Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Thanks CNN for keeping me informed about the latest in scientific experiments:

Female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes, study says

#triggered

IF this were true wouldn't the "Eye" of the hurricanes be the worst part of the storm?


Originally posted by Bashar Teg
#triggered

And yes you are.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
#triggered

Another instance where Surtur only read the title and not the story before kneejerking. Will he ever learn.

That is funny coming from you Robbie.

Originally posted by Robtard
Another instance where Surtur only read the title and not the story before kneejerking. Will he ever learn.

what a surprise, eh? oh well, better send in the flying monkeys to distract from yet another of surt's embarrassing episodes.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
what a surprise, eh? oh well, better send in the flying monkeys to distract from yet another of surt's embarrassing episodes.

*just looked at Bashy's new sig pic*

Well if anyone knows about Flying Monkeys....

my sig #triggered you? I'm sorry I'll go change it.

It triggered a laughing fit cause you got a pic of the 2nd WORST Star Wars Character EVER!!!!!!

But then you always did love your #2 don't ya Hammy!?

I mean Bashy!!!!

would this be less #triggering for you?

http://catchfred.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/basket-of-puppies-400x266.jpg

Originally posted by Flyattractor
That is funny coming from you Robbie.

It is hilarious how triggered they got over it lol. Even to the point of trying to say I didn't read the article, but I did.

I also read all the comments, which is how I know this was debunked already.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094715300517

Originally posted by Surtur
It is hilarious how triggered they got over it lol. Even to the point of trying to say I didn't read the article, but I did.

you obviously did not. how embarrassing for you.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you obviously did not. how embarrassing for you.

But I did. Continue to get triggered over it though.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you obviously did not. how embarrassing for you. Ahh the good old "Did Not/Did To"

Classic Strat their Bashy!!!!

Originally posted by Surtur
Thanks CNN for keeping me informed about the latest in scientific experiments:


you clearly had no idea of what the article was really about. could have been easily construed if you read the first paragraph, but you knee-jerked at the headline as usual. cry harder tho.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Ahh the good old "Did Not/Did To"

Classic Strat their Bashy!!!!

I welcome them to quote anything I have said that indicates I did not read it. All I did was thank CNN for keeping me informed about the science of this.

Notice instead of discussing the validity of what is being claimed they just resorted to "triggered". Interesting.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you clearly had no idea of what the article was really about. could have been easily construed if you read the first paragraph, but you knee-jerked at the headline as usual. cry harder tho.

But if you'd read the article you would know that at the end they claim what seals the deal are their experiments they conducted when they asked people a variety of questions.

Don't know why the phrase "scientific experiments" triggers you.

Would him saying something along the lines of "Nu HUH You quote ME" be good enough?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Would him saying something along the lines of "Nu HUH You quote ME" be good enough?

For people who act like they read the article...this is the headline for the second to last part:

"Study: Experiments back up the claim"

Spoiler alert: they asked people questions, like predicting the intensity of a hurricane based on the name only.

IOW: They science'd the shit out of this.

Originally posted by Surtur
But if you'd read the article you would know that at the end they claim what seals the deal are their experiments they conducted when they asked people a variety of questions.

Don't know why the phrase "scientific experiments" triggers you.

then why does this article "amuse" you so? what is it that you find so worthy of ridicule? explain.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
then why does this article "amuse" you so? what is it that you find so worthy of ridicule? explain.

The premise, the way they named the article. The fact it's already been debunked. Take your pick.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you clearly had no idea of what the article was really about. could have been easily construed if you read the first paragraph, but you knee-jerked at the headline as usual. cry harder tho.


^ B!NGO

Well Bash said it and then Rob Bingo'ed him. Damn.

Originally posted by Surtur
Thanks CNN for keeping me informed about the latest in scientific experiments:

Female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes, study says


Originally posted by Robtard
Another instance where Surtur only read the title and not the story before kneejerking. Will he ever learn.

What in his OP suggested he didn't read the article or had an opinion on the study? All he said was

"Thanks CNN for keeping me informed about the latest in scientific experiments."

From that short post and after reading the article myself I can say he did in fact read the article and saw there was a study done. He was being sarcastic in his post pointing out how CNN felt the need to give us erroneous news about sexism in categorizing storms.

Originally posted by Surtur
The premise,

the "premise" is data which suggests a relative lack of preparedness for hurricanes with female names. what is so ridiculous about that?


Originally posted by Surtur
the way they named the article.

that's a confession. you mean "the sneaky way they named it", tricking you into knee-jerking and barking at a non-issue.

Originally posted by Surtur
The fact it's already been debunked.

it has been challenged, not debunked. challenging a hypothesis is part of the scientific method, so that is very telling...just as telling as your inadvertent confession that you reacted to a headline without reading the context...again! how humiliating for you!

Originally posted by Surtur
Take your pick.

i'll go with "#triggered by headlines"

Originally posted by Sable
What in his OP suggested he didn't read the article or had an opinion on the study? All he said was

"Thanks CNN for keeping me informed about the latest in scientific experiments."

From that sort post and after reading the article myself I can say he did in fact read the article and saw there was a study done. He was being sarcastic in his post pointing out how CNN felt the need to give us erroneous news about sexism in categorizing storms.

Indeed, they justified their interpretation of the data by saying their experiments back it up. Granted, the experiments were just asking them stuff like to predict the intensity of a hurricane based on the name, but yeah.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the "premise" is data which suggests a relative lack of preparedness for hurricanes with female names. what is so ridiculous about that?




that's a confession. you mean "the sneaky way they named it", tricking you into knee-jerking and barking at a non-issue.



it has been challenged, not debunked. challenging a hypothesis is part of the scientific method, so that is very telling...just as telling as your inadvertent confession that you reacted to a headline without reading the context...again! how humiliating for you!



i'll go with "#triggered by headlines"

Lol dude, how sad are you? I didn't confess I overreacted to the headline. I said one of the amusing things about this was the headline. This doesn't mean I didn't read the article.

I also linked to something that more or less debunks it, but okay lol. You clearly want to find anything to claim I am triggered over this, gotcha.

Originally posted by Sable
What in his OP suggested he didn't read the article or had an opinion on the study? All he said was

"Thanks CNN for keeping me informed about the latest in scientific experiments."

From that short post and after reading the article myself I can say he did in fact read the article and saw there was a study done. He was being sarcastic in his post pointing out how CNN felt the need to give us erroneous news about sexism in categorizing storms.

Surtur's previous behavior.

Disagreed.

Originally posted by Sable
What in his OP suggested he didn't read the article or had an opinion on the study? .

Originally posted by Bashar Teg


i'll go with "#triggered by headlines"

There is that....

Rob how is "Thanks CNN for keeping me informed about the latest in scientific experiments" a knee jerk reaction?

Robbie is just amazed at the new scientific evidence that proves that Hurricanes are capable of TRANSGENDERING!

This is great news.

Originally posted by Sable
Rob how is "Thanks CNN for keeping me informed about the latest in scientific experiments" a knee jerk reaction?

It is pointless asking them to explain. They got triggered quite easily over this, and now have to pretend like the opposite happened lol.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
There is that....

The hilarious thing is the title is funny because of the article. The article is about the preparation of humans in the face of hurricanes with female names.

The study does not at all say what CNN says in the title of their article about it. How is that not funny?

EDIT: On top of that, it is also how the scientists named their study lol. Their own actual study does not show what their name suggests.

Makes you wonder why they decided to frame it that way...

Robbie and Bashy could use some Preparation H for all their triggered # holes.

It just seems like a strange thing to name your study considering what the study says lol.

To go one step further and talk about the actual article, remember at one point it says this:

"Researchers backed up their claims with death rates from U.S. hurricanes from 1950 to 2012."

But as the article also says all hurricanes had female names until 1979. The data is the real key here, not their shitty experiments.

29 out of those 62 years they are using had nothing but female named hurricanes.

Strange is just how Leftist operate.

This whole article appears to be fake news.

Well it is a CNN Article.

I mean to be fair they also do include a part from a guy who disagrees with the study, but then they also include the part about the experiments done. For me, I would want to go by the data more than anything else. The data is already deeply tainted because it covers 62 years even though for 29 of those you had zero hurricanes with male names.

I also feel like the way hurricanes have been recently covered(even before Harvey) that people aren't going to be under prepared due to the name of the hurricane.

This thread should be merged with the "Triggered: Stories to make you mad." thread with the way Surtur's flipping out over it. Geez

/mergerequested

Originally posted by Robtard
This thread should be merged with the "Triggered: Stories to make you mad." thread with the way Surtur's flipping out over it. Geez

/mergerequested

It would be sad if the mods gave in to your request, because you are the one that came and got triggered. Now the article is being discussed and you cannot seem to handle it.

EDIT: Actually wait, since you and Bash got triggered...it would indeed technically be an option for that thread. Good call.

Anyways Rob how do you feel about the fact 29 out of the 62 years the data is based on had no hurricanes with male names?

I said it's a "shit story" already, sport. So yeah, you're #triggered over a shit story and why this thread should be merged with the "Triggered: Stories to make you mad", cos you're #triggered and mad over it

Originally posted by Robtard
I said it's a "shit story" already, sport. So yeah, you're #triggered over a shit story and why this thread should be merged with the "Triggered: Stories to make you mad", cos you're #triggered and mad over it

Lol but Rob, nobody is mad over it but you and your pal. You came in and decided that it *must* have been posted merely because the title "triggered" me. Your evidence? The single sentence I posted, actually no Bash seemed to think it was two mere words specifically. That is you and your pals. Then you proceeded to go back and forth with me about that, that is how much the existence of this thread bothers you.

So like I said yeah, you're triggered. So this is indeed a candidate for the other thread. I just find it sad even a thread like this gets to you lol.

IOW: "I'm not mad, you're the ones who are mad!" *fuming w/ rage*

Originally posted by Robtard
IOW: "I'm not mad, you're the ones who are mad!" *fuming w/ rage*

Can you explain how that is any worse than you declaring that I am "fuming" and essentially it is because you say so? Lol. You come and say I'm triggered cuz reasons and when I tried discussing the article despite your attempts to whine about the fact it exists you said I was throwing a "fit" over this lol.

Now let me predict: pointing out your behavior will now be twisted into playing the victim, correct?

Throw another tantrum, that will clearly show it's you who isn't upset.

Originally posted by Robtard
Throw another tantrum, that will clearly show it's you who isn't upset.

Lol Rob, this is all you do. Get triggered, and repeatedly say people are enraged, throwing fits, having tantrums, etc.

You are reduced to this?

Originally posted by Robtard
This thread should be merged with the "Triggered: Stories to make you mad." thread with the way Surtur's flipping out over it. Geez

/mergerequested

should be "Triggered: Headlines to make you mad."

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
should be "Triggered: Headlines to make you mad."

/suggestionsent

Bashy & Robbie are #TriggerHugMates

Originally posted by Robtard
/suggestionsent

Any reason this particular topic upset you so much?

Irma is trans and has a massive cock and is about to **** the Caribbean islands like they've never been ****ed before.

Originally posted by jaden101
Irma is trans and has a massive cock and is about to **** the Caribbean islands like they've never been ****ed before.

^ Sounds like something Surtur would watch and touch himself too

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Sounds like something Surtur would watch and touch himself too

Lol damn you're obsessed with me kinda, aren't you?

Ah, that's what I said today and now he's saying it back to me in return.

-Surtur thinking he's clever

Originally posted by Robtard
Ah, that's what I said today and now he's saying it back to me in return.

-Surtur thinking he's clever

Do you think you're clever?

Originally posted by Surtur
Thanks CNN for keeping me informed about the latest in scientific experiments:

Female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes, study says



Either CNN is or lying the study is lying or both..

Because this proves them wrong.

Irma is being taken very seriously, possibly more then any before her.

Miami Herald: Largest Atlantic Hurricane ever recorded

Sounds like a good case for exploring how these things are approved..

Shoddy reporting job here. No details on, for example, how, exactly, they controlled for other factors.. All they say is "This thing happened... And these people disagreed."

Another example of CNN or this study is lying, this female named hurricane has been front and center on every news outlet for the past 5 days.

Originally posted by cdtm
Sounds like a good case for exploring how these things are approved..

Shoddy reporting job here. No details on, for example, how, exactly, they controlled for other factors.. All they say is "This thing happened... And these people disagreed."

The hilarious thing is they are using data from the last 62 years even though for 29 of those years we had nothing but female named hurricanes lol. That right there means they are not to be taken seriously.

Originally posted by Surtur
The hilarious thing is they are using data from the last 62 years even though for 29 of those years we had nothing but female named hurricanes lol. That right there means they are not to be taken seriously.

You know that they switch off, right? So the most recent hurricane is named Harvey (male), and the one following right behind it is named Irma (female). The next one will be male, and the one after that will be female. So collectively, over 62 years, half will be female, or roughly 29.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You know that they switch off, right? So the most recent hurricane is named Harvey (male), and the one following right behind it is named Irma (female). The next one will be male, and the one after that will be female. So collectively, over 62 years, half will be female, or roughly 29.

And they are still using 29 years of data from when we only had female named ones.

If you're suggesting the results would be similar if you take away those 29 years....well, then those years shouldn't have been included. Then perhaps the study would be taken more seriously. As they were dumb enough to do what they did, it shouldn't be.