Increase in Natural Disasters? Prophesied?

To proceed in that direction in debth would be for another topic, I believe. If you know of a long term chart we could look at, imo, that would be sufficient. I'm not aware, from historical stuff over the last few centuries we read, that there has been any real significant periods showing an abnormal long term trend.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Well, when you're ready just start a thread because there is lots and lots and lots and lots of data.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That NOAA list which they used has me baffled as to what it's about anyway, and for what purpose it was compiled. I'm not sure Webpenny purposely missused it, since we don't know whether they checked out all the hurricanes on it as to landfall. They do, however, appear to have been at least, careless in choosing it for their purpose.edited quote by Asgara>>PBThis message has been edited by AdminPhat, 11-08-2005 06:56 AM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

I've got all I can handle on this thread, and by the time we're done with this thread, I'm ready to talk about other topics.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

I don't think that anyone has claimed that the webpenny report represetned an intentional misuse of the NOAA page. I certainly have claimed that it was simply shoddy research - jumping to an erroneous conclusion and not carrying out the necessary fact-checking.But I have to ask why, after multiple posts proving that the webpenny report is worthless you have only conceded that the report is "questionable". Yes it's an improvement over completely refusing to accept the disproofs offered but it is still not a rational stance.s

Hi Mike. I'm glad you're back. I would agree with you if it weren't for the corroborating fulfilled Biblical prophecies relative to the last days of the age, such as the latter day regather ing of Jews back to Israel as per the Biblical prophets, et al which I've posted. I didn't realize that I was being too emotional. At least it wasn't me doing the shouting.

Because we still don't know for sure why and for what purpose that NOAA chart was published which Webpenny cited in their report.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

No honest person appreciates being called a liar, Paul. I may be mistaken on occasion, but I do not lie. I was going on Webpenny's claim that the chart they published was only landfall hurricanes and at the time I posted that I was not aware of some things I learned later.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

quote:

---

Because we still don't know for sure why and for what purpose that NOAA chart was published which Webpenny cited in their report.

---

But we DO know that it was NOT for the purposes of illustrating the frequency of hurricanes in the 20th Century. We found the report that deals with that subject and it doesn't agree with the webpenny's report at all/.

quote:

---

PaulK writes:

​

This is an outright lie. I linked to a decade-by-decade summary of hurricanes for the 20th century. This is BETTER than the webpenny's list because it uses the complete NOAA records rather than simply assuming that the one list the author of the report bothered to look it happened to include the complete data.

​

No honest person appreciates being called a liar, Paul. I may be mistaken on occasion, but I do not lie. I was going on Webpenny's claim that the chart they published was only landfall hurricanes and at the time I posted that I was not aware of some things I learned later.

---

Thjhere is no way that you could NOT know that the webpenny's reprot was in dispute - there were too many posts disputing it by that time. And even if you refused to follow the links to the NOAA pages you KNEW that I had already asserted that that data contradicted the webpenny's report - and offered links so that the data could be checked.So in fact your "proof" was a reference to a source that you had already admitted was not authoritative. A source that had repeatedly been challenged. ANd even if you had not bothered to check the links at the least you know that data from NOAA - a genuinely authoritative sources - was being mustered against it. There is no way a reference to webpennys could be taken as showing anything about the actual incidence of hurricanes before and after 1948 at that point.Therefore your claim was a blatant falsehood - one that should have been obviously false even to you. It is simply not possible that you could have just made a simple mistake.

Lets watch the assertions and accusations and get back on the topic. No attack on any individual is warrented here.Buzsaw, I appreciate that you have acknowledged your fallibilities...Paul, I see that you have focused on the issue down the line here....Im just hanging out to see that you boys focus on the issues! Please don't ignore each others issues and make more assertions, however....keep the debate civil and linear! (Notice I edited)This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 11-08-2005 06:41 AM

---

Ah! So, that was the burning sensation in my ears!Thanks Mike. But you know me... Mr. WatchQuietlyFromTheSidelines. I'm not sure how much my opinion would be worth to Buz anyway, but I appreciate the accolade.

Attacks on opinions are certainly permitted.Let us remind ourselves of what Buzsaw said:

quote:

---

2. The Webpenny frequency trend consecutive year chart is nothing but an updated version of the only NOAA list published which shows the data we need to show to determine the frequency trend. I've not been able to find another such chart.

---

In the VERY POST HE WAS REPLYING to Ia) showed that the webpenny report did NOT contain the data requiredb) Linked to a chart which DID show the data needed (for a decade-by-decade analysis). How could Buz be unable to find data when all he had to do was click on the link provided in the very message he was replying to ?Here's the relevant section from Message 22Perhaps you should point out to Buz the rule requiring that he should argue in good faith. Which requires at least acknowledging the evidence in the post he is replying to, instead of writing as if it did not exist.

OK DOKIE....Buz? Paul wants to debate nicely now...I believe he has toned down his personal attack and is back on the issues...can you respond to his links?

1. The chart you linked here does not reflect a consecutive yearly sequence, so as to determine a frequency trend. It is an intensity chart. I addressed that problem.2. This chart does not designate landfall, and I, at that time, honestly thought the other chart did.3. I've had plenty of complaints about certain counterparts in these threads who, at times, weren't arguing in good faith, but I had the decency and civility not to malign their character by calling them liars.4. It remains a mystery, for what purpose the questionable NOAA list was published, and at the time, I honestly thought it fit the ticket for what I needed, so how about we drop the personal stuff and move on as Phat suggests. There's some more topic matter which I believe needs addressing.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw