Talk:Climate change

The SPOV of this article is all wrong. It should ridicule the politically-motivated lobby advocating the Kyoto Treaty and other ridiculous measures, not the other side.

What article? It says internal database error, just like all the other articles I've clicked on this morning.

I removed most of the politically correct crap.

And replaced it with random and unfunny crap... I'm sorry to tell you, but you've crappified the article... Thanks a lot, anonymous IP!!!! *hmphs* --~ sin($) ^tan(€) 22:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, admit it, at least the part about Santa Claus fighting against global warming is funny.

The cause for climate change

The only cause for the climate change are windmills.

This becomes evident when you take a look at an average windmill farm:

The windmills take the wind out of the atmosphere, thus they slow down the natural global exchange of air: On the equator the sunshine warms up the air, the air expands, becomes lighter, rises to higher levels of the atmosphere and drifts to the North where, in the polar region, the air cools down and contracts and falls down to the ground where it starts flowing back to the equator.

A windmill farm blocks this natural flow of air streams, the engergy contained in a wind stream is taken to move the windmill, the wind slows down and logically the warm air cannot get to the polar region to cool down.

News about ozone, carbonmonoxide, the nuisance of cars, refrigerators and cheap flights are only a way to distract us from the obvious truth: that it`s not the industry, but the devilish technique of windmills that take our planet`s breath away.

Major Changes

I've taken it upon myself to fix this sad article. Gunnanmon 05:52, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Very good. I had placed the following box at the start of this article, and have now removed it, as Teh_pwnerator (talk) – contribs (new • del) • edit-count • block (rem • list) • all logs • groups • checkuser had volunteered to rewrite it (on 14-Oct-09) but obviously has not done so.

Don't get walked on It has been proposed, at Forum:Climate-change articles, that this article covers exactly the same ground as the articles on Global warming and Global cooling, and does it much more poorly. At least one Uncyclopedia editor is eager to supplant the following tripe with entirely new material. They never teach this in school, but it may be time to cooperate and collaborate.

Now do please read the style guide. In particular, unreasonably large or long numbers (as in Section 3.1) are considered a cliché. They shout out "THIS IS CRAP!" which is not as funny as saying something that hits the reader as outrageous after he thinks about it. Also, long lists of stuff should be converted to paragraphs. If you don't, you'll find that every Anon on the Internet will add a line to the list, until the article gets so bad that someone nominates it for deletion. Other than that, keep going! Spıke ¬  13:55 31-Dec-09

Yeah, that Celsius/year thing, and the list thing were actually some of the few things left over from the original article; I thought the same things about them last night myself. Gunnanmon 03:36, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Style

The style of the article reads like an actual encyclopedia and I intend to keep it this way. Random jokes, impossible facts/situations, or general chaos is fine, but please make it legible, and above all it needs to make sense. Gunnanmon 09:07, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Guess who's a global cop now! Glad you agree that a page has to have a style! and glad you have a page of your own. I hope this article also gets a unifying theme--That's my style, not necessarily yours, but perhaps, as time passes and you re-read it.... Spıke ¬  12:39 5-Jan-10

Rewrite

I have rewritten Climate change. The talk page above this comment pertains to the older version of the article. User:CandidToaster/sig 19:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)