And you should know the difference between an analog and direct equivalence.
There are daily forecasts, not likely to drive a government policy.
Then there are longer term seasonal outlooks like this... it's conceivable that some coastal town could have enacted an in reaction to this forecast. Probably didn't happen but could have.
Then there are the climatologists outlooks that we are basing policy on...
See the analogy We are just as likely to get the details wrong if not more so on longer outlooks than this seasonal outlook, yet we are still enacting policies because we somehow think the climatologists are going to be right about the details of the impact of it.
Try to get over your programming that says if anything that isn't in glowing support of anything climate change, and isn't willing to offer to burn cash in any and all efforts "to at least we are doing something" and try to think just a little bit.
#21 and you call that out for being bad policy... why support bad policy here? Because a (D) proposed it?
How about going after the schools who have used guaranteed loans to skyrocket their tuition rates. If an educated populace is the goal, then choosing to give money to those that mad bad decisions while those of us went to cheaper schools and worked while we were in school is just creating a wedge issue with no real return on increasing the education level in the country.
But a Dem proposed it, so pull out the pom poms again.