There is increasing evidence that anthropogenic global warming (AGW, the warming of Earth attributed to human activity)

[answerhappygod]

There is increasing evidence that anthropogenic global warming (AGW, the warming of Earth attributed to human activity) is leading to more frequent and more powerful severe weather events such as hurricanes and severe thunderstorms (https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/). Our ability to predict severe weather has gotten better over the last several decades, and so has our ability to mitigate the damage caused by it (through faster warning systems, better building codes, more sophisticated flood control, etc.). But all of these efforts cost money.
This week's discussion question is this: pretend you are the mayor of a small town in Tornado Alley (the region of the United States most prone to tornadoes; includes Oklahoma and parts of Texas, Kansas, and a few other states). Last year, part of your town was devastated by a tornado, and now you have received a large federal grant to be used to help your town protect itself against future events. The question is: how should this money be spent, in your opinion? Would it be most effective to spend it all on improving tornado forecasting so residents have more warning? Or would it be better to use the money to mitigate potential loss of life and damage to the town (reinforcement of buildings, construction of more tornado shelters, etc). Or would you do both, and if so, what percentage would you dedicate to