but how could he not have leaned into it
- if his analysis of data is correct this _one specific kind of wetter event in this one specific region_ seem to not have happened majorly more or less in recent years
- but similar events did happen since the 1940 often enough to call it IMHO negligent to not have precautions in place
- people are already abusing the even to push political propaganda, mostly about the weather service not doing a good job (probably with the intend to kill it doge style and replace it with a Musk company or similar), similar people on the other side are using it for political propaganda about climate change distancing yourself from either of it seems good
- now making people believe climate change is bad (as it really is) sound good, but if you use faulty easy to disprove examples for it it can easily have the opposite effect, in addition politicians use climate change to opt out of responsibility as in "no one could have predicted it because that new caused by climate change", but it isn't new and predictable (and was predicted)
so instead of derailing the discussion into one about climate change which most likely will end up fruit less it's better to focus about the facts at hand
- it's a flash flood risk area
- similar events have happened frequent enough through history for this to be known
- it was warned, repeatedly and reasonable price, about the damage
- either the warning didn't reach people or they ignored it
and in the last point we have direct actionable things:
Ignored it? Hold people responsible for negligence, idk. about US law but in the EU negligence (especially gross negligence leading to harm of people) is something you mostly can't opt out of no matter what you try.
Not reached them? Then that is another action point where we can find ways to improve it.