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.