Increase in Natural Disasters? Prophesied?

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.

Nobody. Buz tried to evade the issue with his usual nasty habits but that's what it came down to.

quote:

---

Dealing with the fact that the complete NOAA list includes a significant number of major hurricanes prior to 1948:

​

Asgara writes:

​

Buz that NOAA list does not say what the criteria is for being on that list... your webpenny page doesn't either. It is a list not the list. It does not list all the major landfall hurricanes since 1900.

​

1. I took a good look at your list and mine. Actually mine has been updated to include the last seven years which yours does not list. Yours is obsolete and does not record the very significant last seven years of the major landfall hurricane disasters.

​

2. Yours does not show the increase by years as mine does. That, after all is what data we're after. Mine gives the number data for each year consecutively so as to observe the increase in frequency. Your chart does not show that.

---

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 hurricanes2) The layout of the webpenny article is better suited to show the supposed increaseNo 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.com
Here is what the site is about
WebPennys.com - About Us - Penny Stocks, Small Cap Stocks, and Micro Cap StocksThis is the purpose for which it was created: The webpenny report
http://www.webpennys.com/...icane_frequency_study/index.htmlThe NOAA list (mis)used by the webpennys report
Page 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 aboveThe Most Intense Hurricanes in the United States 1900-2000We 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 Century
Untitled DocumentThis 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 AMThis message has been edited by PaulK, 11-04-2005 08:10 AMThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 11-04-2005 08:21 AM

quote:

---

...but I apreciate your biblical knowledge,

---

What "biblical knowledge" would that be ? Buz can't even read the Bible as he demonstrated in the earlier thread.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

---

As I have shown to be the case, that report was taken from the only NOAA frequency trend chart available for the purpose of this discussion relative to the timeframe in which our discussion spans.

---

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.

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

Webpenny does not claim to be and authoritative source on hurricanes, nor have I suggested that. That's why they relied on NOAA's expertise for their data source.

---

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:

---

1. It's not a more reliable for the purpose of showing a complete updated frequency trend. That why the need for Webpenny to bring it up to date. Imo, a database as significant as NOAA should be updating the published data at least yearly or biyearly. So if you have a complaint, the buck stops with them.

---

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:

---

Both charts show the same number of pre-1948 landfall disasters which is seven. After all, that's what's really significant for the purpose of this discussion, the year 1948 when Israel became a nation being my repeatedly stated timeframe base.

---

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:

---

But again, it's not about intensity grading. It's about frequency trend of the most intense naturally disastrous ones. Most on both the frequency trend charts, Webpenny's and NOAA's, by far, occurred after 1948.

---

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:

---

I never ever claimed that 1948 marked the start of an increase in hurricane activity

---

In the same post you yourself used 1948 as the marker line.

quote:

---

In short, that event in 1948 had to happen before it could be said that an uptrend in natural disasters would be prophetically significant/relevant.

---

Not much of a prophecy then. Natural disasters vary in frequency. Allowed unlimited time an increase would certainly happen at SOME point after 1948.

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

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.

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.

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

From Phat's post. Buz's reply: 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 disastersYou can see it starting hereIn 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