How much money should the government spend to extend the life of an 80 year old sickly person?

See: Texas in 2011. Aside from that, it is impossible to plan for past events. One should prepare for future events. Duh.

That future, climate-wise, will be a LOT worse than in the past. There will be more frequent and more severe cold snaps and storms, in Texas and everywhere else. You can be a good Republican and deny it if you wish.

As I said, the 2011 storm did not come near this year's Texas storm.

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/houston/historic?month=2&year=2011

Kevin believes that weather has been more severe and will continue to be even more severe in the future.  Here is reality of the weather that we've experienced in the United States over many years............some data goes back 130 years.  Just because the media is pushing an agenda doesn't make it so.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/despite-what-youve-heard-global-warming-isnt-making-weather-more-extreme/

Recovery workers are finding people frozen to death under cover in their beds.  An 11 y/o boy froze to death in his bed.   They found temps inside the homes the same as outside--sub freezing.  This is unacceptable, whatever has to be done to minimize the risk of it happening again.

OK, Boilerman, yes I would spend the money to insure that "granny" never froze to death in her bed, or anyone else, next winter or fifty years from now.  

It has been a mantra among parents," I want my kids to have it better than I did."   It sounds lovely, but it has been taken to the extreme in the last several decades.   The kids can make their own way to college, ride the bus until they can afford a used car, save for a house. 

If it can happen in Texas, one of the  most southern of southern states, perennially hot as hell much of the time, it can happen there again.  They need to fix it.

Candy

That's just ignorant. A strong consensus of the world's scientists states that the weather in future years will be nothing like it was in the recent past. It's not an "agenda," and it's not my "beliefs." It's just cold, hard science.

Your silly stance might have made sense thirty years ago, when there wasn't much data to support that conclusion. But now, we have a figurative mountain of evidence. Only a fool would deny it.

I would laugh if it wasn't so disappointing---people like you see these unprecedented weather events and say that because they've been rare in the past, they will continue to remain rare. I'm a layman, but I know that adding more energy to the atmosphere, which we've been doing for decades, produces more and more frequent violent weather events. You can always find some article written by some hack that tries to deny that reality.

But go ahead, be an ignorant, reality-denying RepubliQ slave.

Well, they can't fix it as such, in no small part because there are enough Republicans nationwide to stop any meaningful efforts to address climate change, but what they can do is acknowledge the new reality and adjust and prepare for it. This winter storm/freeze was far from a one-off; it'll happen again, and again, and soon.

Boiler wants to pretend that because such events have been rare in the past, they'll continue to be rare in the future. I guess that's conservatism in a nutshell--denying that things change or that we should change how we address and solve problems. And of course, in Texas politics, there's an active incentive to deny the reality of climate change.

Candy, you're right that what happened in Texas was unacceptable. I can guarantee, though, that the politics in Texas will prevent any meaningful changes. This will happen again, with more misery and deaths. It will only be fixed when Republicans in Texas are viewed about as favorably as rattlesnakes, and that ain't happening for decades. Boiler and his ideological colleagues would drive the ocean liner at full speed through the ice fields, because yeah, the Titanic sank, but how often does that happen? 

It's sad that so many Texans suffered and will continue to suffer because the state is run by a gang of Republican kleptocrats who bend over for the fossil fuel industry and ignore the needs of the people. Maybe, though--just maybe---a FEW of the people who support those idiots ("mah pappy and granpappy done voted Repubblekin and me too!!") will reject them in future elections.

Which data do you disagree with?  It's all government data, BTW.  It's obvious the Kevin didn't review the government generated data which explains why he holds his opinion that the sky is falling.

Spoken like a true obsolete conservative.

Which up to date data do you disagree with?  Kevin never has an answer to the tough questions.

Kevin never bothers to answer the stupid questions, particularly the "do you still beat your wife" type of questions that Boiler so loves to ask. In order to ask which data I supposedly disagree with, Boiler would first have to tell me where I said I disagreed with any data.

Of course, one cannot and should not either 'agree" or "disagree" with data--one should interpret it. That's a bit too subtle a concept for Boiler.