Climatologist Roy Spencer pointed out that those claims were unsubstantiated. “Unfortunately, there seems to be a trend toward classifying events as ‘1 in 1,000 years,’ when there is no way of knowing such things...Remember, it is perfectly normal to have a 1 in 100-year event every year...as long as they occur in different locations. That’s how weather records work.”
Marc Morano on "The Weather Lottery": Your chance of the winning the lottery is very low, but the chance of someone, somewhere winning the lottery are very high. The climate campaigners and the media essentially hype the “winners” of the extreme weather lottery, wherever they are, and attempt to imply these events are happening everywhere. Extreme weather always strikes somewhere at some time, and it always will, so there is no shortage of examples of “record” storms. Lotteries and casinos do the same thing in their ads—showing the winners, and implying that you are just one ticket or spin away from joining them.
Meteorologist Topper Shutt explained the misuse of the term 100-year flood after Hurricane Harvey hit Houston in 2017. “A 500-year flood does not mean that an area will see a flood of that magnitude once in 500 years. It means that in any given year there is a .2% chance of a 500-year flood and likewise a 1% chance every year for a 100-year flood,” Shutt wrote. “Remember, we are talking about billions of years of climate and usually just a hundred years of actual, observational data."
Morano: "Not everyone, however, is a fan of Warren's legislation... "This is virtue signaling of the highest order for her Democratic base, Marc Morano, the editor of ClimateDepot.com, said on "Fox & Friends" Wednesday. He argued that Warren's bill would give the U.S. government and the Securities and Exchange Commission extensive power to go after companies and "shake them down."
Morano: "My book details the absurdity of all of this, pay up or face bad weather. The government has to protect us from bad weather."
Daily Wire: Cricket powder will now be permitted in a number of food products, such as multigrain bread, crackers, cereal bars, biscuits, beer-like beverages, chocolates, sauces, whey powder, soups, and other items “intended for the general population,” according to the new regulation. Cricket One, a company that asserts that the insects are “nutritionally more efficient” and serve as a more reliable “source of alternative protein” than livestock, submitted the original application.
The New York Allergy and Sinus Centers has nevertheless found that “several allergic reactions to crickets” have been reported in the past two years. Individuals allergic to shellfish such as shrimp, crabs, and lobsters “may develop an allergy to crickets” because the species share many of the same proteins. ... Proposals for the increased consumption of crickets and other insects occur as many policymakers voice concern about the impact of meat production on climate change.