Liberal Forum

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 9:22 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 9:22 am

From Wednesday, August 28, through Monday, September 2, the information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama. This is clearly demonstrated in Hurricane Advisories #15 through #41, which can be viewed at the following link.

The Birmingham National Weather Service’s Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time.

https://www.noaa.gov/news/statement-from-noaa

@Blackvegetable  

Waiting for you to tell me what I got wrong....Tick Tock.

 

Huey » 21 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

21 minutes ago

I said not g of how strong it would be, did I?  Rhetorical questions.  The answer is no.
  Here are my words:

The cone so to speak shows that if continues move northwest the gulf states could see some sort of effects form the storm.

Take your L.  And stop lying about me answering questions..  Grab your measly sack, man up, and take the pledge.  I will prove you wrong.  As usual.

You won't.  Oh, If you take the pledge I will not answer any question based on an edited post.

Huey » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

12 minutes ago

@Blackvegetable  

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2019/D ... bs_34_F120

Game, Set. Match.

Blackvegetable » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

Over the following week, Trump repeatedly insisted his comment had been correct. On September 4, he showed reporters a weather map which had been altered with a black Sharpie marker to falsely show the hurricane on track to hit Alabama.[4] He also reportedly ordered his aides to obtain an official retraction of the weather bureau's comment that the storm was not headed for Alabama. On September 6, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published an unsigned statement in support of Trump's initial claim, saying that National Hurricane Center (NHC) models "demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama."[5] 

Two agencies investigated allegations that the Trump administration exerted political influence over NOAA. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) report, released on June 15, found that Neil Jacobs, the acting NOAA administrator, and Julie Kay Roberts, the former NOAA deputy chief of staff and communications director, twice violated codes of the agency's scientific integrity policy with their involvement in the NOAA statement. On July 9, the inspector general of the United States Department of Commerce issued a report confirming that Commerce officials had responded to orders from the White House which resulted in the statement issued by NOAA.[6] 

so **** g'ddammned stupid

Huey » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

It is over, Snow Bunny.  A week or so prior an official projection map and graphic showed South eastern AL could feel tropical force winds.

Buh bye.  DO NOT bother me with y9ur spin and ****, Snow Bunny.

Blackvegetable » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

Your only supporting citation is a fraud, Imbecile.

Huey » 31 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

31 minutes ago

The NOAA graphic is NOT a fraud, Snow Bunny.  Stop l lying, puss.

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2019/D ... bs_34_F120

Blackvegetable » 28 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

28 minutes ago

It never ends...

When Trump sent the tweet, the official Hurricane Center forecast showed the storm skirting the East Coast far away from Alabama. Only one National Hurricane Center forecast product was showing any potential impact in Alabama — a 5 to 20 percent chance of tropical-storm-force winds in a small portion of the state.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/ ... al-report/

Huey » Today, 11:23 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:23 am

That is what I have been saying, idiot.

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2019/D ... bs_34_F120

That is not a link to a tweet.  It is a link to the official archive of the National Hurricane Center/NOAA.  If it was fraud or false it would have been taken down or a notice would have been put it up saying as such.

Take your L, Snow Bunny.  I guess you are saying that NOAA, thru the NHC, lied.

Blackvegetable » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

17 minutes ago

Huey » Today, 11:23 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:23 am

That is what I have been saying, idiot.

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2019/D ... bs_34_F120

That is not a link to a tweet.  It is a link to the official archive of the National Hurricane Center/NOAA.  If it was fraud or false it would have been taken down or a notice would have been put it up saying as such.

Take your L, Snow Bunny.  I guess you are saying that NOAA, thru the NHC, lied.

Idiot.

Read the citation again.
 

 

Huey » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

12 minutes ago

I did read it.  You have not gone to the NOAA NHC archive link I posted, Fool.

From your source:

a 5 to 20 percent chance of tropical-storm-force winds in a small portion of the state.

Snow Bunny, I have never disagreed with that and have posted that. Tae you L and move the **** on, Snow Bunny.

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 10:08 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 10:08 am

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 10:05 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 10:05 am

Already done...as well as on a dedicated thread...

No, the legend supports my posts.  7 days it out Alabama had a 5-20% chance of tropical storm force winds according to the projected track.  That state west of GA (to the left) is AL.  Note the green portions.  

You lose again.   So now you get to post what I got wrong.  

 

Blackvegetable » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

Huey » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

17 minutes ago

I did read it.  You have not gone to the NOAA NHC archive link I posted, Fool.

From your source:

a 5 to 20 percent chance of tropical-storm-force winds in a small portion of the state.

Snow Bunny, I have never disagreed with that and have posted that. Tae you L and move the **** on, Snow Bunny.

do you understand that the NOAA statement to which you refer is ****?

That the "scenario" included was "cherry picked"?
 

 

Huey » 15 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

15 minutes ago

Do YOU understand that the NOAA NHC archived web page is NOT ****, Snow Bunny? I posted what you did 5 **** years ago, Snow Bunny.

Stop lyng.

Blackvegetable » 46 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

46 minutes ago

https://www.noaa.gov/news/statement-from-noaa

This is ****.

The other links you provided confirm the low probability of 30 mph winds.

Huey » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

12 minutes ago

D.mbass, I posted that.  The "other link" I provided ******* is in the link above.  Which is correct.  *******, they are saying the tweet from Birmingham is incorrect, not the 5-20% chance of tropical force winds in the NOAA cone.

Ad we agree on that , SnowBunny.  As my post from 2021 proved.

You lost.  You tried again to reframe what I have said for years and you got your fat, flabby *** kicked to the curb.

@Vegas  
@ROG62  
@GHETTO BLASTER  
@Beekeeper

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Huey » 22 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

22 minutes ago

D.mbass, I posted that.  The "other link" I provided ******* is in the link above.  Which is correct.  *******, they are saying the tweet from Birmingham is incorrect, not the 5-20% chance of tropical force winds in the NOAA cone.

Ad we agree on that , SnowBunny.  As my post from 2021 proved.

You lost.  You tried again to reframe what I have said for years and you got your fat, flabby *** kicked to the curb.

@Vegas  
@ROG62  
@GHETTO BLASTER  
@Beekeeper

they are saying the tweet from Birmingham is incorrect,

You lost.  You tried again to reframe what I have said for years and you got your fat, flabby *** kicked to the curb.

Blackvegetable » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

In ONE concise sentence, what have you "said for years"?

Narcissistic amnesia (informal term) refers to a pattern sometimes seen in people with strong narcissistic traits.

• Selective forgetting – They “forget” events where they behaved badly or were at fault.
• Image protection – Memory gaps tend to protect their self-image.
• Rewriting history – Past events are retold in a way that favors them.
• Minimizing harm – Hurtful actions are downplayed or reframed as justified.
• Lack of accountability – Forgotten events conveniently remove responsibility.
• Inconsistent recall – They remember details that benefit them but not those that don’t.
• Emotional detachment from impact – They may not retain memory of how others felt.
• Gaslighting overlap – Their denial or altered recall can make others question their own memory.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Vegas » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

Blackvegetable » 23 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

23 minutes ago

In ONE concise sentence, what have you "said for years"?

@Huey  I take it this is one of his usual narcissist amnesia episodes. He pretends that he doesn't know past conversations regularly. 

Does any of this look familiar?

Narcissistic amnesia (informal term) refers to a pattern sometimes seen in people with strong narcissistic traits.

• Selective forgetting – They “forget” events where they behaved badly or were at fault.
• Image protection – Memory gaps tend to protect their self-image.
• Rewriting history – Past events are retold in a way that favors them.
• Minimizing harm – Hurtful actions are downplayed or reframed as justified.
• Lack of accountability – Forgotten events conveniently remove responsibility.
• Inconsistent recall – They remember details that benefit them but not those that don’t.
• Emotional detachment from impact – They may not retain memory of how others felt.
• Gaslighting overlap – Their denial or altered recall can make others question their own memory.

 
 

 

Nobody » 04 Sep 2019, 4:12 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2019, 4:12 pm

Just saw him on TV still sticking with his lie that Alabama was in the original forecast.
And the King of the black sharpie has no idea how that black mark got on the map.
The man is so incapable of ever admitting he was wrong about anything that it looks like he may have altered an official NOAA map, which is illegal.

The original Tweet:



The Birmingham National Weather Service correction:

Huey » Today, 2:13 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 2:13 pm

D.mbass, I posted that.  The "other link" I provided ******* is in the link above.  Which is correct.  *******, they are saying the tweet from Birmingham is incorrect, not the 5-20% chance of tropical force winds in the NOAA cone.

Ad we agree on that , SnowBunny.  As my post from 2021 proved.

You lost.  You tried again to reframe what I have said for years and you got your fat, flabby *** kicked to the curb.

@Vegas  
@ROG62  
@GHETTO BLASTER  
@Beekeeper

they are saying the tweet from Birmingham is incorrect,