Best
168 Comments
Post
  • #8
    !
    If there is ever a Hurricane Mary approaching the Louisiana coast I'm headin' to Missouri.
    I ain't trustin' something as volatile as a hurricane named after Jesus's momma or the head Politix writer.
    .... That's powerful stuff....
  • #45
    !
    I've got a solution! Let's give them the names of infamous WOMEN killers! We could have the Lucretia Borgia; the Lizzy Borden; the Ailieen Wuornos; the Myra Hindley; the Rosemary West; the Kristen Gilbert; the Nannie Doss; the 'Ma' Barker'; the Bonnie Parker, etc. I lived in Florida. I don't know of anyone that didn't pay attention to hurricanes based on if it had a woman's name. That's IDIOTIC. We paid attention to the strength it was estimated to have, where it was thought it would land, and how much damage it might cause. Period.
  • #68
    !
    @HawkTheSlayer - Andrew, Frederic and Georges were mean hurricanes... and they didn't start naming hurricanes after men until 1979...
  • R Load more replies

  • #2
    !
    Ok...I don't care if the person holding the gun is named Charlotte or Charlie I am going to take then very VERY seriously.

    I think the study just shows how STUPID some people are.
  • #32
    !
    Along the same lines, I would take a girl named Margie a hell of a lot more serious than a boy named Sue. Regarding the second part of your comment, I would upgrade your assessment of people's intelligence from some stupid people to enough to give me reservations every time I walk out of my door.
  • R Load more replies

  • #19
    !
    Shows you how stupid people are. If the hurricane is category 5, it doesn't matter if it's named "fluffy", it'll kill you quick.
    I'd say this study is bogus anyway. Surely people are not this stupid....then again, they did elect odumba.
  • #6
    !
    Yank has a good point about strength. Also, they,ve only bee using male names since '79, but used data from 69+ years. It seems that would invalidate the reasoning for cause/effect
  • #22
    !
    I thought the same thing when I read this early this morning so I read it from several different sources. It definetly skews the input data considering all storms were gendered female before 79. There were some very tragic ones, too.
    Betsy in 65.
    Camille in 69.
    I remember traveling through the Gulfport, bay St. Louis, pass Christian areas about a week after the storm. As a kid of nine years old that image will be stuck in my mind forever. Total destruction of everything. Looked like a nuke hit the Mississippi Gulf Coast.
  • #31
    !
    Stop the press! You mean an article used completely irrelevant data figures to justify conclusions made before the article was even written? Tell me it isn't so! And I'm just curious. What led to the decision to not have only female names in 1979?
  • #37
    !
    @Firestorm I remember when the started it. I always thought it was meaningless. Musta been Gloria Stienem puttin' pressure on NOAA. It still doesn't sound right to me having a "male" hurricane.
    Lol!
  • #38
    !
    I'd prefer that hurricanes were named after women and tornadoes were named after men. Then that would give some credence to a woman's claims when she calls us twisted. Actually, i take great pride in being somewhat bent.
  • R Load more replies

  • #67
    !
    This is the stupidest thing I ever heard! Maybe these scientists should at least do a survey of hurricane survivors or something to test their hypothesis before blabbing it to the media!

    1) ALL hurricanes used to have female names until 1979. So, of course more people have died from female hurricanes in the past 60 years!

    2) People like me who live in hurricane country have never made our storm plans based on the gender of its name... that's just stupid!

    3) Since 1979, it just so happens that female hurricanes have been more severe than their male counterparts. But Frederic, Andrew and Georges were very serious storms in their own rights.(Isaac was a wimpy weenie)

    4) Counting deaths is not really a good way to measure this anyway... Not all hurricane deaths are the result of poor planning. Some maybe... definitely not all.

    5) REALLY STUPID SCIENCE, NAS!
  • #78
    !
    @HawkTheSlayer - How about some ambiguously named Hurricanes: Chris, Pat, Leslie, Terry, Robin, Lee, Tracy, Lynn, Erin, Blake and Adrian... *grin*
  • #54
    !
    What BS! Since 1979 (when they started giving hurricanes male as well as female names) there have been 22 storms that caused fatalities. 15 had male names and seven female. The average number of deaths per male named storm was 18.8, average for female named 14.4.
    This clearly shows that male named storms are more dangerous, not that that actually means anything, and this "study" is ridiculous.
  • #75
    !
    "The average number of deaths per male named storm was 18.8, average for female named 14.4."

    Where did that figure come from?
  • #84
    !
    @DogLady_1
    I added up the deaths and divided by the number of storms to get the average. Like the above survey I did not include Katrina.
  • #40
    !
    Or a more realistic scale of:

    Cat 1: You should leave.
    Cat 2: You really should leave.
    Cat 3: What are you still doing there?
    Cat 4: Dude we warned you.
    Cat 5: Can I have your stuff?
  • #94
    !
    To lend credence to this topic -- stop naming Hurricanes after women (especially those with PMS) This should render further discussion moot, no? <wink>
  • #128
    !
    @Yank
    Cat 1: Whatcha still doing in Grand Isle?
    Cat 2: Whatcha still doing in Public school?
    Cat 3: Whatcha still doing at work?
    Cat 4: Whatcha still doing on the road?
    Cat 5: Whatcha still doing in New Orleans?
  • #15
    !
    What is the purpose of this study? trying to insert sexism into weather maybe?

    This 'study' or whatever mentions the last 60 odd years. well they rarely named hurricanes after guys until around 1979 ( hurricane David )
    Since 1950 there have been 9 Category 5 male named and 15 female named hurricanes.
    category 4 .. 22 male named and 42 female named.
    As mentioned from previous to 1979 there were almost no male named hurricanes. we also had less technology and disaster planning.
    Also this is all skewed by Hurricane Katrina which was actually only a cat 3. but due to poor planning and responsiveness by the state and local government and poor response by the fed gov as well it had an inordinate amount of deaths.
    Im sure someone got paid to come up with this that's the most stupid thing of it all.
  • #41
    !
    @bsking no the next big thing will be gender neutral. Of course they are going to start running out of names with them naming storms now.
  • R Load more replies

  • #29
    !
    That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time. Hurricanes Isabel, Hazel, and Bonnie ripped this town from Hell to breakfast. They don't sound like masculine names to me.
  • #109
    !
    @Curmudgeon

    Well those two hurricanes missed us but your point is valid. A hurricane is a hurricane. The name of the storm isn't relevant.
  • #4
    !
    Part of me wants to tell misandrists like Mary Noble to go scream at the wind.

    The other part wants to tell misandrists like Mary Noble that 40 years of misandry can't change tens of thousands of years of evolution.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #24
    !
    @Slowmo

    Hehehe....LMAO!

    Too funny, until this one by Mary today I never thought about the name of a storm heading for me on whether it was a boy storm or girl storm...my question was always; "How bad does the SOB look on radar"?
  • #30
    !
    @BravoJuliet lol yeah...the radar and numbers coming outta the storm is pretty much what every NON-dumbass looks at.
  • #33
    !
    @Slowmo -- I've only met a handful of misandrists in my lifetime... at least in person.

    What we all need to remember is that man-haters like Mary Noble, just like any other kind of hater... are way overrepresented on the internet.
  • R Load more replies

  • #3
    !
    Quick question. Have you also factored in their strength when comparing their names? Also I bet hurricane Katrina kind of skews those numbers since it alone was 1800 deaths.
  • #104
    !
    I've known a few females that certainly could have been considered hurricanes...a little bit of calm, surrounded by days of drama.
  • #13
    !
    Andrew (1992): 65 Deaths,$26B damage.
    David (1979): 2068+ Deaths,$1.54B damage.
    Stan (2005): 1668 Deaths,$3.9B damage.
    Mitch (1998): >19,000 Deaths,$6.2B damage.

    Prior to 1979, all hurricanes were given female names. Prior to 1950, they were not named at all.
  • #21
    !
    Could this article be a disingenuous liberal-agenda-pushing twist presented under the guise of an almighty "scientific study"?...
  • #27
    !
    @Slowmo they are predicting a strong possibility of an El NiƱo this year and have predicted only 13 storms with 3 likely hurricanes. A very low number.
    I'm waiting for the follow up story on why global warming makes the female hurricanes more dangerous.
    ... Mother natures hot flash?...
  • #36
    !
    Well when you look at those hurricanes most of the deaths were in the Caribbean where people cannot flee. I think we should only look at main land death tolls.
  • #92
    !
    @Slowmo The Democratic way of leadership is to scare the crap out of feeble minds to control them. Call the non believers racist.
  • R Load more replies

  • #62
    !
    Now what is this going to be blamed on Republicans War on Women?
    You know the really sad part of this is that someone paid for this dumb a$$ study.
  • #55
    !
    So how did people determine the danger of hurricanes before the feminist revolution? All storms are potentially quite dangerous regardless of name. What really counts is the category placed on the storm by the experts based on it's wind speed and potential storm surge, plus other factors, like high tide. Ignoring warnings is reckless and foolish.
  • R Load more comments...
Post