Talk:World Meteorological Organization/Archive 1

Interwiki link
There's a weird interwiki link here: en:Wereld Meteorologische Organisatie. Anyone know where it should be pointing? Bryan 10:35, 22 November 2003 (UTC)

Retirement/Replacement
Has there been a storm named Dylan yet? NO!!!!! I have an idea. I found out you retired the storm name Dennis. Why not replace Dennis with Dylan, okay? Thanks!

There has been no Dylan. And Dennis hasn't officially been retired yet, although it probably will be. As for Dylan, it may or may not be chosen, and chances are it won't be. Names are up to the WMO to decide. Also, sign your comments! Weatherman90 02:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Scandal Storm
Should be marked "ongoing event /current" and possibly protected. There is a big scandal right now of several million dollars spent by Obana the nigerian on bribes to elect Jarrand as his heir (that was three years ago but only now published). All over major news outlets in Europe in the weekend. This will be big boost for global climate change deniers and UN-bashers. 193.226.227.153 22:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The article should be protected from adding it? Or the article should be protected after its added? --Dean1970 14:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, add "ongoing event" and protect. --Dean1970 14:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where I "misled" in my edit. I read about it online and contributed to the relevant article! swiss investigating $3.5 going walkies, possibly some of it to influence votes. I'm not the one bashing U.N, it would appear some of their employees have a handle on that! --Dean1970 14:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you really think your edit comment update with source was an accurate description of what you added? I don't William M. Connolley 15:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Prot is obviously silly. So is the current event tag - you might justify it for the section (though since your source is a month old I can't see why) - but not for the article. I'm not sure this crit is notable enough to be in there William M. Connolley 15:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you be specific as to where i've strayed? There are a few media sources reporting on this matter. Authorities are investigating. Allegations of vote-buying. Funds are missing, employee likewise. My edit reflected these facts. I did not add that an investigator claims she was fired because she was a whistleblower. Or that the matter has been raised by congress. I added a current event tag, cet explains that a section of this article may include a "current event", I would have removed that tag after the authorities in Geneva concluded their investigation into alledged corruption. --Dean1970 23:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about your *edit comment*. You know, the little bit of text you add in the box below? The one thats supposed to provide a brief description of what you have done? William M. Connolley 11:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting how this talk page seems to have nothing to do with the actual article...--Mátyás (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Cloud Atlas
An article is needed about cloud atlases. See Cloud Atlas and Talk:Cloud Atlas (novel). --Una Smith (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Current (2009) Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases report by WMO useful?
Add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.35.208.206 (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

1977 Statement on natural climate variability
I suggest that we remove the paragraph about the 1977 statement on natural climate variability. I don't see any discussion of it in the Talk page history, but it seems out of place. I take it that it's intended to imply that the WMO thinks that climate change is natural. That's false: the WMO thinks that climate change is caused by manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, as you can see from the WMO's page on climate change. But this page doesn't seem like the place to have an edit war over climate change. The real point, I guess, is that the 1977 statement hardly seems like an important enough aspect of the WMO that it deserves its own paragraph in an otherwise fairly basic article. How do people feel about removing it? Would those who oppose removing it prefer that we add a section with a title along the lines of "WMO's views on climate change," in which we could cite both the 1977 statement and the current web site's statement about climate change? Davidmorrow (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a section "WMO's role in the issue of global warming" is pertinent? A text on views are more prone to subjective opinion. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

and Archer Huston Heniz was the first discove rer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.59.31.47 (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)