And Now, the View from Denier Ville

December 13, 2015


The post below, illustrated with the picture above, appeared on Climate denier Roy Spencer’s blog, responding to the new Paris Climate agreement.

Make of them what you will.

Roy Spencer:

If global warming was a concern in the 1800s, Hollywood might have portrayed the COP21 Paris global warming pow wow like this…

Of course, Hollywood seldom uses such racial stereotypes anymore…unless they are of White Southerners.

Vice-Chief Kerry of the Developed Tribes“All chiefs must dance to the rain gods, or no rain will fall on our lands. Or too many rains. After rain dance, we smoke peace pipe.”

Chief Boingo of the Undeveloped Tribes“Our people will not dance. Unless much wampum is given to our people. For we have suffered greatly. The clouds do not give their tears. Or give too much…whatever. Only after much wampum will we then smoke peace pipe.”

Vice-Chief Kerry of the Developed Tribes“How much wampum does Chief Boingo speak of?”

Chief Boingo of the Undeveloped Tribes“As much wampum as stars in sky and as many moons have passed since our ancestors fell asleep”.

Vice-Chief Kerry of the Developed Tribes“Hmmm. That’s much wampum. My people will not be happy. What say we smoke-um peace pipe and tell our peoples rain dance was good, anyway? We send a few wampum as we can. And we throw in some fire water?”

Chief Boingo of the Undeveloped Tribes“Ugg. Just like other pow-wows, eh? OK.”

Chief Obama of the Developed Tribes addresses all tribes of Earth:“After many moons of rain dance and pow wow talk, the Developed Tribes chiefs have made peace with the Undeveloped Tribes, and with Earth. Now the clouds will cry tears of joy, and the great waters will be kept from our villages.”



35 Responses to “And Now, the View from Denier Ville”

  1. indy222 Says:

    He’s going to regret that one. Maybe he should volunteer to be Trump’s running mate?

    Each climate denier will crumble in the coming years in their own way. It’s psychologically tough to climb back out of such a deep hole and preserve a sense of dignity and self-worth. Brittle people don’t find the ability to admit they’re wrong gracefully.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      Or Ted Cruz’s Science advisor?
      I’ve made the point numerous times that climate denial and racism seem to be joined at the hip. I’m grateful to Spencer to making it so clear, and to the respondents on his page for underlining that.
      There could hardly be a clearer illustration of how out of touch climate deniers are with a new generation.
      See my post elsewhere on the page about Indigenous activist John Trudell.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Spencer is getting senile. I’ve commented before on what stupidity one can find in his books, and this blog post seals the deal for me. They should send him off to the home for old folks who have lost touch with reality. His comments provide more evidence for the racism-climate change denial connection, and no one with half a brain would think this is clever on any level.

        (And there will be no “science adviser” in Ted Cruz’s administration. If elected, Slimeball Ted’s first executive order will be to abolish science and order all government agencies to take actions only if they can be supported by a literal reading of the bible).

    • be careful what you say, you may have to eat your own words………………

  2. malanlewis Says:

    Use of the “climate denier” pejorative marks the user as more ignorant than the target.

    Let’s talk about content, not personalities.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      Which part of Dr. Spencer’s content would you like to discuss?

    • You actually saw “content” in that piece? Ad hominem arguments are the basis of most climate denier screeds.

    • firstdano Says:

      Denial is a psychological condition.



    • dumboldguy Says:

      Melanlewis is obviously a visitor from WUWT where Anthony Watts and his moronic lemming acolytes will “go off’ on anyone who uses the term “climate denier” to describe their collective delusional state.

      It’s a freakin’ PEJORATIVE, they scream? It most certainly is, since a “pejorative” is a word that expresses contempt or disapproval, and that certainly is how all people with functioning brains feel towards the self-described “skeptics” that we more accurately call deniers. What using “denier” really represents to melanhead and fellow WUWT morons is an inconvenient TRUTH that they must deny as vigorously as they deny the scientific truth supporting AGW.

      Yes, let’s DO talk about content rather than personalities, and as firstdano says elsewhere on the thread, “denial is a psychological condition”, so let’s make that our “content”. Deniers suffer from a variety of clearly identifiable personality disorders and psychological deficits that do not afflict normal people.

      Crockers are generally aware of that fact, so I won’t bore anyone here with expanding on that. I tried to speak to that on WUWT but got banned quickly because I was out of tune with the lemmings humming in the echo chamber. Why don’t you just stay there on WUWT, melonhead, and bask in the nods of agreement you get there for your BS. (and tell us, do you all sit around in circles and groom each other like monkeys?—pick off fleas and such?)

    • redbbs Says:

      Fucking bullshit it does. The guy is a fucking lying denier.
      Why do you hate empiricism?

    • jibalt Says:

      “Use of the “climate denier” pejorative marks the user as more ignorant than the target.”

      Really? How is that? There doesn’t seem to be any logic to that claim.

      “Let’s talk about content”

      Have at it.

      “not personalities”

      Your first statement seems to be all about that. You wouldn’t by any chance be a hypocrite, would you?

  3. Tom Bates Says:

    190 countries looking for trillions in new taxes to enrich the wallets of the leaders and their pet projects. The world per the RSS data has not warmed in 18 plus years as the CO2 has increased 30 percent. That data is supported by the antarctic sea ice gains, record high and gains on land ice despite loss in the western arm due to under ice volcanic action.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      uh huh. got it.
      I’ll be interviewing Carl Mears from RSS this week.
      He was recently quoted in the Wash Post thusly:

      When PolitiFact investigated Cruz’s “17 years” claim, it reported that Cruz spokesman Phil Novack supported the claim by referring to a blog item by Carl Mears, a physicist and senior scientist at Remote Sensing Systems. In response to a query, Novack sent me the entire response to PolitiFact, which cited Mears as well as another satellite data temperature set to support the idea that “there has been a pause or hiatus in warming during the twenty-first century.”

      These datasets use satellites to measure temperatures in the lower troposphere of the planet — basically, the part of the atmosphere where weather occurs. And in Mears’s dataset, for this particular part of the planet, it does look like 1998 was the year with the warmest temperature anomaly.

      But if you look at Mears’s blog post, while he agrees there has been a slowdown in the “rate of warming” — which, again, is not at all the same thing as “zero warming” — he disagrees that this undermines global warming concerns. “Does this slow-down in the warming mean that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is no longer valid?” Mears asks. “The short answer is ‘no.’”

      Indeed, Mears uses the term “denialists” to refer to climate skeptics in his post.

      To explore Mears’s views further, I did one thing journalists can do when covering the climate views of presidential candidates — I contacted the researcher. And his response was quite critical of Cruz’s approach to the evidence on this issue:

      “Mr. Cruz (and others who seek to minimize the threat posed by climate change) likes to cite statistics about the last 17 years because 17 years ago, the Earth was experiencing a large ENSO [El Nino-Southern Oscillation] event and the observed temperatures were substantially above normal, and above any long-term trend line a reasonable person would draw. When one starts their analysis on an extraordinarily warm year, the resulting trend is below the true long term trend. It’s like a pro baseball player deciding he’s having a batting slump three weeks after a game when he hit three homers because he’s only considering those three weeks instead of the whole season.”

      Mears went further, explaining that while he studies satellite data, we probably shouldn’t rely on those data more than we rely on the temperatures that NASA and NOAA are using:

      “My particular dataset (RSS tropospheric temperatures from MSU/AMSU satellites) show less warming than would be expected when compared to the surface temperatures. All datasets contain errors. In this case, I would trust the surface data a little more because the difference between the long term trends in the various surface datasets (NOAA, NASA GISS, HADCRUT, Berkeley etc) are closer to each other than the long term trends from the different satellite datasets. This suggests that the satellite datasets contain more “structural uncertainty” than the surface dataset.”

      Structural uncertainty, explains Mears, refers to situations in which scientists are “getting different results when different, but scientifically reasonable, methods are used.”

      So in sum: In claiming the globe hasn’t warmed in 17 years, Cruz selectively highlighted satellite temperature data, rather than other data (which NASA and NOAA recently used to call 2014 the hottest year on record). He also selectively focused on one year (1998), rather than examining the aggregate temperatures of many years or decades. And finally, a key scientist who studies this type of satellite data, and whose work was cited by Cruz’s spokesman (as backup), criticizes Cruz’s approach and conclusions.

    • Magma Says:

      Sorry, Tom. That kind of nonsense doesn’t go over well on sites like this, where scientifically-knowledgeable readers know the facts already or know how to check them if they don’t.

      You might want to try a website catering to more gullible low-information readers. No doubt you already know of several that fit the bill.

    • 190 countries looking for trillions in new taxes to enrich the wallets of the leaders and their pet projects.

      Care to explain why it’s necessary to create new taxes when it’s possible to get the same result just by modifying existing ones?

    • dumboldguy Says:

      You’ve been here before spouting this same deluded BS about ice, Tommy. Give it a break. (Or are you trying to break your record of “thumbs down”? You got ~20 last time).

    • jibalt Says:

      Blah blah blah. Why don’t denier gits like Tom Bates ever know that we have heard all these denier talking points before and have refuted them at least as many times as they have been stated?

  4. Don Osborn Says:

    Wow, climate denier and racist to boot. Gee this won’t come back to bite him in his butt I am sure.

  5. Magma Says:

    (Magma makes a disparaging remark about racists in mixed company, draws angry glares)

    Hey, come on, don’t look at me like that. Some of my best friends are racists. They’re good people, for the most part. It’s just that a few of them give the majority a bad name.

  6. omnologos Says:

    Racism is a serious word and ought be used more seriously. This is a clever send-off on the whole developed/developing nonsense (mainstream lingo at COP21 if anyone’s noticed).

    If you find that offensive, remember that this movie is still being sold. Time to get it edited wrt ugly squaws?

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Another non sequitur from the OmnoMoron. Only he would attempt to make a connection between the racism that can be found in movies from the America of 50 and 60 years ago and what Roy Spencer wrote yesterday.

      I will ask again, will Omno EVER string two related thoughts together to make a real argument? I will bet $100 against a dime that the answer is no.

      • omnologos Says:

        hate to break the news to you dumbold but your repetitive use of ‘non-sequitur’ does not make it right. you actually would need to show the non-sequitur.

        I have shown that Native American stereotyping is acceptable enough to be sold for children to view.

        In fact, none would take Peter Pan as ‘racist’. The episode makes sense, in the movie – it’s children playing children games, pirates, indians, pixies.

        Likewise, when talking climate control, it’s not too far fetched to mention cultures where it was (allegedly) attempted. It makes sense to write a parody of Kerry and Obama using that. Maybe somebody will use the Mayas instead, although it’d be some much more gory than a rain dance.

        This reminds me of when I used the style of Aesop comparing alarmism to a zoo, and a not-so-bright person pretended I’d been inspired by the Nazis. Yeah, right.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          And I hate to break the news to YOU, OmnoMoron but your repetitive use of ‘non-sequiturs’ in comments here is obvious to all Crockers. Actually, I DO use the term a bit loosely, but it does fit most of your massive logic fails better than other terms. I use it to mean “maundering commentary using disconnected and often unrelated bits and pieces of factual information, ignorant and ill-informed opinions, references to links that you don’t quite understand, and self-congratulatory delusional thinking—all of which never quite add up and make folks with brains who read it ask WHAT”. YOU are the one who ACTUALLY shows us the “non-sequiturs” in virtually every comment you make.

          You do it yet AGAIN with “…when talking climate control, it’s not too far fetched to mention cultures where it was (allegedly) attempted…etc.”. It IS just plain stupid for you to mix present day concerns and theories about AGW mitigation with religion of ANY kind, primitive or “civilized”, and you are also being racist when you do so.

          The only “parody” here is your parody of someone demonstrating logic and thinking skills and holding themselves up as an “expert”. Too bad you can’t be a guest on SNL—-just think, millions of people across America listening to you then scratching their heads and saying WHAT in unison. Your little attention-seeking brain would probably do a “mars attacks” over that. (They could call your character “Dunning-Kruger Man”).

          And you may not be aware, but some “fairly bright persons” DID have some discussions about Aesop vs the Nazis re his use of animals vs the Nazi’s characterization of humans. I’d bet that you read about that somewhere, AGAIN had little or no understanding of what was being said, misapplied your “knowledge”, and got shot down for it.

          In closing, Omno, the MANY “not-so-bright persons” that give you all the attention and thumbs down because of your inadequacies are not “pretending”—-they are expressing the TRUTH of the collective opinion of all Crockers—-you are a moron and waste our time.

          • omnologos Says:

            priceless, a meandering, disconnected commentary to protest allegedly “maundering” disconnected comments.Thanks!!

            ps as I said…the ‘developed’ meme is standard at COPs, so a parody using variations on ‘developed’ is almost mandated.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Omno misses the point AGAIN. Actually, the real problem is that he is poorly equipped to fight a battle of wits (or facts or science knowledge or logic) with me or anyone else on Crock. So he falls back on his “demented rooster” persona and struts about the barnyard clucking “priceless” and actually thanking me for disassembling him yet again. Lord love a duck!

            AND tops off his cluelessness by popping yet ANOTHER freakin’ non sequitur on us. To wit:

            “ps as I said…the ‘developed’ meme is standard at COPs, so a parody using variations on ‘developed’ is almost mandated”. (That is true only among AGW deniers—-who are frantically trying to distract us from the truth of COPS).

            JFC, Omno! Will you EVER get it (or were you making a joke)? Nah, it takes intelligence and a sense of irony to make jokes, and Omno’s deficits there are too well known. He’s simply clueless.

          • omnologos Says:

            another pointless comment using the same words you keep using on Crocks. Lord may love a duck but not your vocabulary. face it…you have nothing to reply and just try to bully me away, thinking that if I stay quiet everything will be fine as if by a miracle. thanks for giving me so much power.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Bully you? Elephants do not “bully” the occasional ant they may step on, Omno, just as we do not bully you here on Crock. We try to educate you and help you improve your social skills, but you appear to be both uneducable and doomed to living a lonely life in your mother’s basement.

            The only “power” that you could ever possess here that might interest us is the power to shut up and stop uttering stupidities—that’s a power you obviously do NOT possess and likely never will because of your personality disorders.

            You prove my point again by thanking me. Moron!

          • omnologos Says:

            sometimes I wonder how many people write under your monicker, at the same time

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Omno proves my point again by making another inane comment.

            Anyone with normal perceptual and thinking skills would say to himself “I’m getting my brains beaten in here, and maybe I should stop embarrassing myself by making these dumb ass and ineffectual attempts at replying to DOG. Maybe I should shut up for a while”. Not our boy Omno. Those personality disorders I mentioned keep driving him to beat his head against the wall.

            And it’s not clear if he thinks I have multiple personalities or is suggesting that some of the others who also mock him on Crock are really me. There is only one “people writing under my moniker”, Omno, although there is a “committee” living in my head that practices consilient thinking, something that your confirmation-biased brain is not capable of.

            Your turn, Omno. Remember that the number of inanities you spew in response to me is a measure of your sickness and inadequacy. You are my experimental rat, and are serving to prove many of those things I learned in psychology classes.

  7. Hard to rate Roy Spencer’s remarks on any scale any more. They are off the scale of the extremist right wing bigot. Just a short while ago he implied he hoped COP21 attendees would get blown up by terrorists, and now this.

  8. addledlady Says:

    At least the brain dead racist cartoonist in Australia doesn’t claim to be a scientist. But he clearly has opinions on climate. Yet another outstanding example of Murdoch’s papers raising the tone of public debate.

Leave a Reply to omnologos Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: