Liberal Forum

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 » 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.

You're a **** idiot.....as you were told the first time you swallowed that ****..


A letter sent Thursday from the chair of the House Science Committee to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross reveals that it was the Commerce Department, not the leadership of its National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, that drafted a controversial NOAA statement on Sept. 6 that backed President Donald Trump’s false statement about the path of Hurricane Dorian. That statement contradicted NOAA’s own meteorologists at a weather forecast office in Birmingham, Alabama.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.syracu ... utType=amp

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

14 Jun 2021, 9:14 am

I just told you they were, Dum Dum.  Now make your case.  No more questions.

Why do you lie about this?

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 9:10 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 9:10 am

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 9:08 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 9:08 am

No...

A man acknowledges his words..

Try again, Sheilagh..

Are they your words?

#readhissig

My name in the quote link shows they are my words.  A real man also makes his case.  Question time is over.  

 

 

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

14 Jun 2021, 9:14 am

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 9:08 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 9:08 am

No...

A man acknowledges his words..

Try again, Sheilagh..

Are they your words?

#readhissig

I just told you they were, Dum Dum.  Now make your case.  No more questions.  

 

 

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.

 

**** brick.

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 9:32 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 9:32 am

You're a **** idiot.....as you were told the first time you swallowed that ****..

A letter sent Thursday from the chair of the House Science Committee to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross reveals that it was the Commerce Department, not the leadership of its National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, that drafted a controversial NOAA statement on Sept. 6 that backed President Donald Trump’s false statement about the path of Hurricane Dorian. That statement contradicted NOAA’s own meteorologists at a weather forecast office in Birmingham, Alabama.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.syracu ... utType=amp

As posted to this thread you can not explain the alerts my kids got.  They live in the Enterprise AL area. 

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 9:36 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 9:36 am

As posted to this thread you can not explain the alerts my kids got.  They live in the Enterprise AL area.

Dwarf,

First acknowledge that you're dumb enough to fall for that crap.....TWICE.


 

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 9:32 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 9:32 am

Why do you lie about this?

When I posted the comment with a link,  with my name on it, that told they were my words.  Ooops, just told you again.

I also posted this in another post:

My name in the quote link shows they are my words.  A real man also makes his case.  Question time is over.  

Three times you were told they are my words.  STILLL waiting for you to explain what I got wrong. 

 

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 9:38 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 9:38 am

Dwarf,

First acknowledge that you're dumb enough to fall for that crap.....TWICE.

You get to acknowledge that there was nothing wrong in my posts concerning the track posted by NOAA on 29 Aug 19.  

Been waiting a few years for that one.  Plus, NOAA posted that statement to their website.  I acknowledge that NOAA did not write it. So, back to you.  

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 9:41 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 9:41 am

You get to acknowledge that there was nothing wrong in my posts concerning the track posted by NOAA on 29 Aug 19.  

Been waiting a few years for that one.  Plus, NOAA posted that statement to their website.  I acknowledge that NOAA did not write it. So, back to you.

You get to acknowledge that there was nothing wrong in my posts concerning the track posted by NOAA on 29 Aug 19.

it does not show the track....read the legend.

Been waiting a few years for that one

For what?

Plus, NOAA posted that statement to their website.  I acknowledge that NOAA did not write it. So, back to you.

You were told THEN that the statement was ****.

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 9:43 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 9:43 am

it does not show the track....read the legend.

For what?

You were told THEN that the statement was ****.

It sure does show a predicted track.  My comments you have been disingenuously reporting were true.  The NOAA images show it. 

You lose.   

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 9:45 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 9:45 am

It sure does show a predicted track.  My comments you have been disingenuously reporting were true.  The NOAA images show it. 

You lose.

It sure does show a predicted track

Post the legend..

My comments you have been disingenuously reporting were true. 

are you calling yourself a liar?

The NOAA images show it. 

what does NOAA say about Dorian threatening Alabama?

 

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 9:58 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 9:58 am

Post the legend..

are you calling yourself a liar?

what does NOAA say about Dorian threatening Alabama?

Post exactly what I was wrong about in the statements made in Sept of 2019.  

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 10:00 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 10:00 am

Post exactly what I was wrong about in the statements made in Sept of 2019.

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


 

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.  

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

14 Jun 2021, 10:08 am

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.

Post the legend...not the cherry picked bits.


 

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

14 Jun 2021, 10:10 am

Post the legend...not the cherry picked bits.

The legend is posted to this thread.  Plus, I just told you what the legend was telling us. I have been right so far.  You have contributed nothing to say I wasn't.  You want the legend posted again, you may do it.  Look for a post by Lucifershammer. 

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

14 Jun 2021, 10:14 am

The legend is posted to this thread.  Plus, I just told you what the legend was telling us. I have been right so far.  You have contributed nothing to say I wasn't.  You want the legend posted again, you may do it.  Look for a post by Lucifershammer.

You lost....Loser



Now, comment on the evidence....

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 10:19 am

You lost....Loser

Now, comment on the evidence....

I stand by comments that the the track released on 29 Aug 29 19 showed that AL was in line for the outer bands of the storm.  You posted nothing that shows that comment wrong.  

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 10:22 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 10:22 am

I stand by comments that the the track released on 29 Aug 29 19 showed that AL was in line for the outer bands of the storm.  You posted nothing that shows that comment wrong.

was in line for the outer bands of the storm. 

It's irrelevant.......which is why Grifty had to take a sharpie to the REAL map.....

Now, returning to the evidence...


Did Dorian threaten Alabama?

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 10:22 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 10:22 am

I stand by comments that the the track released on 29 Aug 29 19 showed that AL was in line for the outer bands of the storm  
.  You posted nothing that shows that comment wrong.
 

We entertained your diversion.....you are wrong...

was in line for the outer bands of the storm

post the entire legend