Texas Flood and Climate Change: A Closer Look
Was the recent devastating flood in Texas linked to climate change and budget cuts from the Trump administration? Some media outlets seem to want you to think so.
The first report I came across regarding this tragedy was from the Washington Post on July 5th. For years, this newspaper has been one of the first to draw connections between natural disasters and global warming, often promoting what critics refer to as the “climate hoax” narrative pushed by former President Trump.
Interestingly, this time, the report framed the incident within the context of a tragic flash flood that happened in the same area back in July 1987. On that day, a teenager lost their life, and 33 others were injured when sudden flooding brought 5-10 inches of rain to the Guadalupe River Basin. Some might argue—related to public sentiment on climate change—that Americans don’t seem to care all that much about it these days.
So, was it really global warming at play this time? It appears that similar flooding events have occurred historically, including a much more severe flood over a century ago when the Guadalupe River peaked at over 42 feet.
The New York Times has also joined the conversation, suggesting that warming could have intensified rainfall, a claim that the Washington Post is likely to revisit. But that assertion doesn’t quite align with recent studies which show a global decline in rainfall intensity from 1975 to 2022.
Media and activist groups seem eager to tie flooding directly to climate change. For instance, Climatecentral.org recently held a webinar featuring Friederike Otto, a notable figure in the World Weather Attribution group that was launched with a $10 million grant from Jeff Bezos. Their focus is often on arguing that specific weather events are increasingly likely due to climate change, but many would assert that this approach is a retreat from rigorous scientific methodology.
If Otto and her team genuinely understood climate science, predicting natural disasters would be more within their reach. True expertise allows for more accurate predictions, while the inability to forecast events suggests a lack of deep scientific understanding. Rather than solid science, they often seem to function as activists making unverified claims.
Recently, reporters from the Wall Street Journal also echoed the sentiment that while global warming didn’t instigate the heavy rainfall, they felt responsible for contributing to that narrative. However, this isn’t entirely accurate considering the Guadalupe River rose to 37.5 feet during the recent flood, compared to its 42.3-foot peak in the flood of July 1869.
Furthermore, a significant factor to consider is that the fires in Texas aren’t necessarily correlated with emissions. For climate activists hoping to capitalize on these tragic floods, the disconnect is evident. Notably, Bill Nye expressed that reducing fossil fuel use could help prevent future flooding, but such claims fall short of substantiated evidence.
It is evident that there was a failure within the local warning system. Still, climate advocates are quick to blame staffing cuts made during the Trump administration, especially in the National Weather Service’s budget. However, it seems the NWS had adequate staffing before the flood, and they had indeed issued warnings ahead of time.
The Washington Post noted that meteorologists stated they were doing their jobs effectively, creating accurate forecasts and communicating them to the public.
Instead of assigning blame to unrelated parties for this tragic incident, we should be investigating how the flood management system can be improved and prioritize community safety. By cutting through the politicized narratives, perhaps we can move forward effectively.
