From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
|This article was nominated for deletion on December 12, 2006.
The result of the discussion was Keep.
Users: This page is to talk about what would be funny and otherwise discuss the article, not to debate whether global warming is a fact or a myth.
Add new topics to the end.
- The archive covers correspondence from 16-Apr-08 through 17-Mar-09. 12:35 17-Jan-10 post-edited
edit Gut And Paste
Hello. I've done some gut-and-paste on this page. Am reluctant to delete other people's contributions, though I have done so on the essay on dope smoking, on half the stuff in the list of one-liners (notably, the lines encouraging assassination and having nothing to do with the topic), on the really didactic and unfunny stuff in "Global Warming: The Video Game" and other screeds, and have deleted half the Al Gore jokes. The essay on Al Gore the medieval crusader sucks; the article has already ridiculed Gore's fanaticism, but he isn't a marauder.
Am reluctant to delete* the huge illustration of Al Gore in a beany cursing the sun, as some five-year-old somewhere put a lot of time into it, but it's big and ugly, and again, the article already has plenty of Al-Gore-the-fanatic jokes. After giving this a few days to percolate, I may do so anyway. With the exception of the articles on the Canadian leaders, the entire list of Other Activists is cutesy crap.
I do have a bias--as a hint, I believe that anyone who says that "the science is settled" is not practicing science, no matter what his credentials--but hope the result gives all sides some ridicule. It is disappointing to read the sermons on the underlying facts on this Talk page. Uncyclopedia isn't supposed to be about facts--or orthodoxies. --SpikeFromNH 23:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
* Overcame the reluctance. --SpikeFromNH 20:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
edit September, 2009
An unsigned user has just deleted Sec.1, "Main cause." The article reads okay without it, and it's sort of potty-mouthed, but it is a good introduction and was there before me. The user didn't explain here nor even give a revision summary, so I put it back.
By comparison, the later sections, "Activists," "Other theories," and "Other global warmings" are relatively random ramblings. If someone needed to conserve space, they would be my candidates for deletion, but I'm satisfied simply that they come last in the article.
I did another revert, which I formerly explained in this space. Now, simply refer to the following section. User:SpikeFromNH/signature 09:57, September 29, 2009 (UTC)
edit "Things you can do"
| An Uncyclopedia democratization section
This section exists as a creative outlet for the anonymous passers-by who can't write anything longer than one sentence, and can't be bothered to make even that relate to nearby material or check whether it restates a point made earlier. Have at it!
I made this graphic out of exasperation at what sections like Things you can do always turn into. They are a n00b magnet and need periodic trash removal. The graphic needs a better illustration. (
Shit.jpg is not quite right.) It might want to become a Template some day. 19:46, October 3, 2009 (UTC)
- The icon (now shown above) was changed by Dylanlip, who was in the process of installing better stop/yield icons globally. post-edited
- PS--It is now Template:Democratization and can be used to tag listcruft repositories in other articles. 12:42 17-Jan-10
edit Call it "climate change"?
Can we add a number 25 to the list New studies have found helpful things you can do to tackle global warming: Number 25. Call it Climate Change. --Pyxispyxis
- We could. You could. However, we already make this joke, in the second paragraph of Section 2.3. 00:38 9-Jan-10
Cool n thanks --Pyxispyxis 00:53, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
edit The microwaved-Earth illustration
(Previous comment deleted--In the size of a thumbnail, it looked like a baked potato rather than the globe--This is a problem.) I moved the photo down to "Your carbon footprint" and rewrote the caption. Tried to get it to render a little larger, but failed.12:56, October 15, 2009 (UTC) post-edited
- OK, thanks!--Lazer81095 02:27, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. If you like, play around with making the thumbnail a little bigger so we can more clearly see that it's Earth--I had no luck. ... 02:48, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
edit Global Warming II: A New Beginning
With regrets, I have reverted an hour of work by an editor known only as 18.104.22.168. He has a very clever concept: That the article on Global warming describe how the people of the Earth have decided to make the planet warmer--that is, straightforward irony. Unfortunately, the article has an existing concept: A cynical description of the forces advocating global warming countermeasures--and, to a lesser extent, a cynical description of its opponents. Grafting these changes on top, in my opinion, breaks it. I suggest that the stub article on Climate change is just sitting there waiting for a really clever approach like this. Are you game? PS--In that revert, I preserved a subsequent edit by Lazer81095 adding the baked-potato illustration to the intro. -- 23:08, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
- Yea. Totally agree with Spike. Keep the general concept consistent. If someone has a different concept they can always start another article. MrN 03:32, Oct 16
- This was discussed further in Forum:Climate-change articles. 03:40, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
edit Intro reworked, but uncertainty is its theme
MrN, I'm sorry you don't like the typography of a bulleted list in an intro. But its function was to motivate the next sentence, that humankind cannot agree on anything--even who's behind the global-warming push--and to finger culprits from both the right and the left. Stating a definite instigator--even an ideologically balanced conspiracy of Obama plus businessmen--breaks it. Will revert in part.05:01, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
- Bloody heck. Oh, OK. Do what ya fancy, I'm just trying to make it look better... Who is Palin? OK, I know who she is, many don't. Make it world wide not US centric. MrN 05:13, Oct 16
I got rid of her. Am wrestling with the bit about climate change on other planets. It's funny, but underneath the joke is an air of certainty, which has to go elsewhere than this intro which is all about uncertainty.05:21, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting a link? I'm sure it's the climate change on the earth causing the climate change on the other planets you see. Honest... Hea, tis all good. I get what you mean. MrN 05:26, Oct 16
It's got to be about us. "We, are what we have been waiting for."
Also axed the "Social Security Lock Box" from the bulleted list--a reference to a previous Al Gore campaign (2000) that even most Americans won't remember. And realized that the theme of uncertainty is undercut by my own ending to the intro, regarding armies of scientists and UN bureaucrats. Further trimming down the intro, this belongs later in the article--say, in the section about solving the problem by extincting humanity.somewhat later October 16, 2009 (UTC)
There is now only one piece of damned certainty left in the intro: The first sentence about humankind coming to consensus with unprecedented speed. It's clear what words to remove to eliminate this dissonance, but I'm comfortable with making a categorical statement (an encyclopedia cliché?!) that is immediately given the lie.16:54, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
edit Too America-centric
It still looks like it was written by an American. 3 or the 4 things in the bullet list relate only to US. That's got to be fixed unless you are going to keep a consistent style of US type thinking throughout. My preference is to... Hang on why are be being so formal!!! WTF? Look, lets make it less American dammit! MrN 17:01, Oct 16
- That's a valid point, especially on an article like this whose audience is trans-national. I'll work on it. Separately, though, you just deleted the initial paragraph of a section and I just put it back. It doesn't relate to the America-centric discussion, and the section reads very strangely jumping in at the second paragraph.
17:18, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
- Cool. RE the other bit... I actually thought it flowed better into the next section and that what I removed was kinda dull. Whatever you do, don't be discouraged by my edits. MrN 17:22, Oct 16
- I'll look at that. The result didn't flow, though: The scientists look into one another's eyes, and I'm saying, Wait! What scientists? The deleted paragraph described a moronic piece of brainwork that it purported to be the genesis of the global-warming crusade. I'll see what I can do. (Separately, have just written to ChiefjusticeDS that the burden of correspondence, particularly after Puppy drafted me last night to do PEE Review, is pegging 100%. "Unsustainable") 17:33, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
- PS--Could everything before my "Gut and Paste" above be archived? Especially the didactic back-and-forth about who's right about global warming?! I know how to move text but do not know where the archival page belongs or what it should be called. Thanks. 17:35, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
- Cool. RE the other bit... I actually thought it flowed better into the next section and that what I removed was kinda dull. Whatever you do, don't be discouraged by my edits. MrN 17:22, Oct 16
edit Conservation Week
The above balance MrN and I achieved has now been shattered by InMooseWeTrust, in search of a Conservation Week award for rewriting the most pages. Moose has a much better Al Gore quotation, and improves the Bush quotation so that it will link to one of the Bush articles.
But deleting the Bush photo destroys the temporary sense of partisan balance in the intro (before the article lays into Gore for being a carbon-credit pimp). He spoils the joke that major record jackets were telling us we had only 10 years left to "save the planet"--in 1985. And he mostly inserts awkwarder phrasings and randomnesses into the intro. But I'll wait until he nails down his Oscar--that would be 17 November--before I try to spread this shinola onto the shingle.02:37 9-Nov-09
InMooseWeTrust has really done a number on this article. It is now officially fucking great. --Reverse Genocide Cockatrices 05:47, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
And today an anonIP has weighed in with another Alternate Theory, currently new Section 8.5. (Sheesh! everyone's a scientist!) To gild our lily that the planetary craze is an avaricious invention of Al Gore's (based on the real world), the kid suggests that the planetary craze is--an invention of Al Gore's (based on nothing beyond his son's car crash). Because Gore is "a complete douche" (surely the article's wittiest joke). Simply put, this new section adds nothing to the article, except gratuitous swears and a demonstration of the author's nimble mind, whoever he is. This contribution will be a casualty of my imminent clean-up.02:39 18-Nov-09
The imminent clean-up is now complete. It includes deleting a footnote I had added earlier (and oddly not deleted after MrN's complaint that the article is too America-centric). Presidential candidate John McCain did author a sham repackaging comparable to the recent one on "climate change," but McCain has nothing to do with global warming, and the episode I referred to will be lost on foreigners and even most Americans.
The Democratization section got three new contributions yesterday, which were mostly counterintuitive and preachy. I retained two--the one on eating babies, now slimmed down, stays only because it's a hook to link to an article on Baby farming highlighted during a recent discussion in UN:VFD. 10:53 23-Nov-09
Much later (19-Dec-09), I discarded the "balanced" Bush-and-Gore intro, in favor of the Earth-in-a-microwave photo contributed by Lazer81095 on 11-Oct (fortunately, now in a larger size; his addition to the article had been a thumbprint that looked like a potato in tin foil in a microwave). Bush is irrelevant, and Gore, while he is the poster child for Global Warming, is thoroughly ridiculed a couple sections later.01:41 5-Jan-10
edit Gunnanmon's changes
I changed a lot in the main. Most of it was pretty juvenile or just completely unfunny. Gunnanmon 03:57, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
- This article, including Section 1, attempts a subtle commentary on the faults in current global-warming "science." It is not unfunny and it is surely not juvenile. You have inserted the supernatural, dinosaur blood, snacks, happy light spectrum, etc., etc. In short, you found humor you didn't understand and responded by making it goofy. I reverted your previous, smaller change, and am reverting your current one in full.
- There is a related but underdeveloped article, Climate change, where the sense of humor is closer to yours; if you wish to edit that to turn it into a full article, we will appreciate the results. Just make it hang together. 04:07 31-Dec-09
"...buttholes emit it (...) pretty fricking hot...". This is pretty much juvenile, not to mention that the main is very short, and mostly unfunny. Just trying to brighten up the article. Gunnanmon 04:26, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
- The start of Section 2 has an even more focused purpose, which you have just unfocused, and I have just reverted. If you don't want to work on Climate change, may I humbly suggest that you read through the entire article before you decide it needs your, uh, unique talents? 04:34 31-Dec-09 post-edited
- PS--Gunnanmon decided later that he did want to move to Climate change, and has even taking to instructing AnonIPs to adhere to his style. 12:42 17-Jan-10
edit Section 8
Our friend AnonIP has just deleted Section 8.2 (Large Emissions Solve Large Emissions) and I have just reverted him, my change history saying "it's no worse than the other crap around here." Indeed, all of Section 8, the "alternate theories," is cleverness written by writers who made no attempt to integrate their essay into the body of this article. That is why, in some cases, I moved their stuff into Section 8. A couple of them are newbies who are trying to contribute, I've discussed it with them, and I view this as a relatively harmless way to let them, while the front half of this article develops a single theme and can entertain on that basis. If I owned Wikia, I would delete the dumping ground that the entire second half of this article has become.
What say you all? Is there a place in this article for random authors to have their own section to take the article in very random new directions?01:32 5-Jan-10
- I say... Thanks for taking this one on Spike. You are doing a great job of looking after this page. I'm going to write Climate Gate in the next few days... MrN 07:59, Jan 17
Thanks! and welcome back!12:35 17-Jan-10
edit Nuclear Winter
As popularized by science writer and astronomer Carl Sagan, Nuclear Winter is a beneficial cooling effect of billions and billions of tons of dust and debris kicked up by billions of bombs in total global thermonuclear war. It was discovered by observing the dust storms on Mars on the way to the local wormhole as demonstrated in the documentary "Contact". There is a tricky balance between nuclear winter and global warming, but with the availability of Russian and North Korean nukes on the black market almost any group disgruntled with the earth's temperature can turn it down a notch or two. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
- As good as what's there now; it's now installed with light editing at Section 6.1. 15:00 28-Jan-10 post-edited
edit The Great Umbrella Project
The issue of Global Warming has undoubtedly been proven to be caused by Greenhouse gases. The most significant greenhouse gas in the global warming saga is NOT methane emissions from flatulent cattle, not carbon dioxide dribbling out of the tail pipes of assorted Grand Fury II’s, but in fact water vapor. Although almost universally left out in most tree hugging greenhouse gas pie charts, water vapor accounts for around 95% of our greenhouse gasses. Where does all this water vapor come from? There is some non-scientific data that suggests that some of the largest sources are from the millions of kettles and steam irons being produced in foreign factories every year, not to mention all the hot showers, hot tubs, steam baths, vaporizers you use when your kid is sick (with some Vicks of course.. mmm smells so good).
So obviously the first step in curtailing this global warming thingy is definitely an armed takeover of all foreign small appliance factories in order to shut them down. The problem that occurs after which is what is to be done with all these unemployed 8 yrs olds who used to be making all those Irons. No they can’t make clothes for Kathie Lee Gifford.
The solution is to get them building umbrellas, great big honking umbrellas. Not the soccer mom or the “I like to golf in thunderstorm” umbrellas, these would be enormous. What for? Although some scientists would consider this absurd and try to refute it; it seems that the sun (Sol)(See great honking nuclear fireball in the sky that man has no control over and therefore will not use it as a scapegoat if he can’t tax it) may actually warm the ocean waters and thus create that highly harmful, evil of evil greenhouse gases: water vapor. And people just think they are puffy white clouds.
This extremely destructive process, which is innocently taught to every 5th grader, is known as “the Water Table”. The latest IPCC plan calls for the aforementioned factories to not only switch over to umbrella production but also to build dinghy’s. Every citizen of the earth is then issued one of each and is responsible to row out into the ocean with their umbrella and shade it! Scientists estimate that although this will have little or no effect on the global warming crisis it should make someone a lot of money especially when the new umbrella credit tax is unveiled. Gandalfnet (Talk • 01:41 28-Jan-10
- This would fit in Section 8. (But also please read my mixed feelings about the institution of Section 8, just above you on this talk page.) Try to chop it up into paragraphs, as you didn't do above; and try to keep the narrator out of the story, as you didn't do above.
- Ah, you see me cringing? Well, yesterday was Obama's "State of the Union" Address, and judging from its aimlessness, I'm really torn about whether we should do something like publish a rationale for an invasion of China. It both gives him a bogey man (you can't keep blaming Bush forever!) and the ingredients that might give a purpose to his Presidency. Nevertheless, full speed ahead, sir! 02:07 29-Jan-10
- PS--I have changed your signature. I am "SPIKE" because "Spike" had been taken, but yours is not in all uppercase. 02:13 29-Jan-10
- Thanks for your edits. By the way, although articles change all the time, the proprietors like for Talk pages not to be "corrected"--I think so that if there is any drama, no one is ever accused of changing the record of who said what. Now then, do you want me to install your little gift into Section 8, or are you going to be a
manwizard and do it yourself?! 04:19 29-Jan-10
As I am new to this, please do. I have received many a chuckle here so far and wanted to contribute. I originally posted in here to see if it was worthy. If you think so I would be happy to have you place it in Sec 8. Many Thanks (see I didnt edit this time) Gandalfnet (Talk • 23:28 28-Jan-10
- It is installed at Section 8.1. Now click on "My talk" at the top of the page and read your talk page. 04:42 29-Jan-10
- We went on to discuss my personal crusade against "encyclopedia clichés" on your talk page. But there is a more fundamental problem, which you may be able to see in the other contributions in Section 8. In your essay, each paragraph is a mental attempt to work around problems raised by the preceding paragraph--up to the final paragraph, when you're forced to admit that it no longer has anything to do with global warming. In other words, you are demonstrating your imagination, but--like an eight-minute drum solo in a song that was starting to have a catchy tune--it has no unifying theme. Please work on it more (edit it in place) to try to get it to hang together better. 14:18 29-Jan-10
As WC Fields supposedly once said.. Comedy is a serious business. So I will take you advise and rework. Do you have an example of a praragraph that does not exhibit this quality? User:Gandalfnet1600 29-Jan-10
- As Steve Martin once said, Enough comedy jokes! No, I don't have a specific paragraph, because the gist of my comment is that the problem is not specific to any one paragraph, but that I would prefer that it had more of a theme from start to end. Good luck! 21:17 29-Jan-10
Guess what. Despite that appreciation, he did not rework it. Indeed he never returned to Uncyclopedia. He probably got his A in English Comp, and I am ripping out The Great Umbrella Project and sticking it into his userspace for further work if he returns. Fans of random compositions will still find plenty left in Section 8.04:28 13-Feb-10
Alas life, raising two kids by myself, a full time job and university has got in the way. I have not dissappeared just got busy. I dont believe I ever received an A in english when I was young, however I am doing well this time around. You did the right thing. I will try get back to it as soon as this course is over. User:Gandalfnet1600 13-Feb-2010
The said user has just spent four hours inserting quips into this article, and with regret I have reverted them all.
For the record: This article has a theme: That "global warming" is a hoax: a full-employment act for scientists and other hangers-on. Not everyone has this opinion, not everyone on Uncyclopedia has this opinion, and the accepted solution is to work your new material into a page where it fits. (If you like Bush, there's George W. Bush; otherwise, see George Dubya Bush.) The article's attempt to make a point often means it tells exactly one side of the story, as in the East Anglia fracas. The solution is not to insert text that does justice to the other side of the story. We are here to be funny.
Notably, Lord Monckton has got himself two Uncyclopedia articles, one for each side of the story, though the curator there has also told you that the text you appended doesn't help the humor.
Your insertions that are not polemic also break the article. When the article discusses the fact that climate change has been observed on other planets, the new material about whether Pluto is a planet could be funny, but here it turns a digression into a huge digression.
In my opinion, you have encountered a statue of an MP and spray-painted, But he took bribes! That this not an improvement doesn't depend on the truth of the statement.14:08 14-Feb-10
- Wait! You thought that Lord Christopher Monckton denial was anti-Lord Christopher Monckton??? Man did I fuck up with that one! How about Mr Pleatherneck writes Lord Christopher Monckton denial denial? In keeping with our Holocaust denial series. That way he can start a fresh article which does not have a huge history of being a particular way for a rather long time. Either that or he really needs to read BGBU and HTBFANJS as it appears that he does not know this is a humour wiki. MrN 14:37, Feb 14
I concur. It is always stirring when there is a new, unbegun page just waiting for a specific, new user.15:21 14-Feb-10
All right, guys, you feel the way you feel about it, but in my opinion, but my thought is that there's a million pages out there, written in complete earnest, that have the same content and tone, and most of the same jokes. Familiarity breeds contempt. --Pleatherneck 15:41, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
- Mr.N. has done you the favor of pointing you to a page, unwritten but already linked to, in which you can ply your trade. My point of view is clear, but if you think that this article was written as polemic rather than humor, then you may have trouble laughing at an article that doesn't share your point of view. The jobs-for-life-for-scientists premise is fanciful, not a serious attempt to debate the facts. The argument that too many comparable articles exist (with which I disagree: Climate Change is nothing like this article) is the old "lock-step" line that writers of Letters to the Editor use to stereotype their adversaries. Again, you would probably not have a problem with multiple articles if they reflected your point of view. If that point of view is underrepresented on Uncyclopedia, it may be that global-warming advocates (considering their use of data and their proposed remedies) are, at this point, more laughable than "deniers." 16:52 15-Feb-10
- Bottom line... Write an article here. If you can't be arsed to do that then stop complaining. It's a wiki anyone can edit. Please do. Even edit this page, if you wish, but... This page has a long history of being like this. You might say that it's kinda an opinion poll actually. What I suggest you do if you consider this page to be biased is to look through the edit history. You will find that the vast majority of people who have edited this page wanted it to look something like it does now. What we try to do is make controversial pages like this reflect the mass of edits which have been made over the years, rather than strongly push just the view of the last person to edit it. I certainly know I could write this page to be FAR more towards my perspective, but I don't because as it is now it probably is a better reflection of many, many edits... MrN 17:04, Feb 15
edit Coin-operated Valve
It would be much more awesome of the coin-operated valve attached to human orifices were one-way valves. Failure to insert a quarter every hour would not stop people from taking in oxygen since that would be a violation of their civil rights, but it would prevent them from emitting CO2 since that would be a violation of everyone else's civil rights. DamOTclese (talk) 23:02, July 20, 2012 (UTC)