Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 10:26 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 10:26 am

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?

I am not concerned with what Trump did.  I am concerned with your disingenuous characterization of my comments.  You have not proven them wrong. 

I have already answered that question.  Last time:  

Did the real path threaten Al?  Nope.  Did an earlier projected path on the 29th of August put AL in line for the outer bands of the storm?  Yup.

You lose.  

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 10:35 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 10:35 am

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

post the entire legend

Well, it is your job to show where I am wrong.  Get to it.

You can't because I am right.  

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 10:37 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 10:37 am

Well, it is your job to show where I am wrong.  Get to it.

You can't because I am right.

No..you are lying..

How do we know?

It's not the map on Grifty's desk.
 

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 10:35 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 10:35 am

I am not concerned with what Trump did.  I am concerned with your disingenuous characterization of my comments.  You have not proven them wrong. 

I have already answered that question.  Last time:  

Did the real path threaten Al?  Nope.  Did an earlier projected path on the 29th of August put AL in line for the outer bands of the storm?  Yup.

You lose.

I am not concerned with what Trump did.

you are defending the accuracy of his lie, you little simpleton.

Did the real path threaten Al?  Nope.

  Did an earlier projected path on the 29th of August put AL in line for the outer bands of the storm? 

meaningless drivel....like "heavily redesigned"

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 10:51 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 10:51 am

you are defending the accuracy of his lie, you little simpleton.

meaningless drivel....like "heavily redesigned"

I am defending the accuracy of my comments.  Successfully.

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 11:01 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 11:01 am

I am defending the accuracy of my comments.  Successfully.

Not if you are running from elaborating on your own "evidence"..

And it is total ****....your comments only occur in the context of Grifty's lie.

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 11:08 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 11:08 am

Not if you are running from elaborating on your own "evidence"..

And it is total ****....your comments only occur in the context of Grifty's lie.

I have elaborated.  You have offered nothing.  I'll wait..... 

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 11:28 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 11:28 am

I have elaborated.  You have offered nothing.  I'll wait.....

Trump wrongly tweeted on Sept. 1 that Alabama would "most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated," though the state was not within the National Hurricane Center's "cone of uncertainty" - the zone most likely to be affected. The National Weather Service forecast office in Birmingham, responding to an influx of calls from worried residents in the wake of the president's tweet, issued a tweet of its own saying Dorian would not affect Alabama.
​​​​​
 At the time, the NWS's forecast guidance showed only a very small risk (about 5 percent) of tropical-storm-force winds for a small portion of Alabama.

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

A map showing probability of "tropical- storm-force winds" is not a Hurricane track map..

Which is why you don't see it on Grifty's desk.

Is this sinking in?
 

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 11:41 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 11:41 am

Trump wrongly tweeted on Sept. 1 that Alabama would "most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated," though the state was not within the National Hurricane Center's "cone of uncertainty" - the zone most likely to be affected. The National Weather Service forecast office in Birmingham, responding to an influx of calls from worried residents in the wake of the president's tweet, issued a tweet of its own saying Dorian would not affect Alabama.
​​​​​
 At the time, the NWS's forecast guidance showed only a very small risk (about 5 percent) of tropical-storm-force winds for a small portion of Alabama.

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

A map showing probability of "tropical- storm-force winds" is not a Hurricane track map..

Which is why you don't see it on Grifty's desk.

Is this sinking in?

That's nice.  I said nothing like what trump said.  You would have to show that.  

At the time, the NWS's forecast guidance showed only a very small risk (about 5 percent) of tropical-storm-force winds for a small portion of Alabama.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pretty much what I posted.  Thanks.  

Next, the wind map is based on the track:



DUH!  I was correct, Dum Dum.

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 11:45 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 11:45 am

That's nice.  I said nothing like what trump said.  You would have to show that.  

At the time, the NWS's forecast guidance showed only a very small risk (about 5 percent) of tropical-storm-force winds for a small portion of Alabama.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pretty much what I posted.  Thanks.  

Next, the wind map is based on the track:



DUH!  I was correct, Dum Dum.

What is it that you insist you were correct about?

This is the same image Grifty was obliged to deface...

Do you understand the difference between "path of hurricane" and "5% probability of winds from 0-36mph"?

NOAA, and the rest of America, does...

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 11:50 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 11:50 am

What is it that you insist you were correct about?

This is the same image Grifty was obliged to deface...

Do you understand the difference between "path of hurricane" and "5% probability of winds from 0-36mph"?

NOAA, and the rest of America, does...

I don't care what Trump said.  I said nothing about Al getting hit harder.  that is all on trump.  You are now reaching because you know I was I stand by comments.  

Do you understand that the probability of wind is based on the track? Do  you find it odd that both "paths" are **** the same?  

Huey » 06 Sep 2019, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2019, 11:03 am

I did answer it moron. Try reading the thread. You would have a link to this:

https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/arc ... AMP%20HTML

Which contained this you lazy ****. Why does everything have to be double posted for assholes like you?

@Blackvegetable  

My, the path looks exactly the same.

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 11:53 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 11:53 am

I don't care what Trump said.  I said nothing about Al getting hit harder.  that is all on trump.  You are now reaching because you know I was I stand by comments.  

Do you understand that the probability of wind is based on the track? Do  you find it odd that both "paths" are **** the same?

Dwarf,

You worked vaingloriously in defense of Grifty's lie...period..

No one but you cares about your reframe.

Do you understand that the probability of wind is based on the track? Do  you find it odd that both "paths" are **** the same?

"Hurricane" and "winds of 0-35 mph" are not the same thing.

Nod if you understand..

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 11:56 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 11:56 am

@Blackvegetable  

My, the path looks exactly the same.

Post the legends...

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 12:28 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 12:28 pm

Post the legends...

The legends are posted.  You just replied to it.

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 12:27 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 12:27 pm

Dwarf,

You worked vaingloriously in defense of Grifty's lie...period..

No one but you cares about your reframe.

"Hurricane" and "winds of 0-35 mph" are not the same thing.

Nod if you understand..

We are discussing what I said. 

"Hurricane" and "winds of 0-35 mph" are not the same thing.

Who said they were?  
 

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 12:32 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 12:32 pm

We are discussing what I said. 

Who said they were?

Then your probability map is irrelevant.

And Dorian didn't threaten Alabama.

 

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 12:29 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 12:29 pm

The legends are posted.  You just replied to it.

No...you consistently decline to do that.


It's obvious why.


I'm good.
 

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 11:56 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 11:56 am

Huey » 06 Sep 2019, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2019, 11:03 am

I did answer it moron. Try reading the thread. You would have a link to this:

https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/arc ... AMP%20HTML

Which contained this you lazy ****. Why does everything have to be double posted for assholes like you?

@Blackvegetable  

My, the path looks exactly the same.

 

Looks like legends to me.  Plus, how can you say "consistently decline to do that" when that is a repost of comment from 2019?  Lying again or not reading a post before answering?

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 12:35 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 12:35 pm

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 12:29 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 12:29 pm

The legends are posted.  You just replied to it.

No...you consistently decline to do that.


It's obvious why.


I'm good.
 

 

 

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 12:34 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 12:34 pm

Then your probability map is irrelevant.

And Dorian didn't threaten Alabama.

Already addressed.