Fiji's worst natural disaster: The 1931 hurricane and flood

[Chom Noamsky]

Alarmist psychology is really quite perverse. What kind of person races
to the keyboard in order to breathlessly report the latest death toll of
a weather disaster? OMG OMG... it's up to 40... WOO-HOO!

In the case of Winston, alarmists were first disappointed when the
initial death toll was just a single person. But as reports came in
from remote communities, the number climbed, and alarmists regained hope
that lots of people died. The CAGW hypothesis requires lots of dead
people for validation.

But even though alarmists were hoping and praying for mass casualties,
Winston is still far from Fiji's deadliest natural disaster.

***

ABSTRACT

At least 225 people in the Fiji Islands died as a result of the 1931
hurricane and flood, representing the largest loss of life from a
natural disaster in Fiji's recent history. This paper explores the
causes of disaster and the potential for recurrence. The disaster
occurred because a rare event surprised hundreds of people-especially
recently settled Indian farmers-occupying highly exposed floodplains in
north-west Viti Levu island. The likelihood of a flood disaster of such
proportions occurring today has been diminished by changed settlement
patterns and building materials; however, a trend towards re-occupancy
of floodplains, sometimes in fragile dwellings, is exposing new
generations to flood risks. The contribution of this paper to the global
hazards literature is set out in three sections: the ethnicity, gender
and age of flood fatalities; the naturalness of disasters; and the merit
of choice and constraint as explanations for patterns of vulnerability.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42343850_Fiji's_worst_natural_disaster_The_1931_hurricane_and_flood

[AlleyCat]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:10:05 -0800, Chom Noamsky says...

> Alarmist psychology is really quite perverse. What kind of person races
> to the keyboard in order to breathlessly report the latest death toll of
> a weather disaster? OMG OMG... it's up to 40... WOO-HOO!

No WONDER they're holed up in mommy's basement... they're closet
psychopaths.

Mommy knows best... she probably has padlocks on the OUTSIDE of their
basement doors to keep the sick fucks inside.

It's be Silence Of The Blam Blams, if they could ever get out and lay
their hands on a gun.

They remind me of Adam Lanza... stayed with mommy, until she drove him
crazy, and well, we all know what happened. They're probably one
announcement away from NASA saying that temperatures are cooling and we
ARE headed back towards an ice age, and the sea levels have gone down...
oh wait.

EVERYBODY! STAY INSIDE AND AWAY FROM YOUR WINDOWS!!

[Paul Aubrin]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:10:05 -0800, Chom Noamsky wrote:


> https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/42343850_Fiji's_worst_natural_disaster_The_1931_hurricane_and_flood

This affair confirms the tendency of our dear warmist opponents to hollow
"it's the worse <...> ever" every two days before being contradicted by
historical records.

"Fiji's worst natural disaster: The 1931 hurricane and flood
Article in Disasters 34(3):657-83 · March 2010 with 319 Reads
Impact Factor: 0.69 · DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7717.2010.01163.x · Source:
PubMed

Abstract

[Gordon Levi]

Chom Noamsky <chomch...@chom.chom> wrote:

>Alarmist psychology is really quite perverse. What kind of person races
>to the keyboard in order to breathlessly report the latest death toll of
>a weather disaster? OMG OMG... it's up to 40... WOO-HOO!

What kind of person races to the keyboard to report a disaster over 80
years ago that killed 225 people... WOO-HOO!

[Mickey Langan]

On 2016-02-24, Chom Noamsky <chomch...@chom.chom> wrote:
> At least 225 people in the Fiji Islands died as a result of the 1931
> hurricane and flood, representing the largest loss of life from a
> natural disaster in Fiji's recent history.

Those SUVs sure wreaked some havoc back in those days, eh?

--
Mickey

The tenor's voice is spoilt by affectation,
And for the bass, the beast can only bellow;
In fact, he had no singing education,
An ignorant, noteless, timeless, tuneless fellow. -- Lord Byron

[Paul Aubrin]

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 00:06:31 +1100, Gordon Levi wrote:

> Chom Noamsky <chomch...@chom.chom> wrote:
>
>>Alarmist psychology is really quite perverse. What kind of person races
>>to the keyboard in order to breathlessly report the latest death toll of
>>a weather disaster? OMG OMG... it's up to 40... WOO-HOO!
>
> What kind of person races to the keyboard to report a disaster over 80
> years ago that killed 225 people... WOO-HOO!

We have been told that the recent cyclone was unprecedented. He was
looking for at least one precedent... and found it.

[Gordon Levi]

Did he? He didn't supply any data about wind speeds or atmospheric
pressure. His reference said specifically that "The likelihood of a

flood disaster of such proportions occurring today has been diminished

by changed settlement patterns and building materials".
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42343850_Fiji's_worst_natural_disaster_The_1931_hurricane_and_flood>
The reference does caution against relaxed precautions but if that was
a factor our dyslectic grammarian did not tell us.

His psychology seems just as perverse as the "alarmist psychology".
The _only_ thing he "found" was more deaths... WOO-HOO!

[R Kym Horsell]

Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
> Chom Noamsky <chomch...@chom.chom> wrote:
>
>>Alarmist psychology is really quite perverse. What kind of person races
>>to the keyboard in order to breathlessly report the latest death toll of
>>a weather disaster? OMG OMG... it's up to 40... WOO-HOO!
>
> What kind of person races to the keyboard to report a disaster over 80
> years ago that killed 225 people... WOO-HOO!

...

It's a fear reaction from the neurotic's toolbox. If it can be reported as 1 or can be
minimized with an orange from a century back then there's nothing to worry about.
Maybe it didn't happen at all and we can forget it.

It's all about the running away.

--
[Another silly prediction from the chumsky:]

[T]he current US tornado count is close to an all time low and there hasn't
been a major hurricane landfall in 9 years. Accumulated Cyclone Energy has
been on a declining trend, globally. All debunkers have to do is link
climate change to observed decreases in extreme weather, and/or point out
the notable weather is within the range of natural historical variation, and
this completely deflates the propagandists' argument.
In other words, simply expose alarmists' cognitive distortions.
-- K Dobranski aka Chom Noamsky, 16 Apr 2015


[Later "reworded" as:]

Fact: 2015 ranks well below the 25th percentile in terms of total tornado
count, making it one of the quietest tornado years on record.
-- 22 Feb 2016

*** BZZT. Wrong again.

The avg annual US tornado count from 1950 is ~880.
The US tornado count for 2015 is as at mid Feb 2016 is 1099.

[Paul Aubrin]

It was an answer to Kym Horsell who scorned him noting that cyclone
Winston toll reached 40 and more, not only one. So Kym Horsell directly
associate the importance of a cyclone to the number of casualties.
Who knows what the maximum sustained wind speed were in Fiji in 1931? Or
the atmospheric pressure? But what it is known is that the consequences
in 1931 were graver, suggesting a more intense cyclone.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:17:09 +0000, R Kym Horsell wrote:


> It's a fear reaction from the neurotic's toolbox. If it can be reported
> as 1 or can be minimized with an orange from a century back then there's
> nothing to worry about. Maybe it didn't happen at all and we can forget
> it.

This cyclone is certainly a disaster. But you have no base to pretend it
was the worst ever. Given the high frequency of deadly cyclones in Fiji,
and the reports of previous deadlier occurrences, it is probable that the
last one was not exceptional.

[AlleyCat]

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:38:30 +1100, Gordon Levi says...

> Did he? He didn't supply any data about wind speeds or atmospheric
> pressure.

MOST people would think that loss of life is a lot more fucking relevant,
you shut-in basement dwelling morose moron.

Do you know what the atmospheric pressure was during the Galveston
Hurricane? Nope.

Do YOU know the atmospheric pressure of ANY storm from BEFORE 1910?

How about 1880? No? So I guess the previous 4,500,000,000 years don't
count?

Simple questions you screechers won't answer:

Are cyclones and hurricanes on tracks?

Do they go the same route EVERY time?

How do you KNOW that there's never been a stronger storm to hit Fiji
BEFORE there were records kept?

How do you KNOW that a stronger storm hasn't ever PASSED by Fiji that WAS
stronger?

All this bullshit about "strongest on record" is nothing bunch your excuse
to blame something, or SOMEONE, for something, JUST to get your agenda for
green energy more accepted.

The world IS working on green energy, but it's NOT something that PRIVATE
citizens should be paying PRIVATE companies to develop, with PUBLIC money.

That is your agenda... make people pay for something YOU won't.

[Catoni]

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 6:38:20 PM UTC-5, AlleyCat wrote:

> All this bullshit about "strongest on record" is nothing bunch your excuse
> to blame something, or SOMEONE, for something, JUST to get your agenda for
> green energy more accepted.

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, Greenpeace

> The world IS working on green energy, but it's NOT something that PRIVATE
> citizens should be paying PRIVATE companies to develop, with PUBLIC money.
>
> That is your agenda... make people pay for something YOU won't.

"Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible." - Gus Hall, former leader of the Communist Party USA

[Gordon Levi]

AlleyCat <a...@aohell.com> wrote:

>
>On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:38:30 +1100, Gordon Levi says...
>
>> Did he? He didn't supply any data about wind speeds or atmospheric
>> pressure.
>
>MOST people would think that loss of life is a lot more fucking relevant,
>you shut-in basement dwelling morose moron.
>
>Do you know what the atmospheric pressure was during the Galveston
>Hurricane? Nope.
>
>Do YOU know the atmospheric pressure of ANY storm from BEFORE 1910?
>
>How about 1880? No? So I guess the previous 4,500,000,000 years don't
>count?
>
>Simple questions you screechers won't answer:
>
>Are cyclones and hurricanes on tracks?
>
>Do they go the same route EVERY time?
>
>How do you KNOW that there's never been a stronger storm to hit Fiji
>BEFORE there were records kept?
>
>How do you KNOW that a stronger storm hasn't ever PASSED by Fiji that WAS
>stronger?

In your first paragraph you told us that the number of lives lost is
more relevant than the current standard measures of the strength of a
cyclone. It does you credit and shows your deep concern for humanity.

Now you tell us that a "stronger" storm might have passed by Fiji
totally unnoticed presumably with zero lives lost.

Feel free to use any measure of cyclone "strength" you fancy but your
many readers would find it less confusing if you choose only one per
post.

[snip]

[Paul Aubrin]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 00:00:47 +1100, Gordon Levi wrote:

>>How do you KNOW that a stronger storm hasn't ever PASSED by Fiji that
>>WAS stronger?
>
> In your first paragraph you told us that the number of lives lost is
> more relevant than the current standard measures of the strength of a
> cyclone. It does you credit and shows your deep concern for humanity.

Mixing science and feelings in one argument is not a scientific attitude.
The current standard measures of the strength of a cyclone was not
applicable in Fiji islands more than a few years ago: observers equipped
with convenient observation stations were too scarce. That's the reason
why there are only rough estimates before 1990, and only casual
information before the second half of the 20th century.

[Gordon Levi]

Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:

>Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>

>>On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 00:00:47 +1100, Gordon Levi wrote:
>>
>>>>How do you KNOW that a stronger storm hasn't ever PASSED by Fiji that
>>>>WAS stronger?
>>>
>>> In your first paragraph you told us that the number of lives lost is
>>> more relevant than the current standard measures of the strength of a
>>> cyclone. It does you credit and shows your deep concern for humanity.
>>
>>Mixing science and feelings in one argument is not a scientific attitude.

I agree. Why did you snip the part of my post where I said so and why
didn't you indicate that you had edited my post?

[Chom Noamsky]

On 2/24/2016 5:06 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
> Chom Noamsky <chomch...@chom.chom> wrote:
>
>> Alarmist psychology is really quite perverse. What kind of person races
>> to the keyboard in order to breathlessly report the latest death toll of
>> a weather disaster? OMG OMG... it's up to 40... WOO-HOO!
>
> What kind of person races to the keyboard to report a disaster over 80
> years ago that killed 225 people... WOO-HOO!

Did you actually think that was clever spin?

[AlleyCat]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 00:00:47 +1100, Gordon Levi says...

> AlleyCat <a...@aohell.com> wrote:

> >On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:38:30 +1100, Gordon Levi says...

> >> Did he? He didn't supply any data about wind speeds or atmospheric
> >> pressure.

> > MOST people would think that loss of life is a lot more fucking
> > relevant, you shut-in basement dwelling morose moron.
> >
> >Do you know what the atmospheric pressure was during the Galveston
> >Hurricane? Nope.
> >
> >Do YOU know the atmospheric pressure of ANY storm from BEFORE 1910?
> >
> >How about 1880? No? So I guess the previous 4,500,000,000 years don't
> >count?
> >
> >Simple questions you screechers won't answer:
> >
> >Are cyclones and hurricanes on tracks?
> >
> >Do they go the same route EVERY time?
> >
> >How do you KNOW that there's never been a stronger storm to hit Fiji
> >BEFORE there were records kept?
> >
> >How do you KNOW that a stronger storm hasn't ever PASSED by Fiji that WAS
> >stronger?
>
> In your first paragraph you told us that the number of lives lost is
> more relevant than the current standard measures of the strength of a
> cyclone. It does you credit and shows your deep concern for humanity.

LOL... you read so easily... your condescension is noted, but forgotten by
the time I finish this sentence. Talking down to me only makes you look
petty and small... sort of how that basement makes you feel when mommy's
not there with you, huh?

> Now you tell us that a "stronger" storm might have passed by Fiji
> totally unnoticed presumably with zero lives lost.

Why don't YOU tell us how you "know" there has never been? You see, "we"
know what you're doing... you mask the past to those who don't have the IQ
to know how to look things up for themselves, like half the members of the
Democrat Party.

They go along in life listening to the liars and believe whatever they
say, because they're too stupid to know how to research for themselves...
sort of like the media DIDN'T do when Obama should have been vetted and
seen that he was a closet communist and Muslim.

> Feel free to use any measure of cyclone "strength" you fancy but your
> many readers would find it less confusing if you choose only one per
> post.

My "MANY" readers? Sorry... I'm not a narcissistic basement dweller like
you screechers. You have no reason to be that way, except your high IQ
makes you THINK that you matter.

What is that high IQ doing for you? Writing on Usenet? LOL Are you
published? Can you lead me to your publishings? URL, please.

> [unsnipped]

All this bullshit about "strongest on record" is nothing but your excuse
to blame something (and a lie, since you don't KNOW the past)), or

SOMEONE, for something, JUST to get your agenda for green energy more

readily accepted.

The world IS working on green energy, but it's NOT something that PRIVATE
citizens should be paying PRIVATE companies to develop, with PUBLIC money.

That is your agenda... make people pay for something YOU won't. Why should
WE pay for YOUR vision of the development of green energy?

That's a PRIVATE endeavor, like what Elon Musk and Richard Branson do.
Call THEM!

[AlleyCat]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 01:46:27 +1100, Gordon Levi says...

> >>Mixing science and feelings in one argument is not a scientific attitude.
>
> I agree. Why did you snip the part of my post where I said so and why
> didn't you indicate that you had edited my post?
>

LOL... because you write "snip", everything is hunky dory? If it's
relevant, leave it, if it's not relevant to the follow-up, why waste
bandwidth and space on someone's server?

BE CONSIDERATE! LOL

Quoted text does NOT "always" need to be left in, unless context is
needed. It seemed to me, that Paul was monologuing more than he was
addressing your response to me.

Snip accepted. ;-)