BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 12% saturation with 117 hits. Analysis detected 605 faulty-reasoning hits from 975 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 23.8% and a BS Rank of 14% (24,850 of 28,818 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 86.20% of the article peer group.

When Harris County officials shared drafts of the area’s new FEMA flood maps in February, flood experts said they were long overdue  but could also quickly become outdated. 
“We have known for a long time that our 100-year floodplain was in error,” said Jim Blackburn, an environmental lawyer and co-director of Rice University’s SSPEED center. 
He added that the Houston region has continued to build based on flood maps that haven’t been updated in years. 
The maps define high-risk flood zones by putting individual plots into categories: Floodways, 100-year floodplains and 500-year floodplains. 
Floodplains are defined by whether the areas have at least a 1% or 0.2% chance of flooding each year, and can impact insurance requirements. 
But experts such as Blackburn warn that while the new draft flood maps do a better job than previous versions illustrating the area’s current risks, they are poor predictors of the future. 
“Even with these expanded maps, they're still just capturing the tip of the iceberg,” said Jim Elliott, a Rice University sociologist who specializes in flood risk. 
Elliott explained that the draft FEMA maps rely on Houston-area data from the past few decades, excluding extremes that are difficult to model. 
This strategy, he said, imagines risk through “a rear view mirror” and leaves out future projections for rapid development and climate change. 
“We’re still looking backwards,” he said. 
Underestimating flooding is risky at a moment when, for coastal Texas, factors like climate change are “loading the dice in favor of more frequent and severe floods,” said Natural Resources Defense Council environmental attorney Joel Scata. 
This tension between what regulatory maps say and Houstonians’ true risk can leave residents with “a false sense of security," co-director of Rice University’s Center for Coastal Futures and Adaptive Resilience Dominic Boyer said. 
Here are key things to know about the new maps  and what they leave out: 
Why did FEMA update its floodplain maps? 
By law, FEMA is required to review or revise its county-by-county flood maps every five years. 
In practice, it happens far less frequently. 
Harris County’s last comprehensive update was in 2007. 
Since then, local authorities have realized how poorly the 2007 maps reflected rapidly-changing flood risk in the area. 
Over just three years, from 2015 to 2017, the region had three 500-year storms, culminating in Hurricane Harvey. 
According to the Harris County Flood Control District, the pattern of extreme weather made it “clear that existing floodplain maps were not fully reflecting flood risk,” and the county started working with the federal government to design new maps. 
What do the draft FEMA maps tell me about my flood potential? 
The updated maps from FEMA, once enacted, will impact households by requiring many more Houstonians to buy flood insurance. 
But researchers and local officials have said for years that the maps should not be necessary to prompt coverage; rather, everyone in Harris County should have flood insurance. 
Once finalized, the FEMA maps can also be used as a basis for building codes, and were originally designed to dissuade people from developing or living in the county’s most-risky plots. 
Instead, experts say, they are often looked at through the lens of financial harm. 
“People assess the risk more as a risk of their insurance premiums going up than as a risk of actually flooding,” Elliot said. 
What is different about the maps this time? 
In a June public session on the FEMA update process, the flood control district’s Planning Division Director, Ataul Hannan, said the newly drafted maps “go way past just a routine update.” 
“The most significant driver of this study is that rainfall amounts are also increasing,” Hannan said. 
Officials included new federal data that indicates a 30% increase in rainfall. 
The draft maps also incorporate nuanced topographic data and account for the benefits of new flood control infrastructure. 
But Houston-area experts have cautioned that other factors, including future impacts from the changing climate, were not reflected in the maps. 
Why don’t FEMA flood maps consider climate change? 
FEMA is required to create regulatory maps based on the rainfall and storm data from the past several decades, using this historical information to predict the statistical likelihood of future outcomes. 
Increasingly, climate researchers are arguing that the world is changing too quickly for these techniques. 
“Climate change is suggesting that the models of the past and the data of the past are mostly inadequate,” Rice’s Elliott said. 
“That backward casting isn't working as effectively as it used to.” 
The global Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released comprehensive reports showing that already climate change “has detectably influenced” multiple contributing factors that cause flooding. 
Three potential impacts on coastal Texas include the role that atmospheric warming triggered by greenhouse gas accumulation has played in rainfall intensity, hurricane frequency and sea-level rise. 
Still, these are not the only reasons Texas flood maps get quickly outdated. 
What else do the maps leave out? 
FEMA flood maps’ use of historical data leaves another major gap: As development explodes across the region and more of the naturally-absorbent prairie grasses and riverbanks get paved over, nearly everyone’s likelihood of flooding goes up. 
The map data includes the impacts of past development, but does not consider future projects. 
And those are likely to be significant. 
“Right now, the biggest changing driver of risk is the development of communities, not necessarily the environmental conditions,” said Sam Brody, director of the Institute for a Disaster Resilient Texas at Texas A&M University. 
The FEMA analysis is also built around flood incidents for which we have enough data to determine statistical probability. 
They do not include all areas that could be impacted by what researchers refer to as “worst credible floods,” such as the Tax Day flood in 2016 or Harvey in 2017. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.5%Rebekah F. Ward: 1.3%Houston Chronicle: 2.5%Confirmation Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.4%Houston Chronicle: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 2.1%Houston Chronicle: 2.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.5%Houston Chronicle: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Rebekah F. Ward: 6.6%Houston Chronicle: 3.6%Framing Effect3.5%This article: 2.4%Rebekah F. Ward: 1.7%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Loss Aversion2.4%This article: 4.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.4%Houston Chronicle: 0.3%Status Quo Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.8%Houston Chronicle: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Rebekah F. Ward: 1.8%Houston Chronicle: 1.0%Pessimism Bias8.2%This article: 8.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 10.6%Houston Chronicle: 4.7%Negativity Bias8.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.4%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.3%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.5%Houston Chronicle: 1.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.6%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.4%Houston Chronicle: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 2.7%Houston Chronicle: 2.6%Appeal to Authority12.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 1.3%Houston Chronicle: 0.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 1.8%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.1%Rebekah F. Ward: 3.7%Houston Chronicle: 2.8%Hasty Generalization5.1%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.2%Rebekah F. Ward: 4.3%Houston Chronicle: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion7.2%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.2%Houston Chronicle: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 1.8%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.2%Houston Chronicle: 1.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.8%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.2%Houston Chronicle: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.2%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.8%Houston Chronicle: 1.8%Anecdotal3.2%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.3%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.6%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.3%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.4%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 1.1%Houston Chronicle: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.8%Houston Chronicle: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 2.9%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.3%Houston Chronicle: 1.1%Indoctrination2.9%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 0.6%Houston Chronicle: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebekah F. Ward: 1.2%Houston Chronicle: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

975 words analyzed.

Speakers

8speakers44%attributed speech548writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words9.1% of attributed speech26% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Indoctrination-5.1 ptsWriter: 5.1%Harris County Flood Control District: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.