User talk:Fluxaviator

Welcome from Redwolf24

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes ([[User:Redwolf24|Redwolf24]] 02:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes ([[User:Redwolf24|Redwolf24]]) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24 The current date and time is 26 November 2024 T 02:56 UTC.

P.S. I like messages :-P

I think you're a great contributor! Really insightful, bold analysis, especially of Smedley Butler and the Business Plot.

Interview to Michael Albert in es.wikinews

You might be interested in this. -- 4lex 06:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina and global warming

(cross posted from User talk:Rd232)

The question has been seriously raised by theLA TIMES CNN Boston Globe, TIME, USA TODAY and the question belongs in articles about specific natural disasters. End of story. --Fluxaviator 02:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read what you are linking to? Every single one of them was clearly speaking about recent weather patterns in general, not Katrina specifically although they used the word "Katrina" in their headlines to attract readers. For example, the first one you linked says "Is the rash of powerful Atlantic storms in recent years a symptom of global warming?" it doesn't say "Katrina is different from all other tropical cyclones in that it was effected by global warming while the others were not or not as much". The text belongs the article on tropical cyclones. End of story. --24.165.233.150 18:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have read them and they state that global warming was a factor in causing Katrina, especially the Globe article. --Fluxaviator 19:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The globe article lists almost every major weather event of the last year, some eight events in total, and equally attributes all of them to global warming. In light of that how can you claim that that article was claiming that Katrina was affected in a way that other Tropical cyclones are not? --Gmaxwell 19:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming that. I'm only claiming that the question of global warming should be at least mentioned on all the pages that deal with those eight events, including Katrina. That's all I'm saying. --Fluxaviator 19:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teriffic! So, can we comprimise and just say something like "The remarkable intensity of recent tropical cyclones such as Katrina has renewed public interest in global warming as a factor in global climatic change, this is discussed in Tropical cyclone#Long_term_trends_in_cyclone_activity. ? --24.165.233.150 01:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another data point, the source cited in your citations above says "it would be absurd to attribute the Katrina disaster to global warming" [1]. --24.165.233.150 02:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Again I'm only claiming that the question of global warming should be at least mentioned on the article on Katrina. That's all I'm saying. If you remove it I will replace it, we can play this game if you like, I'm up for it but it would be more productive to re-word it and make a compromise. I feel I have already compromised in the interest of NPOV, you on the other hand I worry about. I also do not feel this discussion is productive and I’m sorry I even tired. I mean I'm not even an environmentalist or anything I simply think people should have access to both sides in article on main major disasters. --Fluxaviator 03:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Talk:Hurricane_Katrina#Global Warming_issue_resolution_attempt

Global Warming and 3RR warning

Please see WP:3RR. I am, by far, not the only editor who has removed your global warming POV pushing in Hurricane Katrina. On previous days you have violated 3RR by inserting this text over and over again, and I would like to advise you now that if you break 3RR again you will be blocked from editing. The text you are inserting is factually inaccurate as there is no notable scientist (much less many) making the claim that Katrina was caused by Katrina as you alledge. The matter is covered in some depth in the tropical cyclone article which you should read before you insert the inaccurate text again. If you are going to continue to advance this argument you should at least be doing it on the Alleged causes and you need to provide citations which match your claims because your uncited speculation is just going to be removed. --24.165.233.150 00:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Listen you have removed it at least 3 times without good explanation! You are the one violating the rule, not me. The statements in question are VERY neutral and your personal POV on global warming is getting tiring. Please leave the balanced statements as they give both points of view and are well sourced and have been covered by the media in depth. --Fluxaviator 03:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the statement in question (SEP/6/05)...which is balanced and does not say that Katrina was solely caused my Global warming.

Many scientists have stated that global warming was a factor responsible for the rise in ocean surface temperatures that may have caused Katrina to go from a tropical storm to a devastating hurricane as it crossed the Gulf of Mexico between south Florida and New Orleans.[2][3] [4] Other scientists acknowledge the possible long term effects of global warming on cyclonogenesis, but attribute the strength of Hurricane Katrina to a 12 year cycle. [5] [6]

Just a note that "some scientists" works for me as well, and is probably the best we can do for now. I just generally have a problem with using such indefinite terms on Wikipedia as "few", "some", "many", "most", etc. Some is probably the most "neutral" of these, but has the same problems as the others. Anyway, I think you see what I am getting at. Peyna 04:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Talk:Hurricane_Katrina#Global Warming_issue_resolution_attempt

Ross Gelbspan

I just ran across your claim on a old talk page ... "Ross Gelbspan, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and author of two books on global warming. [15]--Fluxaviator 23:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)". Ross Gelbspan is not a pulitzer prize winner although through some amazing unexplained flub his publisher decided to declare that on the cover of one of his books, and he has no scientific credentials.... Although I do agree that he probably knows a lot about global warming, his focus has entirely been on the politics of global warming (i.e. the forces trying to convince people that it doesn't exist, and the money being spent to silence people who say it does), and not at all on the science of the matter. But it's neither here nor there, because even Gelbspan doesn't claim that Katrina specifically was caused by global warming as he clearly attributes all weather events which cause death and damage to global warming. I just wanted to point that out to you. --24.165.233.150 00:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another note.. the scientific source that has come the closest to claiming any connection is Kerry Emanuel's paper in nature. But all it shows is that surface sea temp affects hurricane strength, which shocks no one since warm water is the power source for tropical cyclones and the existing computer models we use to predict intensity are almost entirely driven by surface sea temp integrated across the projected course of the storm. The interesting part of Kerry's paper is that he claims that the known atlantic temp cycle isn't enough to account for the measured changes in recent times, but he doesn't attempt to research that matter... In general it would even be difficult to research that matter since the cycles we're talking about span decades to centuries and our detailed data just doesn't go that far back. :( It's sill important to note that Kerry isn't talking about Katrina at all, his work was published prior to the storm... it's just talking about the increased average intensity of storms overall. Thus the big fuss that the material belongs in Tropical cyclone rather than in a katrina related article, except perhaps as a pointer. --24.165.233.150 01:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an insightful article about Ross from Mother Jones [7]. The Globe got the PP form the reporting, he was the principle editor and director on the stories. See article. So I disagree on your personal opinion of the man but that is besides the point. (see my comments above) And also please stop harrassing me. --Fluxaviator 03:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Orwell

I note-and agree with- the comment you left on the Animal Farm page. You might be interested in an exchange I had with a bone-headed Trotskyite on the George Orwell talk page (Napoleon and Stalin). Rcpaterson 22:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Market abolitionism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Market abolitionism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Market abolitionism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Grnrchst (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]