Cardude in Harvey bullseye

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
"The federal flood insurance program was amended in 2004 to reduce repetitive losses (the "two floods and you're out" act)". Cottontop.

I have not kept up. I moved to Fort Worth and lived on top a very high hill so paid no attention to changes. Good to know.

There is also the 51% rule.
 
There's a fourth option. The science doesn't support your position and most are too polite to point it out to you, since you seem fervent in your belief system. Just a possibility to consider.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04...et-another-wobbly-pillar-of-climate-alarmism/

Sorry, but I wasn't willing to pay to read the article by James Dilingpole which you referenced in your post. I did find an article in The Gaurdian about it (linked below) which was interesting.

(*Edit* Link working now...will read it, but have to go to work and will comment later.)

The Gaurdian article questioned whether such pieces should be published at all, to which the editor of the Spectator said in defence, "...every fact has to be correct. But there is no such thing as a 'correct' opinion".

The Gaurdian went on to say, "Delingpole, who writes for controversial rightwing news site Breitbart, was censured by the Australian Press Council in 2012 after he quoted an anonymous source who compared the wind farm industry to a paedophile ring. He has dubbed greens as "eco-Nazis" and in another article he ended a long list of people and groups supporting action on climate change by writing, "Truly there just aren't enough bullets".

The Guardian piece ends with a quote from Prof Sam DuPont at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, "I am a sucker for conspiracy theories but you have to ask yourself what is the most plausible: hundreds of scientists from over 50 countries working secretly together to promote a false idea, or merchants of doubt with financial and commercial interests at stake working very hard to undermine the scientific evidence".

I've always thought of you as someone who carefully considers his opinion when it comes to giving advice or sharing experiences with the technical aspects of boating. Do you really subscribe to Delingpole's views, or did you quickly link to his article in a hasty bout of contrarianism?

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...dification-alarmism-cleared-by-press-watchdog
 
Last edited:
Wifey B: Three random flood thoughts.

The health threats in the flooded area are scary. A lot of dirty water for an extended time. For those of you who live in the area, are you concerned? :ermm:

Irma is a typical Cape Verde hurricane. Now a CAT 3. Increased 58 mph in strength in 24 hours. Other Cape Verde hurricanes include Hugo, Floyd, and Ivan. Irma may slide harmlessly out to sea or may be disastrous for the Caribbean and then the US.

1/3 of Bangladesh is under water. In total the monsoons hitting Bangladesh, Nepal, and India have killed over 1200 people and impacted over 41 million. They are now headed to Pakistan. 950,000 houses damaged or destroyed. Also during rice farming season which is the number one occupation in the area. This all in an area and to a group of people far less able to deal with it than Texas and without the help South Texas will receive. Yet, many of us are not even aware as we don't see beyond our own windows. It brings back the images in my mind of some of the flooding of Haiti. :eek:

My thoughts with all those in Texas and worldwide being ravaged or under the threat of destructive weather. Some of this is very difficult to even imagine if you're not there, but to those impacted it's very real and very destructive.
 
One quick comment...had to laugh that Dilingpole quotes Patrick Moore to support his argument. Moore has claimed the Alberta Tar Sands industry is actually a 'green' industry because they are cleaning all that sand :D
 
Wifey B: Rant coming. $99 cases of water. $8.50 for one bottle. $20 for a gallon of gas. All in Houston. $4 for a gallon of gas in Dallas. The laws in Texas are way weak in this regard. Hope every business doing so gets a public Scarlet Letter and boycotted forever. But then maybe they don't care if they make enough to just retire. As bad or worse than the looters.

The storm has brought out the best of man, but the worst as well. :mad:
 
I will drink to that.... :)

The world is fill of horrors....so.....

Mother nature is pretty well known by now and while not predictable, should be expected to hand you your A** whenever it wants. In the US, that shouldnt be a secret or incomprehensible by anyone.

Most all effective disaster help is local, but eventually relief comes from many angles.

With that in mind, like in rescues at sea, expect no help, prepare for that and assume you will be at the end of the assistance line if there are any that apply to you.

If you are outside of the disaster, determine your surplus of anything and target the most direct line of disaster support to get it to the people who need it the most.
 
Kit
Wifey B: Rant coming. $99 cases of water. $8.50 for one bottle. $20 for a gallon of gas. All in Houston. $4 for a gallon of gas in Dallas. The laws in Texas are way weak in this regard. Hope every business doing so gets a public Scarlet Letter and boycotted forever. But then maybe they don't care if they make enough to just retire. As bad or worse than the looters.

The storm has brought out the best of man, but the worst as well. :mad:
Thought there were federal laws for disaster areas to prosecute gouging. But high waters and certain delivery areas could justify $8.50 per bottle.

If not federal, Texas seems to have something on the books, but how it will be applied will wind up in court.

Just like salvage can justify 50% of the value of a vessel and cargo....but usually a court decides.

Plus, usually the National Guard shows up with water buffalo trailers pretty quick.
 
Last edited:
An interesting human nature side effect of Harvey. Television and newspapers made a lot of the shut down of refineries. People in some areas such as Dallas panicked so all decided to go buy gas whether they needed it or not. As a result, stations ran out. There was plenty of gas available to serve all needs, but not once a run on the pumps was made.



Yeah, kind of curious. I think it was sparked by the shutdown of a pipeline from Houston? My son will be arriving back in Dallas today after being in Europe for a week. Since he frequently runs his truck on empty, he may be in for a surprise.
 
Wifey B: Rant coming. $99 cases of water. $8.50 for one bottle. $20 for a gallon of gas. All in Houston. $4 for a gallon of gas in Dallas. The laws in Texas are way weak in this regard. Hope every business doing so gets a public Scarlet Letter and boycotted forever. But then maybe they don't care if they make enough to just retire. As bad or worse than the looters.



The storm has brought out the best of man, but the worst as well. :mad:



That is unfortunate. Their were lots of statements about not allowing price gouging, but that would be dependent on state laws.

Just a caution, and you know this since you have retail businesses, we can see the retail price but we don't necessarily know what the retailer had to buy those things for. Yeah, they likely didn't have to pay 4 x as much for the fuel they have to sell but...

Edit: I see psneed beat me to the point above while I was typing.
 
Wifey B: Rant coming. $99 cases of water. $8.50 for one bottle. $20 for a gallon of gas. All in Houston. $4 for a gallon of gas in Dallas. The laws in Texas are way weak in this regard. Hope every business doing so gets a public Scarlet Letter and boycotted forever. But then maybe they don't care if they make enough to just retire. As bad or worse than the looters.

The storm has brought out the best of man, but the worst as well. :mad:

Yes, this is definitely the ugly side. Just curious what you feel we should do to the looters who break into small businesses, steal everything, and possibly put them out of business? Should they be given 10 years on the chain gang, forgiven because they were hungry and their only crime was planning poorly, or something else?

Ted
 
Yes, this is definitely the ugly side. Just curious what you feel we should do to the looters who break into small businesses, steal everything, and possibly put them out of business? Should they be given 10 years on the chain gang, forgiven because they were hungry and their only crime was planning poorly, or something else?



Ted



You asked BandB, and I'm not sure your question is serious or not but...

Say a person is wading through the water to escape flooding, and seriously gashes their leg in the process. Bleeding profusely, they see a pharmacy. They break in and steal some bandages and disinfectant. They also take some plastic and duct tape to try and protect the wound as they escape the flooding. No money or cash, so they leave. It that looting or survival? What would your suggestion be for that situation Ted?

It seems to me that the above, very unlikely scenario, is a lot different than the looter who might break into that same pharmacy and try to steel OxyContin and when foiled by the safe, decide to just destroy and steal everything they can. What would your suggestion be for them Ted?

I'm generally pretty mild-mannered, but I don't like looters.
 
Buy your supplies, food, water, fuel, etc....BEFORE the storm. Geez.
 
Yeah, kind of curious. I think it was sparked by the shutdown of a pipeline from Houston? My son will be arriving back in Dallas today after being in Europe for a week. Since he frequently runs his truck on empty, he may be in for a surprise.

Sparked by the news coverage of a shut down. Then panic. There's plenty of gas just that stations can't pump a week's worth in a day. There are plenty of places with fuel, looking at Gas Buddy's tracker. Just ran out late yesterday in some areas. Many got overnight deliveries. I heard that for those stations with gas last night, the wait averaged an hour.
 
You asked BandB, and I'm not sure your question is serious or not but...
.

Wifey B: Don't recall asking. :rolleyes: I didn't use a question mark. :rofl: Ok, I have to try to laugh and smile as we're about to land.

And I'm always serious. :angel: Well, except when I'm not. :devil:
 
Yes, this is definitely the ugly side. Just curious what you feel we should do to the looters who break into small businesses, steal everything, and possibly put them out of business? Should they be given 10 years on the chain gang, forgiven because they were hungry and their only crime was planning poorly, or something else?

Ted

Wifey B: Steal to feed their kids and I don't blame them. The ones pretending to be DHS officials and telling people to evacuate so they can then loot their home, lock them up. Most looters don't do it because of a need. Most price gougers don't either :nonono:
 
You asked BandB, and I'm not sure your question is serious or not but...

Say a person is wading through the water to escape flooding, and seriously gashes their leg in the process. Bleeding profusely, they see a pharmacy. They break in and steal some bandages and disinfectant. They also take some plastic and duct tape to try and protect the wound as they escape the flooding. No money or cash, so they leave. It that looting or survival? What would your suggestion be for that situation Ted?

It seems to me that the above, very unlikely scenario, is a lot different than the looter who might break into that same pharmacy and try to steel OxyContin and when foiled by the safe, decide to just destroy and steal everything they can. What would your suggestion be for them Ted?

I'm generally pretty mild-mannered, but I don't like looters.

Wifey B: Steal to feed their kids and I don't blame them. The ones pretending to be DHS officials and telling people to evacuate so they can then loot their home, lock them up. Most looters don't do it because of a need. Most price gougers don't either :nonono:

Yes, my question was serious.

So to the person who cut themselves and needs a bandage, or the one who steels to feed their family, who compensates the merchant? Bare in mind, it's not the cost of the bandage, it's the $1K plate glass window they broke to get the bandage. Before you tell me the insurance will cover it, most policies have exclusions for natural disasters and civil unrest. Having been a small businessman, the net result is the same whether they're looters or the hungry just trying to take care of their family. Businessman loses.

Would like to think the man who cut himself or the guy just trying to feed his family would come back and take care of the bill. I don't believe in the Easter Bunny anymore either.

Ted
 
Last edited:
Wifey B: Rant coming. $99 cases of water. $8.50 for one bottle. $20 for a gallon of gas. All in Houston. $4 for a gallon of gas in Dallas. The laws in Texas are way weak in this regard. Hope every business doing so gets a public Scarlet Letter and boycotted forever. But then maybe they don't care if they make enough to just retire. As bad or worse than the looters.

The storm has brought out the best of man, but the worst as well. :mad:

Texas has laws prohibiting price-gouging, and every public official on TV is reminding. 15 states have no such laws. Enforcement is always problematic.
 
The problem with looting is.... the person who owns the store may be losing as much or more than the person who perceives they need it more.

Would the person who "needs" something urgently ever plan on repaying?
 
I'm still here. We have just been cleaning up after the storm. Went down to my parents and sisters bay house down on the coast and are working on that this weekend. They had a little bit of damage down there, cabana blown away. Some roof damage. But overall we were so lucky. IMG_0909.jpg
IMG_0903.jpg
 
Pace yourself, in both clean up and beer!
 
Buy your supplies, food, water, fuel, etc....BEFORE the storm. Geez.



What?? Take responsibility ones self? Prepare for a flood when you know you live in a flood plain? What kind of mystical wizardry are you playing at man? This is madness, madness I say.

One of my best buddies moved to Houston 3 years ago and I just got off the phone with him before looking at the forum. His house and neighborhood are dry, the stores are open and stocked, he has plenty of gas albeit a bit pricier. Electricity never went out and he and his wife where able to help many less fortunate than they with food, water, hygiene products, charging cell phones etc all from their personal stash. He loaned out his generator and gave away extra fuel.

He said he hasn't seen half the crap they show on tv. Yeah it's flooded with big damage in many areas and some folks where too busy being interviewed by CNN to get rescued and had to take the next dump truck. Aside from some of the politicians mugging for the cameras and a few low life's taking advantage most folks aren't doing bad all things considered. They feel blessed and know many close friends that have lost everything but when the water moves on so will they.

They moved a friend and her 2 kids into their two extra bedrooms until they can get their place fixed but their willing to do that flood or no flood because that's just the way most good normal folks are. He also said the price gouging is not as widespread as the news makes it out to be, no surprise.

I continue to pray daily for our forum members affected to do well or be made whole in the most expedient fashion. The rest of us need to ask ourselves the following questions: if an emergency not necessarily as large in scope as this befalls you how many days of food water and other basics do you have right now? Are you prepared to flee(bug out) with little or no notice in the middle of the night or could you hunker down at home if possible for a week or two without outside assistance? Or perhaps you prefer the alternative.

Edit: goodonya Cardude, glad things are going well.
 
Sorry, but I wasn't willing to pay to read the article by James Dilingpole which you referenced in your post. I did find an article in The Gaurdian about it (linked below) which was interesting.

(*Edit* Link working now...will read it, but have to go to work and will comment later.)

The Gaurdian article questioned whether such pieces should be published at all, to which the editor of the Spectator said in defence, "...every fact has to be correct. But there is no such thing as a 'correct' opinion".

The Gaurdian went on to say, "Delingpole, who writes for controversial rightwing news site Breitbart, was censured by the Australian Press Council in 2012 after he quoted an anonymous source who compared the wind farm industry to a paedophile ring. He has dubbed greens as "eco-Nazis" and in another article he ended a long list of people and groups supporting action on climate change by writing, "Truly there just aren't enough bullets".

The Guardian piece ends with a quote from Prof Sam DuPont at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, "I am a sucker for conspiracy theories but you have to ask yourself what is the most plausible: hundreds of scientists from over 50 countries working secretly together to promote a false idea, or merchants of doubt with financial and commercial interests at stake working very hard to undermine the scientific evidence".

I've always thought of you as someone who carefully considers his opinion when it comes to giving advice or sharing experiences with the technical aspects of boating. Do you really subscribe to Delingpole's views, or did you quickly link to his article in a hasty bout of contrarianism?

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...dification-alarmism-cleared-by-press-watchdog

If you don't like Mr. Dellingpole and would like a list of peer reviewed studies on ocean chemistry that would call into question the belief that the oceans are becoming "acidified", they are readily available online. For me, the proposition that a change in pH from 8.2 to 8.1 is the greatest change in ocean pH in 50 million, or 300 million years, or whatever the claim is presumes a number of things, including, that we know what the pH of the ocean was 50 million years ago; that the normal variation of oceanic pH that fluctuates between 8.3 and 7.9 pH shouldn't be considered; and that a basic solution moving from (8.2) to still basic 8.1 pH is the same as "acidifying". Since I question those assumptions, I question whether those promoting this aspect of warming (which has been going on since 1780) as justification for spending trillions accomplishing nothing measurable are being rational.
 
Half day observations and random thoughts as we arrived in South Texas around noon and just retired for the day around nine.

We had neither one ever been in a hurricane area before today. Try as you might to empathize, television never feels completely real. Seeing the destruction in the Crescent Bend area and talking to the people there hits you very hard. After a few hours, I just had to step away a few minutes and escape and fortunately my wife knew me well enough to know that's what I was doing and needed. However, none of the people there can step away. It's there. It's in their thoughts. It's their world.

There's a tremendous amount of help being given. The kindness and generosity of people is incredible. However, it's all so totally inadequate. Millions are pouring in, but billions are needed. I spoke to people who seem to have a good idea of the task ahead but to more who seemed to be in some level of denial. Maybe that's what they need to get through it. But they weren't recognizing the time it will take to settle with an insurer, and then the time and the money rebuilding will require. What they consider temporary is going to be life for a long time. There was one couple working hard to clean up around their lot and mentally and physically exhausted that we had taken away to a hotel for two nights. I saw many working at high speed seeming oblivious to how long it was really going to take.

Since this is a boating forum, boats in the water did better than anything else we saw, better than boats on land, much better than dry stack boats, and much better than buildings. It struck us that maybe they needed to build houses out of fiberglass. The coastal area of Texas does have a different building code that the rest of the state, but in my lay opinion and that of some more knowledgeable than I am it's well short of the code in South Florida and what a true hurricane area needs. For those who haven't been in South Florida recently no homes are built there our of wood, no stick built homes as such. It's concrete block and concrete and steel as construction materials. You see the houses and buildings destroyed here and you're not surprised. My hope is that this area won't rebuild in the same way they did previously but will do so better. The problem is that is financially very difficult.

I learned some things about insurance in Texas. First for the Houston flood area. 71% of the damage will not be covered by insurance. I also learned that windstorm coverage is not required in a homeowners policy in Texas. Of course banks require it for a mortgage. Some people have it through their homeowners' insurance but many through Texas Windstorm Insurance Association.

We saw some very elderly or with serious health issues that you have to worry about.

We can only imagine the issues in Houston. We just chose this area. We know we can't fix things for any of them, can't undo what has happened, but if we can just help a few with a small need then it feels worthwhile. Probably anything we've done, some organization would have taken care of soon, but we were there and able to right now.

Most are in far better moods than the situation merits, feel lucky to be alive. Six months or a year from now while they're still waiting, that may change. There were a couple very depressed and some of us just sat and talked to them awhile. We also saw a couple who were very angry and displacing that anger not on the major stuff bothering them but on something very minor. We did run across a couple too who had moved onto their boats.

Electricity will be back in about a week. They got a fuel truck delivery today with free fuel. The return of water isn't yet known.

As everywhere there are a few working every day helping others and not even giving attention to their situation. One lady was asked if she didn't need to be doing something at her house. She said, "Oh Harvey has taken care of it, nothing I can do there, so might as well be here."

The spirit of people is amazing. Seeing their determination and what they're dealing with is awesome.

The outcome of all this is not known yet and will really unfold based on how we respond as a nation, which ultimately determines the level of repair, and then what changes the state and local communities make, which ultimately determines the likelihood of this repeating itself.

For any of those of you who have given money, I don't know where it's all going, but I can reassure you that a lot of items very needed are reaching those in need. They appreciate it too.
 
If you don't like Mr. Dellingpole and would like a list of peer reviewed studies on ocean chemistry that would call into question the belief that the oceans are becoming "acidified", they are readily available online. For me, the proposition that a change in pH from 8.2 to 8.1 is the greatest change in ocean pH in 50 million, or 300 million years, or whatever the claim is presumes a number of things, including, that we know what the pH of the ocean was 50 million years ago; that the normal variation of oceanic pH that fluctuates between 8.3 and 7.9 pH shouldn't be considered; and that a basic solution moving from (8.2) to still basic 8.1 pH is the same as "acidifying". Since I question those assumptions, I question whether those promoting this aspect of warming (which has been going on since 1780) as justification for spending trillions accomplishing nothing measurable are being rational.

You're probably familiar with this graph...

Ocean Acidification Graph | Smithsonian Ocean Portal

...which shows atmospheric CO2 climbing lock-step with carbon being absorbed in sea water, with a corresponding drop in pH. Yes, the graph starts in 1960, but that's not the point. Bear with me.

We know how much carbon has been in the atmosphere going back hundreds of thousands of years by testing air bubbles entrapped in Antarctic ice sheets. Unless chemical reactions waffle and drift over time, one can surmise the oceans have been reacting with the atmosphere as seen in the graph.

I know I don't have to spell this out to you, but that's why global warming and/or acidification of the oceans is a theory (like evolution) where estimations are made into the future or the past based on observations today.

Creationists dispute evolution (as do Pastafarians who follow The Great Spaghetti Monster) but most accept the theory today. Would be interesting to compare how much opposition Darwin faced in his day with those who oppose Humans having anything to do with altering our one and only planets climate.
 
You're probably familiar with this graph...

Ocean Acidification Graph | Smithsonian Ocean Portal

...which shows atmospheric CO2 climbing lock-step with carbon being absorbed in sea water, with a corresponding drop in pH. Yes, the graph starts in 1960, but that's not the point. Bear with me.

We know how much carbon has been in the atmosphere going back hundreds of thousands of years by testing air bubbles entrapped in Antarctic ice sheets. Unless chemical reactions waffle and drift over time, one can surmise the oceans have been reacting with the atmosphere as seen in the graph.

I know I don't have to spell this out to you, but that's why global warming and/or acidification of the oceans is a theory (like evolution) where estimations are made into the future or the past based on observations today.

Creationists dispute evolution (as do Pastafarians who follow The Great Spaghetti Monster) but most accept the theory today. Would be interesting to compare how much opposition Darwin faced in his day with those who oppose Humans having anything to do with altering our one and only planets climate.

Your reference to neo-Darwinism is on point, but perhaps not in the way you think. As you believe in Darwinism, you believe in MMGW. However, with an increasing understanding of epigentics, outside of high school textbooks, Darwinism is no longer is a theory much respected by many eminent biologists. Outside the popular and political press, same with MMGW theory.

But science is like that. Just when the true believers are convinced all the answers are known, reality has a way of intruding on preferred ideology.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...ogists-who-want-to-overhaul-evolution/508712/

https://uncommondescent.com/intelli...ionary-biologist-declares-neo-darwinism-dead/

Had Evolution Moved Beyond Neo-Darwinism? - Biology - Science Forums

A Scientific Consensus: Darwinism is Dead

Regarding the Smithsonian graph, the +/- of pH in the ocean is around .3 due to natural processes. A change of .04 in pH is background noise, signifying nothing. Just curious, but would you call a pH of 8.08 acidic, or basic? If basic, is a change of .04 mean "acidification", or a variation in basic chemistry well within the range of normal variation?

But, back to hurricane Harvey....Rather than thinking that the solution to weather is spending trillions to accomplish nothing, perhaps we can spend billions building higher levies in Houston, New Orleans, etc. Just a thought.
 
Your reference to neo-Darwinism is on point, but perhaps not in the way you think. As you believe in Darwinism, you believe in MMGW. However, with an increasing understanding of epigentics, outside of high school textbooks, Darwinism is no longer is a theory much respected by many eminent biologists. Outside the popular and political press, same with MMGW theory.

But science is like that. Just when the true believers are convinced all the answers are known, reality has a way of intruding on preferred ideology.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...ogists-who-want-to-overhaul-evolution/508712/

https://uncommondescent.com/intelli...ionary-biologist-declares-neo-darwinism-dead/

Had Evolution Moved Beyond Neo-Darwinism? - Biology - Science Forums

A Scientific Consensus: Darwinism is Dead

Regarding the Smithsonian graph, the +/- of pH in the ocean is around .3 due to natural processes. A change of .04 in pH is background noise, signifying nothing. Just curious, but would you call a pH of 8.08 acidic, or basic? If basic, is a change of .04 mean "acidification", or a variation in basic chemistry well within the range of normal variation?

But, back to hurricane Harvey....Rather than thinking that the solution to weather is spending trillions to accomplish nothing, perhaps we can spend billions building higher levies in Houston, New Orleans, etc. Just a thought.

You assume much about my world view, which isn't bound by dogma chains of any camp. Always open to new vistas or realizations :thumb:

Don't want to get into a potayto/potahto discussion about where the acidification starting line is...do you disagree that changing ocean pH levels effect shell growth?

There were land turtles in the Arctic 90 million years ago and the oceans have been knocked back to being mostly populated by jelly fish. Nature and Life always find a way. We just aren't smart enough to walk softly and stay out of the way.

Good chat...will be going off grid for a while to enjoy our corner of the planet.

Hope things begin to swing towards normalcy in Texas...
 
Back
Top Bottom