dirty as it's against hn commenting rules.
However...this is 50 percent of threads nowadays.
This isn't how climate science or causality works in relation to climate change. The climate is a chaotic, complex sysem that does not have a single, identifiable nexus by which we can "prove" things happen.
Climate scientists know this and, instead of trying to demonstrate irrefutable proof, point to a better need for monitoring and warning systems, of exactly the type mentioned in this article.
It is unfortunate that the author felt the need to lean into this argument, as is it precisely this kind of perspective that leads people to become suspicious of monitoring and warning systems (by generally rejecting scientific argumentation) - the exact problem that the author claims led to avoidable deaths.
The whole approach is quite confusing to me - why identify the issue and then act to reinforce the issue?
> Furthermore, weather model forecasts indicated the potential for a major precipitation event over this historically flood-prone region during the prior days.
So the answer is yes. Yes, it could have been entirely avoided had the landowners built in such a way that respected the land’s tendency to flood. Yes, it could have been avoided if landowners took warnings seriously, paid attention to past flood events, if the state had put flooding mitigation measures on a river or area known for flash flooding, or if literally anyone had observed that putting dormitories at or near river level was a generally awful idea from a safety perspective.
The fact people died in one of the most predictable types of disasters out there, yet are still trying to weasel around blame or fault, is beyond shameful, and something we don’t need Op-Eds about so much as we need more people calling it what for it is:
A wholly preventable tragedy.
One of those parties has gone completely off the rails into authoritarianism and science denial. Oligarchy is at the root of it: the barons can't sell "clean coal" and "drill, baby, drill" if climate change is seen to be tearing the world apart. Money über alles.
You'd think most people would be repulsed by such a party, but turns out that humans have a neat little exploit! Due to the fact that the parties are completely entrenched and about equally as popular, people intrinsically assume that their policies also have equal merit.
Hence our descent into shit.
[0]https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environme...
So if you are a local or state level official, this is what is under your control. The problem tho is that unlike the hypotheticals, taking a stand on this would require action, and/or taking responsibility.
I wish I had better ideas.
quite predictably, every time there's a major weather event in the news, he will chime in to give reasons why he thinks it shouldn't be blamed on climate change:
> 2018: Northwest Wildfires: Are We Seeing a "New Normal" Due to Climate Change or The "Old Normal"? [1]
> 2021: Is the Texas Cold Wave Caused By Global Warming? [2]
> 2021: Was Global Warming The Cause of the Great Northwest Heatwave? Science Says No. [3]
> 2022: Misinformation about Sea Level Rise [4]
> 2025: Why the LA Wildfires Have Little to do With Long-Term Drought or Climate Change [5]
> 2025: Seattle Times Climate Lab Misinforms about Climate Change, Sea-Level Rise, and Seattle Flooding [6]
the overall takeaway across all his reporting seems to be that everyone but him is over-exaggerating the effects of climate change.
and his "no connection to climate change" message often gets repeated beyond his blog, for example [7]:
> Mass also emphasized that the floods had no connection to climate change.
> “The climate change connection is non-existent. There is no trend in heavier precipitation in this region. There is no upward trend in floods,” he explained.
0: when he's not comparing the George Floyd protests in Seattle to Kristallnacht (https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article244800747.h...)
1: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2018/08/northwest-wildfires-a...
2: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/02/is-texas-cold-wave-ca...
3: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/07/was-global-warming-ca...
4: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2022/03/misinformation-about-...
5: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2025/01/why-la-wildfires-have...
6: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2025/06/seattle-times-climate...
7: https://mynorthwest.com/john-curley/texas-floods-cliff-mass/...
Flash Flood Alley exists from Medina county to the south to Cooke and Grayson counties in the north. Uvalde had 22" fall in 3 hours in 1935.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Flood_Alley
https://www.cityofdenton.com/ImageRepository/Document?docume...
Edit: I live on high ground in FEMA zone X within a mile / 2 km of the Guadalupe river.