- Aerosol-cloud-climate interactions
- Atmospheric river
- Barotropic instability
- Moist static energy
- Vortical hot tower
Pardon?
[1] is odd William M. Connolley (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I was just hear to ask about that. It looks like a rather unhelpful PA which would be better struck in the interests of keeping everything sweet. --BozMo talk 06:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is a cultural thing? I think "full of crap" is a much milder expression in the US (but I don't know where you are from). --BozMo talk 06:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone is free to rephrase the post without changing the meaning. I simply meant to say that some things WMC says are much stronger than "crap" here (US). And since "crap" seems like a 4 letter word there, but perfectly acceptable here, that seemed an appropriate and effective way of doing it. If it wasn't, please accept my apologies. As far as I'm aware, (at least in the parts of the US I've lived or visited) "full of crap" is slightly stronger than "talking nonsense" or "full of it", but quite weaker that "full of shit" although all have the same meaning. Funny that. -Atmoz (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is a strong attack on me in UK English. It would be better to strike it if you didn't mean to do that William M. Connolley (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Strange, as i live in the UK and "full of crap" is not considered an attack, it is a way of saying your talking rubbish, or as Atmoz said, talking nonsense. mark nutley (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is a strong attack on me in UK English. It would be better to strike it if you didn't mean to do that William M. Connolley (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone is free to rephrase the post without changing the meaning. I simply meant to say that some things WMC says are much stronger than "crap" here (US). And since "crap" seems like a 4 letter word there, but perfectly acceptable here, that seemed an appropriate and effective way of doing it. If it wasn't, please accept my apologies. As far as I'm aware, (at least in the parts of the US I've lived or visited) "full of crap" is slightly stronger than "talking nonsense" or "full of it", but quite weaker that "full of shit" although all have the same meaning. Funny that. -Atmoz (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Atmoz William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Please read the sources
In the article you change to denialist, even when the source says skeptical [2]. Please check the sources before reverting others like this. Especially in such an environment as the CC articles. Nsaa (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- I simply changed the linked text to match the article to which it was linking per WP:EGG. There is absolutely nothing controversial about that. If you remove the link, you can call him Jesus Christ for all I care. -Atmoz (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- WP:V states "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.". (my bolding), so your change was not ok. You reverted the prior edit, even when it states "Sources describe him as skeptical not as denying". I agree with you that we should not link per WP:EGG. Do we need an article about Climate change skepticism also? Climate change denial is quite strong in it's wording and links to Denialism in it's definition: "Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth" so we should be extremely careful linking to this article per WP:BLP. Nsaa (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Climate Change Arbitration
Are you aware of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change? If you want to get into this molasses, can you drop me an email via the link on my page? Or, of course, directly via my easy-to-find email address. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)