|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Increase in Natural Disasters? Prophesied? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I would add that we also need a prophecy that specifically links the increase in natural disasters to the events of 1948.
Having pointed out the fact that no such prophecy existed concerning the supposed increase in hurricanes - and being accused of "not being interested in the facts" for my pains I'm just a little sensitive on the issue right now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Nobody. Buz tried to evade the issue with his usual nasty habits but that's what it came down to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: So the reasons for denying the existence of these earlier hurricanes are: 1) The list used by webpenny has been extended to include some later hurricanes 2) The layout of the webpenny article is better suited to show the supposed increase No sane person could claim that these points had any relevance to the real objection. I leave to the audience the question of whether Buz actually believes them himself. Some relevant facts ARE: a) webpennys is a penny stock site - it is NOT an authoritative source on hurricanes. b) NOAA IS an authoritative source which even the webpenny article implicitly admits - it claims to have simply added to a list compiled by NOAA. Obviously NOAA should be considered a more reliable reporter of its own data. c) The webpennys report misuses the NOAA list because it assumes that it is a complete list of the major hurricanes. when in fact it makes no such claim and omits a significant number of major hurricanes that occurred before 1948. (This can easily be checked, and I did it - see below for what I found). All these were raised on the previous thread. They conclusively show that the webpennys report is the invalid product of inadequate research. Further information: Webpennys.comHere is what the site is about WebPennys.com - About Us - Penny Stocks, Small Cap Stocks, and Micro Cap Stocks This is the purpose for which it was created:
WebPennys.com was originally developed in 1999 to cross-market my other web sites, as well as, bring increased investor awareness to my own stocks, which I often felt the company(s) under-promoted and/or under-represented the activities/value of their own company.
The webpenny reporthttp://www.webpennys.com/...icane_frequency_study/index.html The NOAA list (mis)used by the webpennys reportPage Not Found (note that the NOAA list does NOT give any indication of how it was compiled or why other hurricanes were excluded - thus the assumption that it represents a complete list of major - or even the "worst" hurricanes is not to be relied on) This NOAA report was one of the sources used to compile the list used by webpennys. As you can see it can easily be found on the web.
THE DEADLIEST, COSTLIEST, AND MOST INTENSE UNITED STATES
HURRICANES FROM 1900 TO 2000
If the selection was by intensity - as Buzsaw claims it should agree with this list linked to the report cited above The Most Intense Hurricanes in the United States 1900-2000 We only have to get to the equal 7th place on this list to find TWO pre-1948 hurricanes omitted from the list used by webpennys(The New Orleans hurricane of 1915 and the Grand Isle hurricane of 1909) This table summarises the actual data on hurricanes hitting the US in the 20th CenturyUntitled Document This table does not show the claimed increase - there was a minor peak in the '50s but the 70's were the quietest decade of the century. More than half the major hurricanes (category 3+) occurred in the first half the century. Thus the data shows that 1948 did not mark the start of an increase in major hurricanes hitting the US. This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 11-04-2005 01:13 AM This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-04-2005 08:10 AM This message has been edited by AdminJar, 11-04-2005 08:21 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: What "biblical knowledge" would that be ? Buz can't even read the Bible as he demonstrated in the earlier thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
While Buz might be technically correct to make a claim that something was increasing, he could still be wrong to claim that the increase was actually significant without a comparative base. If the incidence of disasters were simply returning to normal after a dip it would be increasing but it would not fulfil a prophecy that said that the incidence of disasters would be unusually bad.
With regard to the hurricane data Buz is reduced to arguing that the report he likes should be accepted as accurate because the layout is more convenient. The fact that the actual reports from NOAA refute his claim is to be ignored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
A simple admisison of error and perhaps an apology for failing to check the facts - even after they were made available to you - would have been an adequate response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
But the webpenny's report that you cited and supported was NOT truth. It was error, as I have proved.
If you want to argue against the truth then you will only make things harder for yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: We've seen the webpenny's report. We KNOW the NOAA list it was taken from because it was linked to form the report. It was NOT "frequency trend chart". Better data has been found - such as the decade-by-decade breakdown I listed. So not only have you failed to show any such thing, you have been proved wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Fact: The webpenny's list omits major hurricanes that occurred before 1948 - while including weaker hurricanes that happened later. If you assert that the list IS a complete listing of major hurricanes you are implicitly denying that those omitted by the list ever ocurred.
Do you admit that the webpenny's list is useless for showing an increasing trend because it is incomplete ? quote: 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.
quote: So therefore you have no good reason to continue to champion the webpenny's report when it is contradicted by the real data from NOAA.So why are you doing it ? quote: The author of the webpenny's report is entirely to blame for his own shoddy research. The NOAA list he used is simply a selection of major hurricanes. His ideas about what it represented were his own and NOT claims made on the NOAA webpage he used. Better information IS available on NOAA and has been provided in this thread and the previous thread.
quote:Of course the number is the same - that IS the mistake ! And since we know from the other data that the list does NOT represent the actual frequency of occurrence it has no significance to ant prophecty relating to the actual occurrence of hurricanes. quote:False. On the decade-by-decade list the majority of major hurricanes occurred in the FIRST half ot the century (35 out of 65). The low point is the 1970s. And it would be absolutely insane to use the webpenny's frequency chart because it is KNOWN to be based on incomplete data.
quote:In the same post you yourself used 1948 as the marker line. quote: Not much of a prophecy then. Natural disasters vary in frequency. Allowed unlimited time an increase would certainly happen at SOME point after 1948.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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/.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Attacks on opinions are certainly permitted.
Let us remind ourselves of what Buzsaw said:
quote: In the VERY POST HE WAS REPLYING to I a) showed that the webpenny report did NOT contain the data required b) 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 22
If the selection was by intensity - as Buzsaw claims it should agree with this list linked to the report cited above The Most Intense Hurricanes in the United States 1900-2000 We only have to get to the equal 7th place on this list to find TWO pre-1948 hurricanes omitted from the list used by webpennys(The New Orleans hurricane of 1915 and the Grand Isle hurricane of 1909) This table summarises the actual data on hurricanes hitting the US in the 20th CenturyUntitled Document This table does not show the claimed increase - there was a minor peak in the '50s but the 70's were the quietest decade of the century. More than half the major hurricanes (category 3+) occurred in the first half the century.
Perhaps 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
1) The chart I used represents the numbers of hurricanes per decade. It includes a a breakdown by intensity (dividing between category 1 & 2 and category 3+)
2) The question of landfall does not seem to be especially significant, compared to the overall occurrence.But if it IS important then you should be using the list Asgara posted in theoriginal thread and in Message 45 which specifically states that it refers to hurricane strikes on the U.S. 3) I doubt very much that you have caught any of your opponents making such blatantly false statements with no excuse - which is the best that could be said of your statement. And before you get on your moral horse don't forget that I cna point to false accusations you've made quite easily/ 4) There's nothing wrong with the NOAA list. And the only reason you beleived it was what you wanted was because the webpenny's author made claims about the list that weren't true - NOAA didn't make those claims. And I will add that nobody is complaining about your initial use of the list (although you should have known that it was not a source that should automatically be trusted). The problem is your continued use of the webpennys report AFTER evidence that it was inaccurate had been posted and AFTER it was revealed that the NOAA page did not back up webpenny's assertions about the nature of the list). [Edits to points 1 & 2] This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-08-2005 10:57 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
From Phat's post.
Asgara writes: Can it be shown that natural disasters are increasing since 1948 and does this fulfill biblical prophesy and suggest the imminent end of this world. I suggest that an increase in natural disasters must be shown before a claim can be made for the accuracy of biblical prophesy. Phat writes: Perhaps you can bring up the precise scriptures that suggest such a correlation. Buz's reply:
Buzsaw writes: I've done that, citing prophesies of the Middle East, including the rebirth of the Nation of Israel, as per the prophets of both the Old Testament and the New, including Jesus himself. I've cited the prophesies on the Middle East, modern technology heretofore impossible, global warming, and other in the book of Revelation, et alI've shown where the nation of Israel must be in re-established with Jerusalem occupied again by Jews, before it can be said that the end times are here. It appears that it would do well for you to go back and read these things. If you go back to the oriignal thread you will see that these prophecies" generally do NOT fit the bill, and Buz's interpretation of them is highy questionable to say the least. Buz even admitted that the prophecies he was using were NOT about disasters You can see it starting here In other words Buz DIDN'T "do that"-- Buz evaded the issue instead. And now Buz is lying about it. And Buz can't claim to be an honest person inslulted at being called a liar since an honest person wouldn't have evaded the issue in the first place. You might also like to note that despite Buz's boasts of having deeply studied the Bible and having carefully read Ezekeiel 37 and having missed nothing he STILL managed to miss the obvious fact that Ezekiel 37 was talking about a reunification of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah - he even claimed that this reunited kingdom was actually visible as the modern state of Israel which is neither a kingdom, nor reunified with the people of the Lost Tribes. Whether Buz is incapable of reading the Bible correctly, lying about having read carefully (or at all) or lying about what it said seems to be impossible to tell. Whichever is the truth it is clear that Buz can't be trusted to accurately represent the Bible - even in simple matters. This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 11-09-2005 07:44 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024