JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Death threats anyone? Austrian Prof: global warming deniers should be sentenced to death

Richard Parncutt

Richard Parncutt,  Professor of Systematic Musicology, University of Graz, Austria, reckons people like Watts, Tallbloke, Singer, Michaels, Monckton, McIntyre and me (there are too many to list) should be executed. He’s gone full barking mad, and though he says these are his “personal opinions” they are listed on his university web site.

For all the bleating of those who say they’ve had real “death threats“, we get discussions about executing skeptics from Professors, wielding the tyrannical power of the state. Was he paid by the state to write these simplistic, immature, “solutions”? Do taxpayers fund his web expenses? (And what the heck is systematic musicology?)

Prof Richard Parncutt says:

“I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases…”

“Even mass murderers [like Breivik] should not be executed, in my opinion.”

“GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.”

Consequences

If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death. The sentence would then be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused admitted their mistake, demonstrated genuine regret, AND participated significantly and positively over a long period in programs to reduce the effects of GW (from jail) – using much the same means that were previously used to spread the message of denial. At the end of that process, some GW deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives.

Recant you foolish deniers or we’ll kill you! Yeah. Welcome to modern scientific debate.

Who should die? Anyone named on Desmog:

Much more would have happened by now if not for the GW deniers. An amazing number of people still believe that GW is a story made up by scientists with ulterior motives. For a long list of climate change deniers and their stories see desmogblog.

So the denier database becomes the “death list”. The list decided by PR experts on a funded smear site, who profit from marketing Green corporations.

But it’s ok, he includes a caveat where he says he didn’t say what I quoted above, so he can later pretend he isn’t discussing real deaths of real people:

Please note that I am not directly suggesting that the threat of execution be carried out. I am simply presenting a logical argument. I am neither a politician nor a lawyer. I am just thinking aloud about an important problem.

And we all feel so much better don’t we?

But seriously, Global warming deniers are the worst vermin on the face of the Earth, worse than holocaust deniers, tobacco deniers and worse than someone who bombs buildings and shoots children en masse:

I don’t think that mass murderers of the usual kind, such Breivik, should face the death penalty. Nor do I think tobacco denialists are guilty enough to warrant the death penalty, in spite of the enormous number of deaths that resulted more or less directly from tobacco denialism. GW is different. With high probability it will cause hundreds of millions of deaths. For this reason I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers.

Here’s how the deadly reasoning goes

How does he know we are facing disaster?

He knows, because he’s read a blog that pretends to be scientific and it says so. The same site resorts to ad homs, and kindergarden namecalling (like “denier” and “Christie Crocks”) and is debunked all over the internet, but the Prof is too poorly trained in reasoning to spot the cheap tricks, and he didn’t think to search for “SkepticalScience debunked”. Oops.

His killer “maths” (if you could call it that)

… given the inherent uncertainty surrounding climatic predictions, even exaggerated accounts must be considered possible, albeit with a low probability. Consider this: If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%.

He repeats this:

For the purpose of argument, let’s give the GW deniers the benefit of the doubt and imagine that the scientists are wrong with a high probability, say 90%. If they are right, some 100 million people will die as a direct result of GW. Probably more like a billion, but this is a conservative estimate. If the probability of that happening is only 10%, then effectively “only” 10 million people will die. These are the numbers that GW deniers are playing with while exercising their “freedom of speech”.

So even if “Deniers” are right, they are still murderous and should still be executed. Ooo-K

Apparently it didn’t occur to him that if skeptics are right, and the world doesn’t warm, hardly anyone will die from global warming. That’s “zero”, right?  (I know children in infants-school who can get this.)

Worse, the failure of his theory could kill far more people than the failure of skeptics: hundreds of thousands of people in the third world have already starved as we fed their corn into cars, kids are suffering from green pollution in Brazil, others will die waiting for medicine or mosquito nets while we build sea walls to hold back a tide that may never come. Others are suffering a life of blindness, dysentery, malaria, or dehydration and could be cured if we spend money on doctors, or clean water supplies, rather than solar farms. If the world cools and we are not prepared, millions will starve from wheat crops that were killed by frost.

How meaningless is a Professorship at a university these days? Where “higher education” doesn’t teach people to reason, doesn’t teach them the value of free speech, and doesn’t teach them the humility to say nothing when they know nothing.

I don’t think it’s worth writing to a man who can’t reason, but there are people at his university who need to know what Parncutt is saying. Is the University of Graz a serious university?

Prof Parncutt also thinks we need global taxes on wealth (guess that means a global bureaucracy, to manage those global funds?). Since he recommends The World Future Council, that’s a red-flag, I recommend skeptics read it carefully. They say they’re the voice of future generations. But they’re not speaking on behalf of my descendants.

——————————————

H/t to Andy Wilkins. Thank you.

 

UPDATE: Page disappears but we have a copy

AS this spreads through the skeptic world, the web page has been pulled down. Luckily  (in a strange use of the word) Tallbloke has a copy of the whole page as it was, So you can still read it. WUWT has a discussion too, and Anthony was prescient enough to save those pages before the University blitzed them. Thank him for the webcite link.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (210 votes cast)
Death threats anyone? Austrian Prof: global warming deniers should be sentenced to death, 9.3 out of 10 based on 210 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/d4dh758

504 comments to Death threats anyone? Austrian Prof: global warming deniers should be sentenced to death

  • #
    gnome

    “professor of Systematic Musicology”? It might be a serious university, but then again, it might not.


    Report this

    651

    • #
      MudCrab

      What? You mean he is not even (shudder) a Climate Scientist(tm)?!?!

      So people like Ian Plimer are not qualified to talk about climate change because they are ‘only’ geologists, but a music professor is allowed to ask for the death of the majority of the western world?

      Fair enough then. I’ll just do what that nice music man tells me then shall I?


      Report this

      1072

      • #
        AllanM

        No, not a music professor, a MUSICOLOGY professor. Musicians (like me) can have their uses!


        Report this

        350

      • #
        Cold-Hands

        He’s taking his instructions from the Music of the Spheres. You cannot contradict the Mandate of Heaven…


        Report this

        110

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Reading the explanation of what Musicology is, on wiki, is a mind bending challange.

        Here’s a snippet:

        “Musicology (from Greek μουσική (mousikē), meaning “music”, and -λογία (-logia), meaning “study of-”) is the scholarly study of music. A person who studies music is a musicologist. The word is used in narrow, broad and intermediate senses. In the narrow sense, musicology is confined to the music history of Western culture. In the intermediate sense, it includes all relevant cultures and a range of musical forms, styles, genres and traditions, but tends to be confined to the humanities – a combination of historical musicology, ethnomusicology, and the humanities of systematic musicology (philosophy, theoretical sociology, aesthetics). In the broad sense, it includes all musically relevant disciplines (both humanities and sciences) and all manifestations of music in all cultures, so it also includes all of systematic musicology (including psychology, biology, and computing). The broad meaning corresponds most closely to the word’s etymology, the entry on “musicology” in Grove’s dictionary, the entry on “Musikwissenschaft” in Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, and the classic approach of Adler (1885).”

        As far as I can determin, Musicology is one of three different things (or is that three things simultaniously?), depending on how you use the word in a sentence. A strange study I must say. Is Geology like this?


        Report this

        50

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      We have vays of making you listen to Musick, you evil fascist denier. Dumkopf!


      Report this

      400

      • #
        Rabe

        “what the heck is systematic musicology”

        well, they analyse music scientifically and compose new pieces from what they found to be some systematic harmony which you really don’t like to hear twice. Not even once if you ask me.


        Report this

        250

        • #
          ian hilliar

          Really, you have to feel sorry for the poor [assoc] professor. This page of his was updated 25/12/12. Christmas day , friendless and all alone in a foreign city. I bet no one wanted to know him, so he goes online to boldly go where [not many] have gone before. He had no idea how stupid this would show him to be. I am sure some of his students will direct him to Jo Nova when term recommences. At least that is something for him to look forward to.


          Report this

          60

    • #
      Bob of QLD

      There is presently a world wide shortage of ‘systematic musicologists’. Check the
      ‘situations vacant’ in your local paper. There is so much more to ‘rap’
      Given the man’s ravings and origin, a check of the professor’s cellar could be in order


      Report this

      190

    • #
      Terry R

      Don’t knock musicology. It was my second choice at Uni and compliments my masters degree in penis puppetry because without music it’s just masterbation.

      470

  • #
    Tel

    Death threats from a Professor of Systematic Musicology? We have Islamist, machine gun toting, drive by shooting drug gangs in my area. This guy is going to have to step it up a notch.


    Report this

    901

    • #
      suffolkboy

      Drive-by shootings! Luxury! We have wind threats Tim Yeo, MP. Less lethal, but more expensive, with a penchant for drive-by windfarms.


      Report this

      250

      • #
        DougS

        OK suffolkboy, if it’s a bidding war you want:

        I live a few miles from the UK’s worst performing wind farm – an output of 4.9% of installed capacity in 2010!

        How do you like them apples?


        Report this

        170

      • #
        Tel

        I read Richard North’s blog, so I’m familiar with the Tim Yeo.

        In this day and age where everyone depends on government, it is good to know some local boys still ply the old trade of simple intimidation and extortion without needing a complex scheme and political connections to do it.


        Report this

        110

  • #
    Charles Bourbaki

    WTF! “Professor of Systematic Musicology”. Sillier than a “Professor of Cognitive Psychology” researching Climate Science denial.

    But only just.


    Report this

    690

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Excellent point.

      As we all know, there were a couple of Austrians who caused a lot of problems in the not too distant past; one was an emperor chappie called Franz Joseph and then 25 years later there was a little corporal known as Adolph.

      Both were responsible for tens of millions of deaths. As we are discussing the rantings of nutters, perhaps we should be asking two nutter-type questions:

      1. Do we need to kill all the Austrians to ensure there are no more world wars?

      2. Do we need to kill all the professors of obscure, utterly pointless, subjects?

      The answer is obviously “No”, but in these times of financial hardship there is a good argument for firing university professors of obscure, utterly pointless, subjects. This argument becomes much stronger when these professors start publicly ranting and raving about subjects in which they have absolutely no knowledge or understanding.


      Report this

      871

  • #
    Allen Ford

    Killing real people seems to be less odious than possibly killing virtual people, according to the learned prof. Following this virtual logic, the appropriate penalty would surely be only virtually executing the virtual offenders.

    I guess that lets us flat-earth deniers off the virtual hook!

    Whew!


    Report this

    330

    • #
      Allen Ford

      And here we thought that the world had got rid of the bland face of evil, genocidal nutters after World War II.

      It is significant that Prof Parncutt hails from Austria, the homeland of another notorious, genocidal nutter of unhappy memory.


      Report this

      402

      • #

        Don’t blame it on Austria. It gave us Friederich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Ferdinand Porsche, Viktor Kaplan, Nikola Tesla, Carlo Abarth, Hedy Lamarr, Wolfgang Pauli, Ludwig Boltzmann, Erwin Schrödinger, Karl Popper, Johann Strauss and Franz Schubert; to name just a few.

        Parncutt is from Australia.


        Report this

        582

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Well said.

          The current location of this darling professor is irrelevant.


          Report this

          220

        • #

          Don’t blame it on Austria. It gave us …. Hedy Lamarr, …..

          Governor Le Petomane – “Thank you Hedy.”

          Hedley Lamarr – “It’s not Hedy, it’s Hedley. Hedley Lamarr.”

          Governor Le Petomane: “What the hell are you worried about? This is 1874. You’ll be able to sue her.”

          Tony.

          (Apolgies to umm, some cowboy movie that put baked beans on the map!)


          Report this

          150

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            That would be Blazing Saddles, I dare say.


            Report this

            90

          • #

            I mentioned Hedy for a couple of reasons… of course she did a lot of important work on spectrum theory which facilitated e.g. spectrum hopping radio an eventually, spread-spectrum for stuff like Wi-Fi.


            Report this

            100

          • #
            BobC

            Hedy Lamarr was more than just a Hollywood pin-up: She had a wide knowledge of weaponry and was co-inventor (with a musician, actually) of a frequency-hopping invention (patented in 1942) to guide torpedos — for the Allies: She had already defected from Austria.

            Hedy could probably have taken over Parncutt’s job (and done a better job) in between takes on one of her movies.

            **********

            BTY: The professor seems to lack the most elementary concept of causality.


            Report this

            130

        • #
          Rick Bradford

          Originally from Melbourne, Professor Parncutt presented a public lecture, “The origins of music: Grooming, flirting, playing, or babbling?” for the Centre for Music, Mind and Wellbeing at the University of Melbourne earlier this year.

          I wonder if this guy has ever visited the Real World?


          Report this

          230

        • #
          Chris M

          Well said Bernd, Austrians in general are a lovely cultured people with a slight propensity to decadence (Gustav Klimt, Mayerling), but we’ll forgive them that. Anyhow, they’ll have learned their lesson now: Never employ an academic from that hotbed of bien pensant groupthink, Melbourne Australia.


          Report this

          110

        • #
          bulldogo

          No no no. Please say its not true that this nut is an Aussie.
          The shame of it. Maybe it’s Australians that need to be culled. We have foisted some weirdos onto the world stage – Germaine Greer, Tim Flannerry, Juliar. WAYNE SWAN.
          Please accept my apology.


          Report this

          200

        • #
          Farmer Gez

          Graz. Arnie the Terminator land but folks we have a new contender.


          Report this

          60

        • #
          Iren

          Bernd, you could add Fred Astaire to that list. The world would have been so much poorer without him.


          Report this

          20

        • #

          In terms of global warming, the most important twentieth century Austrian is Karl Popper. Popper’s philosophy of science is something the global warming community are totally ignorant. Instead they are slavish followers of the authoritarian “Post-normal” science. Popperian ideas places the greatest store in scientific hypotheses that make bold predictions, that if contradicted would nullify the hypothesis. Good science draws strength from such bold predictions failing to be contradicted by the evidence. Pseudo-science retrospectively explains any anomaly as being consistent with the central hypothesis. Popper principally saw Marxism as pseudo-science. The clearest modern-day example is global warming.
          There are other Austrians of note, such as Ludwig Wittgenstein (first cousin of FA Hayek) and the logical positivists. Back in the late nineteenth century there was Karl Menger (founder of the Austrian tradition) and Eugen Böhm-Bawerk. All this was snuffed out as the greatest minds fled the growing anti-intellectualism of National Socialism to Britain and the USA.


          Report this

          40

      • #
        ThomasT

        Allen Ford commented..

        It is significant that Prof Parncutt hails from Austria, the homeland of another notorious, genocidal nutter of unhappy memory.

        History time Allen

        Hitler was briefed by Brit, Intel in the early 1930s in Wiltshire, UK. He he was funded for the war through Warburg Bank US, money from London Bankers. His tank engines were by Ford US. His propoganda movies were by Fox MovieTone News. Fuel to extend the war was from Standard Oil US. He let 300K plus trapped Brits go home from Dunkirk. throghout the war, he had 2 Brit. Intel minders

        The aim of WW2 was to destroy the Industry on the Rhine River and to demoralise the German nation. First one succeeded, 2nd not quite.

        After WW2 MILLIONS of Germans were starved and frozen to death in open camps by the Allies, never mind the fire bombing of the historical city of Dresden with its hospitals, very old and very young population, and the straffing next day by the brave US and Brit fighter pilots of the few survivors who attemped to escape out of the city..

        So before you scream Nazi. read the other side of WW2, they were ‘our’ boys. Oh, The Hollow-cast?[SNIP. Sorry no Holocaust debate here. -J]
        .

        02

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Well I looked up Systematic Musicology and I still do not know what it means in a practical sense. I think that there is both a correlation and causality between the relative uselessness of a person’s area of expertise and the complete lack of understanding of how the world actually works.

    The professor is worried about the deaths of over one million future people? How about the real deaths of tens of millions of actual people due to the burning of food for “sustainable” energy? How about the opportunity costs of the medical services not supplied to the poor because billions have been wasted on pointless non-energy “solutions”. Don’t they count?

    Every time someone like this opens their mouths to say something, the sum total of human knowledge is reduced.


    Report this

    770

    • #
      MudCrab

      I too have looked up Systematic Musicology on the wiki link.

      In practical terms I think it means your own parking space on campus, at least 80,000 Euro a year and 10 paid weeks annual leave.

      In terms of how it adds to the greater whole of human existance? Your guess is as good as mine.

      Prob best if I don’t get ranting about higher education… :)


      Report this

      480

    • #
      handjive

      I too, have have searched out “Systematic Musicology”, and found this analogy describing “Systematic Musicology” from Parncutt’s web page:
      .

      ” Pinker (1997) famously compared music with cheesecake: something that people enjoy although it has no obvious adaptive (evolutionary survival) function.

      Stretching this analogy in the direction of musicology and its internal structure, systematic musicology may be regarded as a discipline that poses general questions about cheesecakes such as their contribution to a balanced diet or their role in human rituals (meetings, parties, celebrations), while historical musicology and ethnomusicology survey the detail and diversity of cheesecakes from different cultures and historical periods. ”

      Hmmmm, cheescake…

      One thing about glacial/inter-glacial global warming (GW), any warming outside natural variation* certainly causes the ‘totalitarian sludge’ to rise to the top for all to see.
      .

      * Dave Britton (10:48:21) :
      We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. 
      As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.


      Report this

      140

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Fruitcake would be more appropriate than cheesecake, I am tempted to say. But then that would be an ad confectio attack on cheesecakes, and therefore a logical fallacy.


        Report this

        270

      • #
        gary turner

        Pinker (1997) famously compared music with cheesecake: something that people enjoy although it has no obvious adaptive (evolutionary survival) function.

        It is obvious that Pinker has no clue regarding cheesecake; nor does Parncutt, as he cites Pinker’s silliness. Cicero wrote glowingly of his warm cheesecake for breakfast, and the present-day recipe was well established by around the 15th or 16th century C.E.. For the non-bakers among us, cheesecake is simply a cheese custard. It has the same survival function as any other nutritious food. These same cannot be said of music, so he’s half right.

        True, there’s no specific need for cheesecake. You can say that about every particular foodstuff until there’s nothing left to eat. Dolts!

        cheers,

        gary


        Report this

        30

  • #

    “Systematic Musicology”
    A condition whereby one is methodically (ie systematically) in tune with the least rational side of human thought processes. In order to become proficient in this field one has to devote many thousands of hours ignoring the evidence. Adherents of this philosophy have undergone a “symphonic inversion” (another useful term), whereby thought waves emanate from regions rather lower down the body than those of dangerous, rational people.


    Report this

    350

  • #
    old44

    The University of Graz also has “Heterogeneity and Cohesion” which‘ is about the question of how the cohesion of social groups
    develops in the context of increasing social diversity.

    They “cohese” everybody who disagrees with them, and they have the technology.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    janama

    The guy is crazy!

    Unbelievable


    Report this

    400

  • #
    llew Jones

    Interestingly he grew up in Australia and did physics at Melbourne Uni so most likely he imagines he is equipped to past judgement on climate science. He is also into a sort of psychology (of music) which reminds us of that other deranged psychologist. However Parncutt, no doubt the full monty, makes S.L. appear only half mad. What’s with these “psychologists”?


    Report this

    290

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    “For the purpose of argument, let’s give the GW deniers the benefit of the doubt and imagine that the scientists are wrong with a high probability, say 90%. If they are right, some 100 million people will die as a direct result of GW. ….If the probability of that happening is only 10%, then effectively “only” 10 million people will die.”

    I’m not sure I’m following his logic here.
    As I see it – what ever happens, the future can only happen once. Therefore it is “either” or “or” situation, not portions of each. If there is a 90% chance that no one will die of GW and a 10% chance that 100 million people die from the effects of global warming there is no scenario that will mean that 10 million people will die. Its either 100 million or none.
    Consider if there was a 90% chance no one would die and a 10% chance 1 person would die, he seems to be saying there is 100% chance that one person would get 10% sick?
    I’m not sure that I can see that.

    What I do know is that there is 100% chance that everyone in the furure will die of something


    Report this

    380

    • #
      Adam

      It’s Schrödinger cat. Until we open the box those people are both dead and alive and deniers get the blame for the “dead” part and the warmistas get the credit for the “alive” part. Doesn’t matter what happens when the box is opened, only that they are dead (and alive) in the box now.


      Report this

      190

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      More like the Drake Equation. A bunch of symbols are assigned to unknowable parameters and the product thereof is assumed to have actual significance, instead of representing the drivel that it is.


      Report this

      142

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I think I understand what he’s saying, though I’m sure he himself doesn’t.

      10% chance that 100 million will die.
      90% that none will die.

      So if 10 million people die, this will fall within the 10% chance range. So in this instance the 90% chance was not realised.

      The good professor messes this logic up.


      Report this

      01

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Also, he used an open-ended time frame. So in his mind if anyone dies, all their decendents for all time die.

        Perhaps a strange concept of dieing?


        Report this

        20

    • #
      BobC


      “For the purpose of argument, let’s give the GW deniers the benefit of the doubt and imagine that the scientists are wrong with a high probability, say 90%. If they are right, some 100 million people will die as a direct result of GW. ….If the probability of that happening is only 10%, then effectively “only” 10 million people will die.”

      So… If nobody actually dies (which he provisionally accepts as true, ‘with 90% probablilty’), then that is effectively equivalent (in whatever passes for the good professor’s ‘mind’) to 10 million people dieing, because some scientists promoted a completely wrong theory.

      I have an hypothesis that the completely bat-s**t crazy crap he is spewing over his students will result in the future deaths of millions of people (with 0.01% probablilty). In the virtual world of this man’s mind, that is equivalent to 100s of people actually dieing, regardless of whether or not I am right (or even have any arguments for my hypothesis — although I actually do).

      Hence by his own ‘logic’, he should be executed immediately.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Ross

    Does the idiot understand what a billion is ?


    Report this

    180

  • #

    So in 10 years shall we change the wording to cover all scientists who were wrong in their opinions and forecasts. Then will we have some shoes from both feet to put to the fire?


    Report this

    170

    • #
      Byron

      They are completely unable to comprehend the concept that They may be in error on any subject so the idea that They might fall victim to the same version of Malthusian “justice” that They are having wet dreams about meting out to everyone else never occurs to Them as in Their twisted reality They are the annointed and can never be wrong


      Report this

      360

  • #
    Byron

    If anyone who can use/has access to the “wayback machine” now would be a good time to do so before this gets “disappeared” off the university website


    Report this

    230

    • #
      desperate denier

      It just “disappeared”. Can’t find it anymore.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      jasmine gray

      It looks like it has already been deleted. Here’s Google’s cached copy.

      ——————

      Thanks! – Jo


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Lars P.

      everybody has access to the wayback machine at archive.org – just type in archive.org and then the “take me back” field, but see also the info the mod gave to Byron here:
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/23/beyond-bizarre-university-of-graz-music-professor-calls-for-skeptic-death-sentences/#comment-1181173
      it can be removed from there too, unfortunately too easy…


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Seele

        Anthony Watts has take the precaution of making a Webcite snapshot of the original:

        http://www.webcitation.org/6D8yy8NUJ

        The page seems to be up again now with new, somewhat misleading content. Anyone stumbling on it without knowledge of his original calls for mass executions of ‘deniers’ would get the impression that he was being censured for opposing the death penalty!

        http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/climatechange.html

        I wish to apologize publicly to all those who were offended by texts that were previously posted at this address. I made claims that were incorrect and comparisons that were completely inappropriate, which I deeply regret. I would also like to thank all those who took the time and trouble to share their thoughts in emails.

        In October 2012, I wrote the following on this page: “I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake.” I wish to confirm that this is indeed my opinion. I have been a member of Amnesty International for at least 14 years, and I admire and support their consistent stance on this issue.

        Richard Parncutt, 27 December 2012

        The opinions expressed on this page are the personal opinions of the author.


        Report this

        00

  • #

    Can you imagine if someone from the skeptical side of this (supposedly now closed) argument had have said this.

    It would be all over the media like crazy.

    Why is that those on the believer side always get passes on things like this, and there’s just too many to list .. exploding children .. drowning children .. falsified models .. paedophilia comments .. and the list goes on .. and on .. and on .. and on, ad infinitum.

    Ho hum, what’s Britney Spears doing for Christmas. No news in this.

    Outrageous is the polite word here.

    Tony.


    Report this

    540

    • #
      John Brookes

      True Tony, its not fair. The guy is just being silly. I mean you didn’t even get the death penalty for continuing to mining and sell asbestos after it was known to be deadly. And you can still grow and sell tobacco, knowing full well that plenty of hopeless addicts will endure early unpleasant deaths from your product.

      But I am reminded that many on the “skeptical” side have recommended criminal charges be brought against climate scientists.

      Anyway, it is still not obvious just how bad AGW will be, so its far too early to be looking at penalties for lying about it. But at some stage in the future, the telling of deliberate lies in an attempt to delay or lessen action on climate change might be worth some form of censure.


      Report this

      218

      • #

        Anyway, it is still not obvious just how bad AGW will be, so its far too early to be looking at penalties for lying about it. But at some stage in the future, the telling of deliberate lies in an attempt to delay or lessen action on climate change might be worth some form of censure.

        In much the same manner as the earlier examples you mentioned in the same comment, asbestos, and tobacco.

        So, now comparing what has been said here by this guy, knowing, (not conjecturing) that tobacco and asbestos are as bad as they are, how many of the owners and operators of those Companies, and for that fact, people who have said that asbestos and tobacco are OK, HAVE been sentenced to death by execution?

        Surely even you can see now how much guys who say things like this are getting a free pass, and here you are, still making excuses and comparisons for what has been said.

        “Oh ha ha, we all know he’s only joking.”

        In the same manner of the example I mentioned, exploding kids, drowning kids, they’re all just jokes ….. to the believer side.

        And yet, when our side says something, it’s not only not funny, but is worthy of execution, as this guy says, or punishment, as you say.

        Death threats, real ones, are actually treated as a crime, and if convicted, subject to major terms of imprisonment.

        Yet, here we have this guy threatening execution, and it’s ho ho ho, just a joke.

        Surely you can see the hypocrisy we’re pointing at.

        And yet, your side’s stock response is a free pass, and you then proceed to tell us to, umm, lighten up.

        I just can’t figure that out.

        Tony.


        Report this

        142

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          Asbestos IS ok.
          All you have to do is use the product appropriately. Like any knife, gun or flamethrower. It was the cheep operators saw cutting the stuff without the use of a mask that generated the deaths. Most every house in the 60′s and 70′s was full of asbestos. The walls were made of it, the roof, the oven.

          The deaths caused by asbestos are from the fine particulates getting into the lungs. The deaths were the traidies doing the installation. The company (can’t remember the name) copped it because they refused to accept the verdict and their roll.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Gentle Skeptic

        Asbestos? You failed to specify which variants are known to be harmful. And which one, while remarkably harmless and very useful, has been lumped in with the others, due to ignorance and grubby lawyers.


        Report this

        120

        • #
          BobC

          Gentle Skeptic
          December 26, 2012 at 8:38 pm · Reply
          Asbestos? You failed to specify which variants are known to be harmful. And which one, while remarkably harmless and very useful, has been lumped in with the others, due to ignorance and grubby lawyers.

          And, let’s not forget all those (perhaps millions?) of people who have died in fires who might have been saved had the harmless form of asbestos not been banned by junk science and greedy litigators. (This might include most of the people who died in the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001.)

          This all reminds me of the “gun designed for progressives”.


          Report this

          50

  • #
    Lank won't drink that water

    The poor muso clearly has forgotton to take his meds.

    Probably find a few with ideas like his in the local Graz asylum. Weren’t there some old nazis re-settled in that area in the late ’40s? The same area Hiltler spent many of his formative years. Could be he’s just regurgitating some of his old family folklore or perhaps there is an unpleasant microbe species swimming in the Graz drinking water.

    In any event, I suspect that tourists are not welcome in Graz if they complain about the weather. Probably rounded up and sent to Graz ‘study camps’.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    llew Jones

    On the other hand it is far more likely that millions are more likely to die suddenly from lack of cheap energy to heat or to cool themselves and many others die more slowly from malnutrition if the world’s nations were to change to a low carbon/”sustainable” economy aka an energy poor future. In that scenario would Parncutt suggest sending alarmist climate scientists and their cheer leaders off to extermination camps?


    Report this

    260

    • #
      gyptis444

      Today’s news includes an item citing 123 deaths over the last 10 days due to freezing temperatures in Russia …. minus 30 degrees Celsius in Moscow and minus 60 degrees Celsius in esatern Siberia. More than 800 admitted to hospital for treatment of cold induced injury – hypothermia, frost bite etc.


      Report this

      80

  • #
  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    On the other hand one should realise that this sort of article is a good metric of just how desperate some people out there are. It concerns me greatly that there are people out there who genuinely believe that a billion lives are at risk and who could really start to lose it in a big way when they discover no one is listening to their concerns any longer. I think people should exercise a bit of restraint and be wary of inflamatory ridicule of people who are increasingly being painted into a corner. The learned professor may talk theoretically about the death penalty but there are plenty of loons out there who might just take it upon themselves to act.


    Report this

    220

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    For those who wondered, “Systematic musicology is an umbrella term, used mainly in Central Europe, for several subdisciplines and paradigms of musicology. These subdisciplines and paradigms tend to address questions about music in general, rather than specific manifestations of music.” (Wiki) , “Since systematic musicology brings together several parent disciplines, it is often regarded as being intrinsically interdisciplinary, or as a system of interacting subdisciplines (hence the alternative name “systemic”). However, most systematic musicologists focus on just one or a select few of the many subdisciplines.” The link with climate activism becomes clearer. Searching further into the arcane and little-known area of study, we find that,”Systematic musicologists who are oriented toward the humanities often make reference to fields such as aesthetics, philosophy, semiotics, hermeneutics, music criticism, Media studies, Cultural studies, gender studies, and (theoretic) sociology. Those who are oriented toward the sciences tend to regard their discipline as empirical and data-oriented, and to borrow their methods and ways of thinking from psychology, acoustics, psychoacoustics, physiology, cognitive science, and (empirical) sociology.” Ah! Prof. Parncutt considers himself able to advocate a pogrom against sceptics because he is well-read in empirical sociology and social studies. So that’s all right then. Academic qualifications nailed down.


    Report this

    190

  • #
    connolly

    Another crazy fascist Austrian. His weazel justification for his view that those who dissent should be executed is particulalry nasty. First he has created a slippery slope. I disagree with you. Your ideas have bad consequences. I am justied in killing you. Well we know where that line of reasoning ends. Second, This is a disgraceful and cowardly incitement to violence against those who dissent from the hegemonic ideology of catastrophic anthropgenic global warming. He writes about systemic musicologists being persecuted by the Nazis and then applies a fascist approach to contemporary dissent.
    http://www.musicstudies.org/first%20issue/FULL/Systematic_Musicology_PARNCUTT(1-32).pdf


    Report this

    161

  • #
    Robert

    My definition of a university is a sheltered workshop for the mentally abled….

    I don’t think I’ll send him a Christmas card now


    Report this

    151

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Paid a visit to the Desmogblog LIST of miscreants.

    This is ASTOUNDING.

    What is most alarming is the fact that whole populations can have their behaviour and beliefs entrained

    by a “cause’ which has no basis in reality.

    To know that reality can be suspended and a form of mass hypnosis be activated like this is truly scarey in

    the worst way and invokes past human “mistakes” like those led by Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and the many

    African “leaders” who have drawn their populations into evil.

    Dumfounded!


    Report this

    310

    • #
      Jazza

      Yes!
      And to think I’ve lived fifty years believing that science and mathematics were the true practical rational fields that never get interfered with!
      Seriously these idiots who keep trying to move goal posts and scream “consensus” or like this fool spout claptrap and hide behind some “scientist’s words” make me worry about the planet’s future far more than any miniscule warming of the atmosphere when it hasn’t continued for the past 16 years,and we live happily with more variation of temperatures within our own nation!!


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Ian Hill

    GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.

    His logic is all up the creek. It’s like me claiming I save lives because I stop at a red traffic light.


    Report this

    310

  • #

    I note thet his University profile page has links to Avaaz as well as to his own political page titled “Sustainable Altruistic Global Egalitaration Politics (SAGE)“.

    A navigation through some of his articles reveals lots (a surplus!) of talking about high ideals but nothing about details of how the wonderful things are to be implemented.

    A similar expression of his humility can be found on his Death Penalty for Deniers page:

    If someone found this document in the year 2050 and published it, it would find general support and admiration. People would say I was courageous to write the truth, for a change. … Most people reading this text will still be alive then.

    Well, I’m not counting on me being alive in 2050. Parncutt is only a few months older than I, but he seems to have beaten me to senile dementia by about 30 years.
    Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius


    Report this

    360

  • #
    Bill Bates

    Well we sure grow our share of climate zealots. The ‘good’ Professor Parncutt was born in Melbourne in 1957. He has never had a real job and is an just another tax payer sucking entitled academic with so much time on his hands and like most of his ilk, knows want best for all the unenlightened of the world. It is just a pity we can’t cut him off the taxpayers teat and make him pay his own way in the real world


    Report this

    180

  • #

    All right then, let’s actually talk about people dying then.

    Bear with me for a while here.

    Just on 5 years ago now, I started what I’m doing. The idea of my Posts right from the start was to actually comply with Kyoto, get CO2 levels down to 5% lower than what they were in 1990, (now changed to 108% of 1990 levels) and because I had some area of expertise in Power generation, my idea was to show what that meant with the removal of electrical power from the two main sources coal fired power, the larger, and the lesser natural gas fired power.

    Because the site I was contributing to was based in the U.S. and I had up to date data from the EIA, I could actually achieve what I was aiming at, and direct it towards a U.S. reader base, (and now our reader base has expanded across the World)

    What that entailed was removing almost 17% of ALL American consumed power, 730TWH. (and for some perspective, that’s 3 times Australia’s total power consumption)

    Now, you can’t replace that power with wind, solar or virtually any renewable, or even just cut back on existing generation.

    It has to be gone, full stop.

    That’s 17% of all U.S. power consumption.

    That strains, (unbelievably so) every other generating source still on line, so you cannot just spread out what’s left across the remainder of the Country. You cannot reduce consumption to cover that loss. All you can do is cut power off completely to vast swathes of area, not just some here and there.

    Despite the resultant anarchy that would bring, let’s then look at what might happen.

    People accept electricity now as a staple of life, in everything they do.

    Without it, there’s no work, hence no income, as without electricity, those workplaces cannot operate. All food comes store bought, all of it. No electricity, no stores, no cooling, no fresh food, no meat.

    So, people will revert to hunter gathering I would suppose, and how many could actually do that.

    How many people could cook without electricity these days, barbecues maybe, that’s if you could get gas. Then where would you get the food to barbecue anyway.

    The list goes on .. and on .. and on. You can paint your own picture.

    Now, how many people would that ACTUALLY kill?

    Not just a few here and there, but quite literally millions.

    Balance that against the hyperbole of what this idiot professor has said.

    You may actually think of this as scaremongering, but hey, if he can paint one hypothesis, then surely I can paint one from the other side.

    Tony.


    Report this

    481

    • #
      llew Jones

      Tony, this is far closer to the likely outcome, than the scaremongering nonsense the alarmists spout, if governments around the world take seriously the call to essentially revert to primitivism. The CAGW myth is the Trojan Horse for this irrational and destructive movement.


      Report this

      140

      • #
        Jazza

        But surely people would riot if there were such numbers of them deprived of their daily food?


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          Which is why they dare not cut the power. They’ve inverted the equation and told the populous to stop using the power, thereby shifting the blame for the failure.

          It’s their policy but not their failure. It’s our failure for not reducing our power consumption. We then get to pay extra taxes for our failure as punishment.


          Report this

          11

  • #
    FrankSW

    Well I googled for “SkepticalScience debunked” – only 302 results returned does not seem very many, until that is you compare it with “Jo Nova debunked” which only came up with a single answer.

    You must be getting something right!


    Report this

    190

  • #
    Jarrah Jack

    A graduate of the “Lewandowsky School of Psychology”, perhaps


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Solution 21

    have yourself a catastrophic christmas
    as the world declines.
    common sense is useless in post normal times.

    till the next apocalyptic vision,
    may your fears survive.
    tell yourself submission keeps your hope alive

    take the word of authority
    the majority are fools
    we allow you to reproduce
    because you’re useful tools.

    may the seeds of guilt and shame forever
    bloom inside your mind
    sacrifice the very best that you can find

    and have yourself a catastrophic christmas time

    - with great affection, The Team


    Report this

    190

  • #
    ExWarmist

    There is a non-zero probability (repeat non zero…) that tomorrow, Prof Richard Parncutt will become the first vector for the hideous “bat flu”. A simple flu, found in bats that once it has crossed the species barrier will let rip a 100% contagious, 100% lethal, airborne killer diller flu virus that will within 14.45 days kill off 99% of the humans on the planet. The other 1% will be hideously and terribly disfigured, and deformed into mutant, nocturnal, bat people that scurry about, squeaking, and living off whatever insects that they can find.

    Given the prof’s reasoning, and the non zero probability of the risk that he will personally cause a horrible apocalypse – perhaps he should take some well considered, precautionary action to save everyone both alive now and the countless unborn.

    Then again, maybe he is just talking ridiculous nonsense.


    Report this

    150

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      We used to play a game, called, “Where would you hate to be when …?”

      The when can be anything you like, but the weirder the better. For example, “Where would you hate to be, when you learnt you had won the lottery?”. The various answers to these questions can be quite fun.

      Except one day, somebody asked the question, “Where would you hate to be when nuclear war breaks out?” The first person to answer said, “Anywhere other than ground zero”.

      After a long silence, everybody else agreed that that was the best answer, and could not be beaten.

      That is the type of game that Parncutt is playing in his head. It forces your answers to an extreme, and that extreme is not psychologically tenable.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    ExWarmist

    That’s a very esteemed list at desmogblog.

    I looked, – I couldn’t find “ExWarmist” – I must try harder…

    (Or come out of the closet on this topic…)


    Report this

    90

  • #
    ExWarmist

    From the WFC much beloved by Prof Richard Parncutt – this little gem.

    New Debt-Free Money Creation by Central Banks to be legalised to speed up the creation of “green jobs”.

    I.e. Just print the money – what could go wrong?

    Reference is World Future Council, Global Policy Action Plan


    Report this

    190

  • #
    elva

    I am so tired of those who believe in AGM yet have absolutely no scientific background related closely to the subject but who criticise those who they call ‘deniers’ not having an appropriate background. It is so stupid that it is not funny. Apparently, Al Gore, Tim Flannery and many other ‘experts’ regarding AGW can pontificate without having the slightest knowledge of any or hard science. But woe betide a denier without a science background who dares to question their ‘enlightened’ utterances. No science is settled or closed. Not even Einstein’s theories…note “theories”. It is not the 2 LAWs of Relativity but the THEORIES of Relativity which he proposed. I heard Professor Stephen Hawking say that trying to work out how the brain or the universe works is as hard as trying to forecast the weather. So even he is not so pompous and ego driven as to be so swash buckling fearsome in predictions about climate and causes of climate change. The likes of Prof Richard Parncutt should be told sternly to ‘pull their heads in!’ It would seem these days you can gain a proffesorship at any suspect university just for making an ant walk backwards. Celebrity and fame does not make for an expert. Dr. Spock celebrated for his advice not to punish children recanted his theory just before he died. His son also committed suicide. So much for his believers many of whom still go by his advice. Whole areas of science have been wrong in the past. All we ask is that the AGW and the IPPC admit that their perceptions can or could be fallible. That is not so much to ask.


    Report this

    240

  • #
    Catamon

    Who hoo! There’s something for the outrage meter!! :)

    Something straight from the Austrian School ya???

    That said, i think its an good indication that a fruit loop is a fruit loop regardless of their position on Climate Change attribution, and that he should probably stick to esoteric discussions of musicology.


    Report this

    418

    • #
      ExWarmist

      I doubt (I’m skeptical…) that the dear prof is from the Austrian School of economic thinking.


      Report this

      140

    • #
      Dave

      .
      Nup!

      This is a Fruit Loop!

      A Professor sprouting the dangers of CAGW is not a Fruit Loop but a very dangerous person – and maybe the CAGW crowd should put a stop to his rantings very quickly like his webpage. You cannot add humour to cover his statements.


      Report this

      180

      • #
        ExWarmist

        … too many of them secretly agree – they will mostly (catamon above is an exception) just go silent on this one.


        Report this

        90

        • #
          ROM

          Dave and exwarmist are just too frightenly correct. Some here are treating this quite light heartedly but this type of person and this type of statement from the likes of Parncutt show a deep and extreme ideologically hatred which can be and just might be exploited by the radical environmental fanatics with the end being human suffering and death on an untold scale.

          My blood ran cold when I read this article first on WUWT and now here

          I am 74 years old and I grew up in an era when the most fanatical, deadly and kill crazy, genocidal “isms” in world history were battling it out for what they believed was to be the ultimate control of mankind.
          Both of them or more correctly all three of them were led by what those of only a decade or so previously had written off as nonentities with some truly crazy ideas and beliefs which would never come to anything.

          A decade later and an estimated 70 million to 100 million human souls destroyed plus another billion with their lives, their loved ones, their hopes and their dreams for the future shattered and destroyed in a world of then only half of the size population of today, the world finally knew that it had been very, very wrong in it’s judgement that these tiny fanatical groups led by those supposed nonentities of a few years ago would never be able to gather together a fanatical like thinking power base, a whole cohort of like thinking, fanatical, totally morally deprived, genocidal fanatics the likes of which the world has rarely seen before.

          There are many, many so called warmists and radical environmental activists who will quietly agree with Parncutt.
          It could be that from this core group of radical activists and this cohort of fanatical like thinkers that a charismatic radical figure without scruples or any moral inhibitions in the bid to gain ultimate power, could emerge using Parncutt’s and SkS’s ideology as his / her basic belief ideology.

          It is clearly laid out in many radical far left revolutionary promoting publications how very small tight knit, totally dedicated, scruple free, morally depraved radical groups can take over power in entire societies.
          It only remains for the group to be sufficiently dedicated where the end entirely justifies the most extreme means for such groups to succeed.

          The use of extreme violence, assassinations, murder and fear are their weapons to take control of a society and implement their murderous policies which invariably become even more extreme when they assume total power as they start to see enemies all around them which they assume think like themselves.
          So those enemies in an ever widening circle also have to be eliminated to protect the now official power structure.
          And so the killing without mercy, compassion or moral constraint starts.

          For students of this, read about Operation Condor where the murderous, thuggish right wing South American dictators co-operated to eliminate thousands of mostly innocents which they regarded as enemies of the State, the State of course being their own persons and their own power base.

          This article by Parncutt may be a turning point for the radical alarmist and environmentalist movement for they either publicly reject Parncutt in the most definite and most public fashion and do so very quickly .
          Or if they do not reject and denounce his pathological and homicidal craziness very publicly and very, very quickly there are many in our society who are not sure at present about the many claims being made about the climate but who will start to see a very deeply disturbing future if those same fanatical radicals ever gained power.

          And those formerly uncommitted ones will be forced to make a judgement for if they do nothing it could lead, like the 1940′s, to death on an unparalleled scale in history.
          And there are few in our society who would wish that on the World all over again.
          But to be cynical, Ignorance is bliss for a generation who has never seen or experienced the horrors of those time past.


          Report this

          421

          • #

            Well said. This craziness has indeed the potential turn dangerous. On the other hand, if the warmist opinion leaders publicly disavow it, this could also be a turning point toward restoring some sanity and civility to the debate.


            Report this

            81

        • #
          Mark

          ExWarmist:

          Cat’s comment doesn’t exactly read like a condemnation to me. Maybe Cat thinks the bloke is a fruit loop for being so overt about his beliefs, not for what those beliefs are.


          Report this

          31

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Mark

            Your point is: we shouldn’t judge a book buy its’ cover.

            KK :)

            sometimes we can get the unexpected happening and our conditioning dampens our ability to see the new cat.


            Report this

            21

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        Yes, but it’s not just any old fruit loop, it’s an Aussie fruit loop. Lewensky’s got a friend.


        Report this

        60

    • #
      Debbie

      Thumbs up from me Cat for that particular comment.
      Definitely a fruit loop.
      However, did you read Tony’s comment re this type of behaviour and resultant public responses?
      Why are such outrageous comments fondly tolerated by the die hard AGW believer crowd yet they go into attack mode when people like Jo attempt to point out flaws in the actual evidence?
      Wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that little of any of this stuff has much to do with science or real evidence would it?
      Just asking :-)
      IMHO poor behaviour is poor behaviour & it matters not what the intent is.
      When poor behaviour is excused in the name of altruism I find it spectacularly horrid and distasteful.
      This is a classic example.
      He is moron who is educated and he is operating from an oxymoron.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Slabadang

    What!?

    That stupid and not even a CWGwscientist? Lewandowski Perncott Romm Mann Gleick Cook ? Who are these people …. orchs with thunnel vision? … vegetables ?


    Report this

    130

  • #

    [...] Death threats anyone? Austrian Prof: global warming deniers should be sentenced to death [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    We could invite Anna Rose to comment, after all, she was very concerned by death threats against climate scientists in the previous thread, as per pg 27 of the transcript…

    Anna: I’m saying that this stuff is so common and it seems to be getting worse and I am worried about places like, not the stuff you write but in the comments of your blog and some of the things that -

    Now, here is her chance to take a principled, non-partisan position against calls to violence.


    Report this

    260

  • #
    Adam Gallon

    http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/climatechange.html
    Has gone 404 already.
    Looks like somebody in Graz is awake early.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    ExWarmist

    The prof writes at Death penalty for global warming deniers? An objective argument…a conservative conclusion which is an amazing amalgamation of unfounded assumptions and poor logic.

    For example.

    In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from.

    I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake. Apparently, it does not even act as a deterrent to would-be murderers. Hopefully, the USA and China will come to their senses soon.

    Has the same structure as…

    In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for left handed people. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from.

    I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake. Apparently, it does not even act as a deterrent to people using their left hand. Hopefully, the USA and China will come to their senses soon

    His structures are absurd, I have not seen such muddied thinking – even from Maxine – and that’s saying something.

    What is it about the USA & China that warrants their inclusion in this rant, other countries also use capital punishment?

    He is trying to construct a “special category” for influential GW deniers that will render influential GW deniers as beyond the pale, beyond the normal standards that might be applied, even to a mass murdered such as Breivik. So that they can be summarily dealt with, without conscience or a 2nd thought.


    Report this

    141

  • #
    redc

    Did anyone notice at the very end:

    “I thank John Sloboda for suggestions, and further suggestions are welcome.”

    John Sloboda is known for his anti-violence endeavours so it seemed odd.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    ExWarmist

    The prof says…

    GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.

    I wonder if he could name any ten of those future people who have been condemned never to be born???

    How do you kill an abstraction?


    Report this

    100

  • #
    ExWarmist

    We are ethically safe – no fairies, sprites, leprechauns, or future people were killed making this blog post & comments…


    Report this

    30

    • #

      Parncutt want penalties for futurecrime.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Mark

        Hey Bernd, does Minority Report ring a bell for ya?

        Hope we never get that close to life immitating art.


        Report this

        10

      • #
        John Brookes

        Actually, it is more nuanced than that. He argues that it is not the death penalty, but more like self defence. That is, he believes that it is necessary to silence deniers to save lives. Not a proposition I agree with, but it has its own logic. You can’t use that logic, because the right are so sure that the left will ruin the world, that they would be executing Ms Gillard and co if they used that logic.


        Report this

        212

        • #
          Gentle Skeptic

          Actually, his premise is a load of rubbish. There is a difference between thinking someone is not like you, disliking them, having nothing to do with them, thinking they are stupid and vile, and crossing a line to killing them. The difference is you must convince yourself that the other is a threat to you. And when you have done that, the bloodshed begins. His sad effort merely gives the justification that a mob needs to become violent. Hardly nuanced at all.. Just basic thug justification for not thinking.


          Report this

          70

        • #
          Sonny

          Here we go again John, first you sympathize with people comparing skeptics with pedophiles and now you sympathize with people wanting to kill skeptics.

          You really are a nasty piece of work!


          Report this

          51

  • #
  • #
    Jaymez

    Professor Richard Parncutt has one thing in common with Russia’s Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Ho Chi Min’s Vietnam, Mao Zedong’s China, Kim Il-sung’s North Korea and all their successors. He thinks that killing those who do not support his ideology is justified ‘for the good of the people’ while imprisoning those who might be ‘re-educated’ in kulags and the like so that they may recant and learn the error of their ways is a brilliant idea.

    He clearly thinks his ideas are up there with the great philosophers, daring to predict that people of the future who read his work would be in great admiration.

    When he gets his ideas accepted for Climate Change, why stop there? Anyone who argues in favour of GM crops or maybe nuclear energy, or mining, or damming rivers or anything else he could argue might have an impact on future generations could also be put to death.

    I wonder that he hasn’t proposed the death penalty for anyone using contraception who are effectively killing future people?

    It is scary that this guy and his ideas are being exposed to young maleable minds at our universities.


    Report this

    300

    • #
      ExWarmist

      He clearly thinks his ideas are up there with the great philosopherspsychopaths, daring to predict that people of the future who read his work would be in great admiration.

      Hi Jaymez, fixed it for you.

      (I know where you are coming from – and agree fully – it’s just that the dear prof just doesn’t get – or maybe he does…)


      Report this

      100

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Hi Jaymez, you ask…

      I wonder that he hasn’t proposed the death penalty for anyone using contraception who are effectively killing future people?

      The dear prof says…

      That raises the interesting question of whether and how the Pope and his closest advisers should be punished for their consistent stand against contraception in the form of condoms. It has been clear for decades that condoms are the best way to slow the spread of AIDS, which has so far claimed 30 million innocent lives. The number of people dying of AIDS would have been much smaller if the Catholic Church had changed its position on contraception in the 1980s, or any time since then. Because it did not, millions have died unnecessarily. There is a clear causal relationship between the Vatican’s continuing active discouragement of the use of condoms and the spead of AIDS, especially in Africa. We are talking about millions of deaths, so according to the principle I have proposed, the Pope and perhaps some of his closest advisers should be sentenced to death.

      Permanent Ref here

      Well kinda inline with your question…


      Report this

      110

      • #
        Jaymez

        Well I guess with his warped logic he might take that stance, but then the Pope’s defence would be that he advocates abstinance outside of marriage. Therefore condoms would not be necessary to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. You can’t condemn a person because people only choose to follow certain teachings and not others. Either way you look at it Parncutt is a nutter.


        Report this

        70

        • #
          John Brookes

          The RC church has an awful lot to answer for on this front. They don’t like birth control, largely because it would reduce the supply of baby catholics. So they sentence Africans to an early death. They produce orphans.

          I don’t know what position Jesus would take, but I suspect it wouldn’t be welcomed by the biggest single church established in his name.


          Report this

          39

      • #
        Byron

        Interestingly , Parncutt can`t even get that right as the church changed it`s stance on condoms in 2010 . Pope Benedict XVI described it as “while not ideal ( vs the church`s abstinence policy ) but condom use was a first step in taking responsibility for ones actions” . Pity the church hadn`t taken that stance a couple of decades sooner but it would have been unlikely to have had much effect on the spread of aids in Africa as the demographic doing the spreading would be the least likely to pay any attention to any papal edicts anyway . However the impact it could have had on on boom/bust cycle (relative to localised resources )of third world populations is another thing entirely


        Report this

        10

  • #
    sophocles

    Oh dear, it’s all starting again. The human psyche is predictable. Now it’s all turning into another witch hunt. See Charles MacKay’s “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” Volume II (1845), “The Witch Mania.”
    (on-line at Project Gutenberg).

    We saw all that again 70 years ago as justification for Krystal Nacht and the Holocaust. Read about both and compare the language of both with what we are starting to hear now.
    They are the same.

    There is no consideration of due process, guilt is immediately assumed by accusation
    (they stand accused, ergo they are guilty) and death is mandatory, justice undeserved.
    Under this thinking, it’s just and appropriate to re-establish and stoke up the furnaces
    of Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor, and Treblinka, although the names will be new, while their industry won’t be. Death to the unbelievers.

    It is repellant and repugnant it should start all over again. They cannot see how the
    fingers which point to accuse eventually turn to point at and accuse their owner(s).

    Witch Hunting became very unprofitable and unsafe when the hunters were accused by the hunted. The Inquisition failed when Inquisitors were accused and “put to the question.” Sudden shortages of new Inquisitors were experienced.

    When it turns cold, as it will because these things are cyclic, then those who preached
    CAGW will, in turn be accused of “sqandering” and “wasting” resources, wrecking now necessary plants and equipment and industries necessary to make the means to fight the
    cold, and condemning the frozen. The “witch hunt” turns full circle, as it does.
    But these poor fools cannot or will not see it, while they advocate mass murder by the state.

    There is a basic flaw in the human psyche which requires it to feed off its own.

    Carl Sagan, in his book “This Demon-Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Darkness” (1997) made the point everybody should be and remain sceptical about everything, ask pointed questions, demand to be shown the evidence, and reject “consensus” by practising
    the Scientific Method themselves.


    Report this

    292

    • #
      John Brookes

      But you may well be exaggerating a teensy weensy bit.


      Report this

      312

      • #
        sophocles

        No, it’s not. I’ve stated it as I see it. I’ve read, watched and heard much of Adolf Hitler’s propagands about “International Jewry” and his vilifications thereof as he was both working up to and announcing the “Final Solution” (notably, with no details), and that is scary stuff. I’ve studied much of the newsreels of the Concentration Camps, from Dachau, through Buchenwald, Auschwitz and others to Majdanek, as well the literature.

        The language is the same. The message is the same and it comes through from all. Guilty by Accusation, no Evidence Required. Death is the Penalty.

        Why do countries have Evidence Acts? Due Process? Prosecution and Defence? Decisions made according to the evidence presented? Could these have been lessons learnt from the Witch Hunts? King James I (sponsor of the Bible translation bearing his moniker) was as credulous and religious as anyone of the time. He was a True Believer(tm) too. By 1518, he had become a strong sceptic after the discovery of some teenagers pretending demonic possesion in order to accuse innocents.

        What would happen if Parncutt’s idea(s) were practiced?

        The Witch Hunts were totally corrupt. The Witch Hunters accused anybody because they were paid by head count and with the accused’s property. During the Holocaust, many high ranking Nazis (Hermann Goering is an outstanding example) enriched themselves from their victim’s property. How could Parncutt’s fancy be any better?

        How would you cope with being accused?

        The Holocaust was but one of the 20th Century’s major witch hunts. If you should just happen to look deeply into some of the others (see Jaymez’s post above) you find the same rhetoric.

        To hear the same language raised/uttered again to propose a supposedly “logical argument” which is clearly a moral argument with a totally immoral initial stance, to solve a trivial scientific debate is truly offensive. The argument the Professor advances is fallacious: the appeal to ignorance fallacy (what has not been proven false must be true and vice versa). He should know better. He is supposed to be a scholar.

        How is global warming going to be a crisis? How will it kill the not yet born? A non sequitur. Over the thirty years its supporters have been crying wolf, there has been no crisis nor is there any sign of one. Antarctica is not melting: it’s gathering ice and growing its ice cap!

        Prof Parncutt’s foot in mouth is a clear attempt to shut down what should be a purely scientific debate with an immoral proposal. The Scientific Method is all about scepticism. No science is ever “complete,” it’s always open to be challenged and argued. Einstein’s General and Special Relativity hypotheses are still being tested. So far, they have stood up well and are now generally regarded as “Theories.” CAGW is founded on an “assumption.” In AR1, the IPCC stated

        … in the absence of any other known cause, it is assumed to be emissions of CO2

        Now, that is not scientific. All this, based on an assumption? Sure, they’ve spent billions funding research. He who pays the piper calls the tune especially if “he” wants more grants.

        I’ve read the referenced Mackay book (several times, as parts of it are quite amusing… ), Spee’s writings and the Malleus Maleficarum (the “Hammer of Witches”) are highly informative. The Malleous Maleficarum sets the scene. Spee fills in the details. Spee was a Jesuit and a true believer, but he soon developed doubts from what he saw. If you’ve read those, you will see there is no exaggeration. I said: it’s turning but I did not say it has turned into into a witch hunt. It may not, in which case, I, for one, will be highly relieved. There is still time to stop it from going further.

        When the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit announced (about two months ago) there has been no global warming for the latst fifteen years, mankind’s total CO2 emissions have increased by over one twelfth in that time, yet the predicted warming by the models and the actual observed evidence are now significantly different. It should be obvious to all that the trace gas CO2 is not living up to its ascribed magical powers, and the models are unreliable and wrong (with a 99% confidence). Ergo, CO2 is not the cause. The Scientific Method says we should look elsewhere for the cause(s), and Parncutt, Lewinski et al should be pushed back into their boxes. They are … unhelpful.

        Don’t take my word for all this. Do your research, so you can avoid specious comments. I’ve given you some pointers to relevant material. It’s now up to you. (By the way, the Malleous Maleficarum and Spee’s writings … could give you nightmares …)


        Report this

        71

        • #
          Byron

          I do like the references to Friedrich Spee His “Cautio Criminalis” was a brilliant work especially considering the prevailing attitudes during that time .


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Peter Hannan

    I saw this first on WUWT, and posted this there, perhaps it’s worth posting here:

    What a wanker (scuse my French)! ‘They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.’ How many people in the world die now, each year, because they do not have the basics for a decent life (energy, water, food, shelter, medicine)? China, India, Brazil, and then other developing countries, will continue to develop, and increase their use of fossil fuels, quite rightly, in order to lift their populations out of a poverty that kills hundreds of millions of real (not future) children and adults each year. Over twenty years ago, a Black American friend of mine gave me a quote from Julius Nyerere, the socialist president of Tanzania; I’ve tried to find an independent source for it, without success, so it may be apocryphal, or simply not recorded, but the idea is important anyway: ‘Yes, of course we should divide the cake equally; but the cake has to be big enough.’

    The 49ers’ kicker got a death threat via Twitter because he’d missed some field goals. Fanatical idiocy! Richard Parncutt is in the same class as that fanatic: isn’t it a criminal offence to issue death threats?


    Report this

    90

    • #
      John Brookes

      I hate crocodile tears. We are complicit in much of the poverty in the third world. If there was a serious push to fix this problem, it would involve us being worse off so that “they” could be better off. And you can bet your bottom dollar that any action other than token foreign aid will be opposed tooth and nail.


      Report this

      215

      • #
        sophocles

        Quoting John Brookes:

        If there was a serious push to fix this problem, it would involve us being worse off so that “they” could be better off.

        You’re exaggerating, and not a teensy-weensy bit. You’re assuming a “zero-sum” game, which is the fallacy of “argument from adverse consequences.”

        I suggest you find and read Henry George’s “Social Proglems”, his “Progress and Poverty” and The Science of Political Economy.

        Should you read these works and carefully consider them, you may well want to retract your ridiculous statement. George has been vilified, opposed, misunderstood and grossly misinterpreted but has not yet been proven wrong.


        Report this

        51

        • #
          John Brookes

          Zero sum. Look, it is a lot like zero sum. Why? Because the system screws them. We screw them. If we didn’t screw them we’d have to pay more for the stuff they make. For the minerals, for their agricultural produce. Here in Australia, we have trouble getting a reasonable amount for our minerals from mining companies. There was a recent doco about how mining companies are screwing East Timor. There is no doubt the same will be happening in Africa. If the rich were fair to the poor countries, they would be a lot better off. See that lawyer who was recently released from Mongolia. She worked for Rio Tinto.

          Certainly economics is not a zero sum game, but if we stopped treating these countries with contempt, in the short term we’d lose, and they’d gain. In the long term, we’d all be better off, except perhaps the mining company owners and executives.


          Report this

          411

          • #
            sophocles

            I don’t disagree with the overall screwing of the exploited, with all gains to the exploiters, so I urge you to read those books of Henry George. In them, you will see how you are being screwed and what needs to be done to prevent it. There are some good Australian websites you can check, too:

            Earthsharing.org—have
            published some compelling research papers.
            Prosper.org —based in Melbourne
            and a source for some of H. George’s books (conveniently…)

            Both sites publish a multitude of links through which you can further educate yourself.

            It is most definitely not a zero-sum game. It is two-sided. The exploiters take most of the gains.


            Report this

            00

  • #

    Jo, you need to alter what appears from your tweet button somehow. The tweet is always too long so many people, after pressing the button, might not bother to send the tweet.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      connolly

      To incite the killing of people for a political purpose is defined as terrorism. Pancutt should be charged. Now. And for those smirking gutlerss warmists who think that its justifiable to call for the execution of those who dissent (notice how Pancutt justifies the execution of “prominent” dissenters preseumably to deter the rest of us) but haven’t got the ticker to say so, they are even more contemptible. They have a choice. Silent assent. Or denounce hin. Now.


      Report this

      110

  • #
    sophocles

    From the untrustworthy, never to be quoted Wikipedia:
    Systematic Musicology:

    Systematic musicology is an umbrella term, used mainly in Central Europe, for several subdisciplines and paradigms of musicology. These subdisciplines and paradigms tend to address questions about music in general, rather than specific manifestations of music.

    In the European tripartite model of musicology, musicology is regarded as a combination of three broad subdisciplines: ethnomusicology, historical musicology and systematic musicology. Ethnomusicology and historical musicology are primarily concerned with specific manifestations of music such as performances, works, traditions, genres, and the people who produce and engage with them (musicians, composers, social groups). Systematic musicology is different in that it tends not to put these specific manifestations in the foreground, although it of course refers to them. Instead, more general questions are asked about music. These questions tend to be answered either by analysing empirical data (based on observation) or by developing theory – or better, by a combination of both. The 19th-century positivist dream of discovering “laws” of music (by analogy to “laws” in other disciplines such as physics; cf. Adler, 1885), and of defining the discipline of systematic musicology in terms of such laws, slowly evaporated. Ideological trends stemming from modernism and later post-structuralism fundamentally altered the nature of the project.

    Since systematic musicology brings together several parent disciplines, it is often regarded as being intrinsically interdisciplinary, or as a system of interacting subdisciplines (hence the alternative name “systemic”). However, most systematic musicologists focus on just one or a select few of the many subdisciplines. Systematic musicologists who are oriented toward the humanities often make reference to fields such as aesthetics, philosophy, semiotics, hermeneutics, music criticism, Media studies, Cultural studies, gender studies, and (theoretic) sociology. Those who are oriented toward the sciences tend to regard their discipline as empirical and data-oriented, and to borrow their methods and ways of thinking from psychology, acoustics, psychoacoustics, physiology, cognitive science, and (empirical) sociology.

    Hmm, a notable, exacting and limpid science, just like psychology.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    bazza

    i would like to smack his little smug face to wipe the smile from it while saying to him you naughty boy.what a plonker.


    Report this

    62

  • #
    Peter Hannan

    I’m a lay person, a teacher, not an expert or scientist, but on my computer I have 655 real scientific articles, peer reviewed from scientific journals, not derivative media, on climate (warmist and sceptic), history of the Earth, and geology, all relevant to climate change, and I’ve read and understood all of them. Can this music professor say something similar? Can he substantiate his posture on the basis of real current science? I believe that non-experts can contribute to a field that is not theirs (Steve McIntyre is a great example), but they have to do the serious and solid work of understanding it first.


    Report this

    200

    • #
      John Brookes

      Hmmm. You’ve read 655 articles, and understood all of them. Clearly you must now be worried about the future of the planet.

      Look, I’ve scanned a few papers, and didn’t understand them well enough to be able to find fault with their methodology and conclusions. Hell, sometimes I can’t even understand the conclusions. I talk to academics at uni about reading papers. They say that they read until they get to the stuff they can’t understand, then read a little more, and come back and try again in a few days. That is the trouble with research, it is actually hard to understand. The methods, the validity of the data, the statistics, whether the use of earlier research results is justified in the new context – all of this is difficult.

      But you don’t have to understand the papers, just do what his lordship does. Find a paper that says “A”, and then give a talk that attributes “B” (which contradicts “A”) to the paper. It works! No one in the audience has read the paper, and even if they have, you say your bit so authoritatively that they doubt they understood it properly.

      But his lordship should be free to keep on misrepresenting the works of others, without worrying about going to jail.


      Report this

      414

  • #
    • #
      Otter

      I have to agree, Anton, these people are rapidly going down that road- and unfortunately, it looks like at least a few of the ‘common folk’ are starting to follow them.


      Report this

      60

  • #
  • #

    Richard you like a 34cm neck, but when you get the job as UN Chief of CO2 Redistribution of Wealth you will be on TV alot and TV makes you look fat – so maybe you need to get that neck size down to about 12 and in the process self eradicate.


    Report this

    30

  • #

    [...] I’m behind the curve, having been away for a week, Jo Nova already has a big discussion going on this [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Skitzo

    looks like a full blown [snip - mod] to me…

    ——————keep it civil please – Mod


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Skitzo

    on another note, merry Christmas Jo and all you bad bad sceptics plus all the best for the new year (unless we burn up before then….)


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Josualdo

    I notice that, regretably, I’m not on desmogblog’s denier list.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    EternalOptimist

    Anyone who has a name that is an anagram of HardiPart[snip], cannot have had an easy life

    [---------------keep it clean! - Mod]


    Report this

    30

  • #
    klem

    Reading some of these posts really makes me laugh out loud. Only Ozzies are able to cut someone down to size with sarcasm and mock like that, it must be the Oz sense of humour. This music man deserves it all, call it a Christmas gift.

    Merry Christmas folks. Keep up the great work.


    Report this

    80

  • #

    My background is philosophy and ethics, and this article says it is really an attempt to produce a ‘logical’ argument, demonstrating that conventional ethical measures favour the Climate Alarmists not the Deniers.

    Unfortunately, the argument is anything but logical. It rests on the well-known principle of utilitarianism, that the ‘happiness’ of the greatest number should be the measure of any policy. From this assumption, it is proposed that Climate Change will result in a massive decrease in total human happiness and that this decrease could be avoided by making some ‘Climate Deniers’ unhappy, by it is unpleasently suggested, executing them. (Actually simply preventing them communicating would appear to be enough ‘logically’ speaking…)

    However, although presented rather grandly, the claim is facile. ANY policy can be justified with such a methodology. Not for nothing is utilitarianism sometimes marked out not as ‘ethics’ but ‘anti-ethics’.

    Take, for example, the holocaust. If Hitler’s extermination policy (over time) resulted in Western European countries rejecting war as a means of settling their political differences (which it seems indeed to have done), and if over time this saved many more lives than those the Holocaust cost, on the Parncutt version of utilitarianism, the policy is ‘morally right’.

    Of course this sort of simple arithmetic does not persuade anyone in that case, nor should it even be treated as worth discussing in the Climate Change case.

    We do use utilitarian calculations all the time in public policy, but the vaguer and more speculative the starting assumptions the more ridiculous the conclusions.


    Report this

    124

    • #
      Greg House

      Martin Cohen says: “…Take, for example, the holocaust. If Hitler’s extermination policy (over time) resulted in Western European countries rejecting war as a means of settling their political differences (which it seems indeed to have done), and if over time this saved many more lives than those the Holocaust cost, on the Parncutt version of utilitarianism, the policy is ‘morally right’.”
      ===============================================

      This is a bad example, because the holocaust had nothing to do with military activities and the murdered Jews were not war casualties.


      Report this

      63

    • #
      Josualdo

      I dont agree that the first argument is utilitarianism.

      Under an utilitarian point of view, I must fight the CAGW troupe because I am certain that they are killing millions now, and will produce untold death and misery if they have their way.

      The Prof thinks otherwise.

      The basic error is the good Prof’s lack of information (or something like that, do I know.)


      Report this

      30

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Hi Martin,

      The core issue (ethically) is the ascribing of ethical status to those who do not exist, and then attempting to reason from that position.


      Report this

      20

    • #

      We do use utilitarian calculations all the time in public policy, but the vaguer and more speculative the starting assumptions the more ridiculous the conclusions.

      compare to

      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. — Voltaire

      Not a great deal of “distance”.


      Report this

      70

    • #
      John Brookes

      But I wonder, if you’d realised early on that Hitler would try and wipe out the Jews, would you have been entitled to kill him, for the greater good? Or would you have to wait until he’d started the genocide before you could act? What if he just happened to find a lot of Jews guilty of capital offences, and killed them “legally”. Could you act then?


      Report this

      414

      • #
        klem

        No, all you needed to do was be at war with Hitler, then you were entitled to kill him. On the other hand, had Hitler been a climate alarmist it might have been ok for him to wipe out the Jews, they were producing too much carbon after all.

        Hitler could have equated the Jews with ferral camels, could have hunted them down and traded their hides for carbon credits. Who knows how far Hitler might have pushed climate alarmism.

        Just imagine what Jo Stalin might have done with climate alarmism as an excuse. wow.


        Report this

        52

      • #
        ExWarmist

        The distinction between the “Hitler” case and the “Influential GW Deniars” case is that we have hindsite on Hitler.

        There is literally no proof that “Influential GW Deniars” will cause harm to future generations.

        You need to take that distinction on board.


        Report this

        10

  • #

    Anyone who wants a copy of the original html page from Graz University can get it on my site
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/prof-richard-parncutt-death-penalty-for-global-warming-deniers/

    It’s also at
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uni-graz.at%2Frichard.parncutt%2Fclimatechange.html

    Numpetry like this needs to be publicised, ‘pour encourager les autres’.


    Report this

    170

  • #
    Andre Bijkerk

    I wonder what sentence the professor would give to the advocates of biofuels, abandoning food farms for biofuel crops, thus causing famines, treatening some 11 million people

    http://www.aidemocracy.org/students/famine-in-the-horn-of-africa-caused-by-biofuels/


    Report this

    110

  • #

    I used to work in the same building as this chap when he was in the UK and before he was made a professor. He seemed quite sensible and normal then, I wonder what happened?


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Woodsy42
      Puberty?

      …………………………

      Seriously, there’s no % in name calling and insults. The important move is to bring this into public gaze and let the public decide. You’re not going to cause a transformation of the author.
      Indeed, you can admire him for the strength of his convictions (however extreme they might seem).
      You have to watch the rebound. Remarks made here can be turned against many of us, some of us being equally passionate but at the other extreme.

      Better to keep the science thread running through the comments, I think, but I’ve been wrong many times.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Wyndham Dix

    Parncutt: GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.

    The learned professor suffers from grossly overheated imagination methinks. Evidently he is unaware of the great human ability to adapt to changing circumstances.

    We are much more likely to bring about mass extinction by diverting food in our stupidity to the production of ethanol than we are by using natural resources laid down over hundreds of millions of years.

    I should have thought one read in Systematic Musicology would be attuned to the harmony of the cosmological spheres, not least that the distance between the Sun and the Earth in its slightly elliptical orbit is so calibrated as to sustain life here. If the aphelion and perihelion were different we would either fry or freeze.

    An abundance of carbon is essential to all life on Earth.

    Putting to one side the momentarily pleasurable mechanics by which we humans are conceived, we are all composites of recycled oxygen (65% by mass), carbon(18%), hydrogen (10%), nitrogen (3%) and traces of other elements. It has been thus since humans first walked the planet and will remain so while fine-tuning of the universe persists. This fine-tuning – gravity, electromagnetic force, strong and weak nuclear forces – is beyond the control of mere mortals.

    Liberating carbon (dioxide) to the atmosphere is simply part of the recycling process. Emissions of CO2 by volcanoes, decaying vegetation, animals and human industry are neither creating nor destroying anything. Nor will they give rise to catastrophic global warming, extreme weather events or any other fabrications of febrile minds currently in the ascendancy.


    Report this

    61

  • #

    [...] Death threats anyone? Austrian Prof: global warming deniers should be sentenced to death « JoNova: … Share this:EmailPrintTwitterDiggFacebookStumbleUponRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eliza

    This person should be fired immediately by his employer, University of Gatz. Removing the website is not enough. He should not be re-employed by any learning/teaching institution.


    Report this

    250

    • #
      John Brookes

      Now you are guilty of exactly what you say he is guilty of.

      “Skeptics” express opinions. He doesn’t like it, and thinks they should be killed.

      He expresses an opinion. You don’t like it and want him fired.

      Both sides should be able to express opinions without fear of consequences.


      Report this

      316

      • #
        connolly

        So you equate employment dismissal with execution? Eliza is not “guilty” ( full marks there – you are getting into the swing of things) of an equivalence to Parncutt’s argument for the execution of catastrophic anthropogenic global warmimg theory dissenters. An comparator with Eliza’s call for Parncutt to be dismissed would be an academic argueing for the execution of the richest one percent of the world’s population on the immoral basis that the deaths of nillions of children due to income inequality MAY BE prevented with the removal of extremely rich. Just drop the ironic pose for a moment. You reckon that academic would keep his or her job at any university in this country making that argument? Also there is not in this country an absolute freedom to express “opinions”. Parncutt has not merely expressed an opinion. He has argued a cruel, nasty and dangerous justification for the criminalisation of dissent and the exemplary execution of “prominent” dissenters. You really are insufferably smug and clueless.


        Report this

        123

  • #
    Gamecock

    And we thought the Inquisition was so Medieval.


    Report this

    130

  • #
    Bite Back

    I thought I had seen depravity. But this is a new kind of low I’ve never seen before. Do we laugh at the sheer magnitude of his delusion or do we send for the straightjacket?


    Report this

    150

    • #
      Bite Back

      After reading a lot deeper I’m thinking this guy is not the real danger but just a fruitcake who is taking inspiration from others and not providing any real inspiration to anyone in the process. After all, this kind of thing has been around before now but not to this level — yet.

      The real danger is the ideology from which he appears to draw inspiration — The World Future Council. How do we deal with them and others like them?


      Report this

      110

      • #
        John Brookes

        The World Future Council! How I loathe those phone do-gooders!


        Report this

        17

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        The very first thing on their web site was “Here at the World Future Council we endeavor to bring the interests of future generations to the centre of policy making. We inform policy makers about future just policies and advise them on how to implement these. Political solutions for the challenges of our time exist.”

        They know what the future generation are thinking, what their interests are. And they know the solution now for what will happen in the future.

        No mention of just when this future is.
        To me it reads like a self-importance scam.


        Report this

        30

  • #
    mfo

    Parncutt is not popular with his colleagues. He is an arrogant, fanatical oddball. This is him whinging:

    “During the 1990s I (an Australian) applied for professorships in several different Canadian, American, British, German and Austrian universities without success. In most cases, the person who was offered the job was clearly less qualified that I am….”

    “In recent years, I was repeatedly attacked by workplace colleagues with the apparent intention of forcing me to leave my department. The stated reasons were generally arbitrary, exaggerated, misleading or invented; the real reasons were presumably my cultural and disciplinary Otherness, coupled with envy of my research record, my interdisciplinary and international mobility, and my desire to promote transparency and high academic standards.

    “To my astonishment, other colleagues not only failed to defend me – sometimes they even sided with the attacker/s. While many people were unsure what exactly was going on, they were also generally unwilling to be informed. Again, this is a subject statement, and readers may reasonable suspect me of being a bit paranoid.”

    “From 1999 to 2006 I was looking for financial support for an applied interdisciplinary project about racism and xenophobia that was supported by researchers in a range of disciplines at the University of Graz. Several major grant applications wereignored (evidently not even reviewed).”

    http://www.uni-graz.at/~parncutt/racisminaustria.HTM#7


    Report this

    210

  • #
    Curious Canuck

    It would probably be wise to send a copy of this to his Department if he is still employed at UofGraz with link and complaint. So that there’s a paper trail following this guy.


    Report this

    60

  • #

    The only ground worth fighting for in this debate, is the middle ground, commonly known as public opinion. The harder they fight and the more extreme the propaganda becomes, the more they’ll alienate the common person, who’ll begin to see them for what they truly are; fanatics.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/an-assessment-of-current-alarmist-propaganda/

    Pointman


    Report this

    190

  • #

    I heard about this, and was linked to your site, from WUWT. I’d like to thank you for alerting us to this poor man’s madness. It may not be a very Christmasy subject, however the cure for darkness is to shine a light on it, and I suppose that is what Christmas is all about.

    Apparently this man was educated by the Sceptical Science site. My own brother once asked me what I thought of that site, and when I honestly expressed my (low) opinion, explaining my various reasons, he exploded at me. He was of the opinion I had been brainwashed. I replied that no, he was the one who had been brainwashed. Our reasonable discussion swiftly disolved into a typical brother-to-brother name-calling binge.

    This sort of mud-slinging is all well and good between brothers, who can make-up, and who are used to it. However I like to think such bad behavior doesn’t occur out in public, among reasonable scientists. Sadly, the Sceptical Science site seems to encourage such nonsense in public.

    Brothers can yell at each other, and it only hurts egos. However a death threat promices a fate you can’t undo. Once a person is dead, you can’t kiss and make up.

    I don’t blame anyone in Europe for being frustrated by the mess their idealism has gotten them into, and anger is merely the fume of a frustrated mind. However death threats deserve the strongest rebukes possible, to avoid mud-slinging turning into actual murders.


    Report this

    180

    • #
      Sean

      I feel sorry for you, having an idiot like that in the family.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        I don’t think you can blame the individual.

        We pay our governments to employ the very best and able people to guide us and structure our environment to best advantage.

        That we have situations like the CAGW mess getting through the filter is an appalling indictment of the level of responsibility in government OR a measure of the corruption and self gratification that is occurring.

        Either way, we need to change governments until we get one that does the job of leading us carefully into the future.

        KK


        Report this

        40

    • #
      John Brookes

      I don’t get it. Skeptical Science is a good website that has compiled lots of the phony arguments “skeptics” use to dismiss climate science. Why would anyone not like that site?


      Report this

      316

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        I agree John

        “Skeptical Science is a good website that has compiled lots of the phony arguments”.

        KK :)


        Report this

        81

        • #
          John Brookes

          I mean, if you are serious about the science, you’d want to know which arguments had already been debunked.


          Report this

          410

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            No John.

            You’ve got the bull by the tail, you have to grab the horns.

            Now; go round to the front of the bull; OK.

            Now grab the horns and do the science.

            Show the measured evidence that CO2 “Specifically” is causing AGW.

            No John, it hasn’t been done yet.

            No John , there are NO feedback loops based on CO2 accelerating the effect of water .

            Sorry, My mistake.

            How could I have forgotten; there is a Feedback loop.

            The accelerant is False Media based Science, the core target of this is the Australian Taxation

            assets; the mechanism is that for every 2.36 hours of ABC air time devoted to CAGW ( Now replacing

            the Hour of Power on commercial channels for fund raising skill) there is a transfer From the

            collected taxes to various Support Groups , Eco businesses, Overseas sinkholes ( maybe for CO2

            sequestration and don’t forget the UN, the IPCC etc) of $9 Billion AUD.

            What SkS is doing is rubbishing all comment on the fact that THERE IS NO SCIENCE supporting the

            Religion of Man Made Global CO2 Extremism.

            That does not mean that there is No Santa Claus.

            I firmly believe that there is more likelihood of there being a Santa than there is of being man Made

            Death By Global Warming.

            Merry Christmas John

            KK :)


            Report this

            123

  • #
    Jaymez

    Parncutt’s way of thinking is the same type of thinking which was behind the extremely offensive 10:10 advertising campaign where it was deemed appropriate to blow up non compliant school children. http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/sick-green-psycho-stars-want-to-kill-your-children/

    There were a whole swathe of crazy climate alarmists who thought those advertisements were fair enough and even fun until they suffered the severe and unexpected public backlash.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Greg House

    “Richard Parncutt, Professor of Systematic Musicology, University of Graz, Austria, reckons people like Watts, Tallbloke, Singer, Michaels, Monckton, McIntyre and me (there are too many to list) should be executed. He’s gone full barking mad, …”
    ============================================

    I see a few “moderate” warmists on the list. Besides, Monckton and Singer are not moderate at all as far as their opponents are concerned, who are not warmists at all.

    What we can learn is that fence sitting will not help, if radicals come to power.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Brian.Berlin

    As a fully paid-up “Denier” ( which I still find truly offensive ) I have no hesitation in calling him a Climate Nazi.


    Report this

    110

  • #

    Over on Delingpole’s blog http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100195422/tim-yeo-no-headline-can-do-him-justice/

    The question was raised: WTF is systematic musicology?

    Systematic Musicology 

    Systematic musicology is an umbrella term, used mainly in central Europe, for subdisciplines of musicology that are primarily concerned with music in general, rather than specific manifestations of music. 

    Musicology is the study of music. Leading music encyclopediae such as the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (2001, “Musicology”) and Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart (1997, “Musikwissenschaft”) offer a broad, all-encompassing account of musicology. They suggest that musicology today covers all disciplinary approaches to the study of all music in all its manifestations and all its contexts, whether they be physical, acoustic, digital, multimedia, social, sociological, cultural, historical, geographical, ethnological, psychological, physiological, medicinal, pedagogical, therapeutic, or in relation to any other musically relevant discipline or context. 

    http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/SMW.HTM

    It’s pseudo bollox

    How do I know?

    https://www.youtube.com/user/theRealFretslider?feature=mhee


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Alan Watt

    Jo:

    Thanks to you and Andy Wilkins for digging this up.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Andy Wilkins

      Alan,
      Thanks for the thanks – it’s appreciated!
      As soon as I found the odious diatribe of Parncutt’s I emailed the Rector and two Vice-Rectors of Graz Uni to register my disgust at the content of the page. I also emailed Parncutt himself to register my disgust.
      It’ll be interesting to see if I get any replies……


      Report this

      100

  • #
    theduke

    This is the kind of person the Nazis selected and trained to herd victims into the gas chambers.


    Report this

    140

  • #

    Well there you have it. When you play dire games by the ‘Neville Chamberlain Rules’ whilst the other side has no rules at all, the other side sees you as weak and goes in harder still.

    We need to learn from history.


    Report this

    121

  • #
    kim rasmussen in helvetia

    quote: “hopefully,the usa and china will come to their senses soon”….well,the u.s. came to their senses in the first half of last century,when they were instrumental in stopping another barking mad austrian…!


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Kim Rasmussen in Helvetia

    my wrong.i just turned the good herr professor into an austrian.he’s australian.wonder,if something he wrote
    triggered my associating him with parts of recent (austrian)history.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Aussieboy

      Yeah, apparently 50% of Americans think Australia is in Europe. But if only 5% of Americans are correct, then at least 100% of the 50% would be right in thinking that Australians should not work in Austria. Ahhhh, the Parncutt percentage shuffle ;-)

      Seriously though, Aussies should not be allowed to work in Austria for the global good. While this is allowed to continue, it will cause global confusion (especially to Americans), and the potential confusion is such that, all current employees in Austria of Aussie decent should leave immediately. If this does not occur they should be themselves punished by being locked in a ‘confusion room’ of Prof Parncutt’s percentage shuffles in audio/surround sound until the confusion reaches peak hallucination and the Aussie realises he must return or die a horrible death.

      [adendum for above - this does not count for Parncutt himself as we already have a Parncutt level confuser in Flannery]


      Report this

      60

      • #
        BobC

        Aussieboy
        December 25, 2012 at 10:34 am · Reply

        Yeah, apparently 50% of Americans think Australia is in Europe.

        A similar percentage think that the US State of New Mexico is a different country — and also, not surprisingly, our President thinks that “Austrian” is a language.

        “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard”. — H.L. Mencken


        Report this

        70

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          …not surprisingly, our President thinks that “Austrian” is a language.

          After having campaigned in all 57 states I can understand his fatigued state of mind. I’d be mentally up the creek too after searching out and visiting those 7 additional states — so well hidden and secret as they were. :-(

          If we could just get him to stay in The White House for a while and only do a normal presidential work day, maybe the problem would solve itself!? And if not, well at least it would be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers. :-)


          Report this

          20

  • #
    • #

      Not so much in the features as in the expression. And indeed the similarities don’t end there – Himmler was also a music lover, and was able to stifle his humane impulses by the belief that his atrocious actions were needed to save the world from perdition.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    An obscure professor of Systematic Musicology (whatever that is) at an obscure university, even with this spectacularly arrogant and disgusting vision for the future, isn’t worth all this attention.

    I know Austrians named Beethoven and Mozart. They contributed something to humanity. I pay a lot of attention to them. But what has musicologist Parncutt done that I should notice him? Has he composed any music you’ve ever heard of? No. There’s none noted on his web page. He’s just publishing to avoid perishing. Being recognized as an international authority on the origin of music is his claim to fame. Who knew?

    Austria is capable of better than this. :-(


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Streetcred

      Roy, he’s an Australian apparently not well liked by his colleagues around the world … let’s see how long he lasts at the University of Graz after this.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Streetcred,

        Given the current craze about academic freedom he might last longer than you think, even after seriously embarrassing his university. Remember what “happened” to Phil Jones and his crew at CRU? Academics are literally afraid to discipline one of their own and any attempt at discipline is frequently met with a cry of censorship. Once that cat is out of the bag it’s nearly impossible to get it back in again. It’s insane, the extremes that go on.

        I taught part time at community college level for 17 years and I could have gotten away with a lot if I wanted to.

        Most are honest. But the bad eggs are not under any kind of reasonable control by their university.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    And he needs to be dealt with!


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Justa Joe

    Hold on… It’s the climate alarmists that WANT to reduce world population. They’re also almost universally very staunch supporters of abortion.


    Report this

    101

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    He isn’t alone in this. Here is where this is coming from and where it will go if not stopped.

    The world is getting very ugly. Future crimes anyone?


    Report this

    60

  • #
    peter horne

    One of the names on the list is Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. I believe the Czechs are rather sensitive about genocidal Austrian Nazis, for historical reasons.
    I also believe every Czech embassy in the world should be bombarded with e mails apprising them of this evil fascist’s intention to execute their president. I think they may be mildly chagrined, to say the least.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Sean

    Yet another professor who is a crazy wanker from Australia.

    There is something seriously wrong with your society in Australia, that you breed this kind of sick thinking person and reward them with senior positions in education.

    You really need to get your act together Australia and toss out the labour govt and their left wing activist influences.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Sean

      They’ve been at it now for 40 years and what do we have to show for it.

      A nation where poor people have lost hope. A nation where social security is used to control and mold voting patterns often in ways that damage those who think they are voting for an easy life.

      Grog is out of control, unless your family owns the pub, then it’s fantastic.

      Partying is almost non stop and utmost in the minds of the young almost every day.

      We have ABC radio, JJJJJ, which constantly puts old people down and blames them for the fact that young

      people have to go to work and so on.

      Information management is the new reality.

      There is no reality out side of your ipod.

      KK :)


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        A nation where poor people have lost hope. A nation where social security is used to control and mold voting patterns often in ways that damage those who think they are voting for an easy life…

        …Information management is the new reality.

        There is no reality out side of your ipod.

        For a moment there I thought you were describing America. You might as well be sitting here with me right now commenting on the same subject from my vantage point.

        We really are in deep trouble when young people have to get up and go to work in the morning. But at least I don’t own an iPod. ;-)


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Sean

        very sad. the Mayans were right, the end IS near. that is, the end of western enlightenment.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      This is a real puzzle. I’m 71 now and have seen the progress of a good number of Australians who are now prominent, even known quite a few, been to dinners of the Order of Australia, that sort of thing.
      They are in 2 broad groups, those who would be prominent in any advanced country because they have inherent skills; and those who are prominent in Australia because of Australian structures like buddy systems.
      Overall, in many desirable disciplines, Australia punches well above its weight. We have a wonferful record in medicial research of the immune system, for example, and items like the bionic ear. Earlier, we were in the world leaders of aviation. Many more examles.
      The other bunch worries me. Typically, they spring out of relative obscurity, often with a lot of help from the press. It gives the impression that someone with lots of influence is organising cells and placing people in high positions. I’ve seen unknowns suddenly appointed near or at the top of large corporations and wonder whose daddy knew whose mummy. Rumours persist of royal descendents from the wrong side of the sheet being placed high here, but much of that is unproven. I was once presecuting a case involving uranium mining before a Judge who had been Head of the Australian Conservation Foundation or some similar group. These contradictions seem to abound and the people are in positions where they should have the wit and knowledge to stand aside. Instead they tend in the other direction, with surplus publicity and strange utterances.
      Please don’t judge Australians by these oddballs. I suspect that Jo met one in Anna Rose. Clueless but influential, promoted by others unknown, seems to be the generalisation.


      Report this

      90

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Geoff,

        I know the feeling. In the extreme there’s nothing more frustrating than to see the likes of a Paris Hilton getting attention for nothing better than, (quoting myself) “…being famous for being famous,” and of course, undressed.

        What you describe can be said about America or anywhere else. “Oddballs” are everywhere. This appears to be their hour. We must hang together or risk being hanged separately.


        Report this

        40

  • #

    Billions killed in the future? Much ado about nothing!

    You cannot try a person in any court of law I am aware of for a crime that has not yet been committed!

    Lets discuss real crimes against humanity that have already been committed, shall we?

    The only large scale crimes against humanity I am aware of that has gone unpunished have been committed by the greens. Their war on DDT and globalization has led to the deaths of millions if not billions! These are people who actually died horribly and in excruciating pain and agony; not theoretical casualties based upon a prophesied apocalypse that was predicated upon a failed hypothesis!

    While these people were mired in misery and facing their demise the greens not only conspired to kill them but are still actively doing so. They want to significantly reduce the world population for the sake of “sustainability” and they could care less about the sufferings of others.

    Every day the poorest of the poor are dying in Sub Saharan Africa from Malaria that could have been prevented. They died because DDT is either banned outright or the Europeans, their largest market for agricultural products, will not purchased produce, or other products if DDT was used.

    Because of the greens opposition to globalization millions died needlessly for lack of things we take for granted: electricity, clean water, food, etc.

    Now, they want to divert resources that could be used to save millions of lives and use them to fight a phantom menace, global warming!

    Before the greens remove the speck from the skeptic’s eye they should remove the plank from their own!


    Report this

    181

    • #
      Bite Back

      Billions killed in the future? Much ado about nothing!

      You cannot try a person in any court of law I am aware of for a crime that has not yet been committed!

      …so far! But give them time.


      Report this

      20

    • #

      The myth about the DDT ban as the cause of untold misery has got to stop. The case against DDT may have been trumped up, but on the other hand DDT is not a miracle weapon; and had its use continued unabated from the 60s, it would by now have become obsolete due to insect resistance, just as it happened with other insecticides. Furthermore, DDT has never been “banned” – you can buy it, now, you just can’t use it in some advanced countries that have the means to use more expensive and sophisticated poisons anyway.

      Malaria can be controlled, with or without DDT. It’s done in Florida, where malaria would be endemic if not for continuous vector control. Just like tuberculosis can be controlled by proper surveillance. The countries that fail to control malaria are the same that fail to control tuberculosis, and both failures are due not to the lack of knowledge or the ban of this or another drug, but simply and plainly to government malfeasance, corruption, and general depravity. As long as those governments continue to waste all their revenues and subsidies on Kalashnikov’s and gilded toiled seats, those problems will persist.


      Report this

      46

      • #

        The ban on DDT is real. In fact, DDT, when used properly, works. Not only does it wrk but when used improperly it still acts as a repellant. There is nothing out there quite like it.

        For an interesting article on DDT see: http://junkscience.com/1999/07/26/100-things-you-should-know-about-ddt/


        Report this

        61

      • #

        The DDT ban is real and enforced by some countries, but not others. You can buy it from several suppliers in India, for example.

        I do not dispute that DDT works – but other insecticides do, too, and they are being used to good effect in many countries, including the USA.

        Any country with competent government could control malaria, with or without DDT, and any country without such government will fail to control it, with or without DDT – except when Uncle Sam gives it away for free, in which case there isn’t any incentive for corrupt officials to misappropriate it, or for depraved governments to spare the expense in the first place. What really made DDT special was the fact that Uncle Sam did, in fact, give it away for free. The consequences of the “ban” simply resulted from the failure of African governments to step up to the plate after Uncle Sam discontinued this practice.

        At the current pace of decline of governance in the US, you should be able to observe this first hand in no more than a few decades. The affluent will then pay for the privilege high-priced to live in high-priced malaria-free “communities” in Florida, cordoned off from the malaria-infested slums of mere mortals by DDT-sprayed shelter belts. Which will of course reinforce your belief in the awesome power of DDT.


        Report this

        24

        • #
          John Brookes

          I’m not so sure. I understand that malaria was nearly eradicated in Sri Lanka in 1963, so spraying ddt stopped. A few years later the incidence of malaria increased, and spraying DDT resumed. However the mosquito concerned now had immunity to DDT, so it was abandoned and malathion was used instead, which worked better.

          But if you want evil environmentalists to have caused countless deaths, then believe the anti-environment version of the story.


          Report this

          310

          • #

            However the mosquito concerned now had immunity to DDT,

            Not immunity. It is because of genetic diversity that e.g. some mosquitos survive what would be a fatal dose of DDT in others. Species, as such, do not “develop an immunity” against DDT, DDT culls those which are susceptible, leaving a population dominated by resistent strains. Over time, the population expands to the available food source at a rate determined by the available breeding grounds.

            Malaria used to be prevalent in much of Europe. They got rid of it (somewhat coincidentally) by reducing the breeding grounds. They didn’t have the quick-fix DDT, but if they had ONLY sprayed DDT, then malaria would still be around, even in areas such as Northern Germany. As much as ticks are a problem in the Black Forest region nowadays. If you leave wilderness, you get all of it, not just the pretty things.

            While minimising breeding areas is much more difficult in the wet tropics, DDT or other insecticide will not by itself irradiate the insects which carry debilitating diseases. Diseases need to be tackled in a multi-vectored strategy, especially where they are carried by third parties.


            Report this

            51

  • #

    Rather than comment, I would just like to offer peace and joy to all this Christmas time. In the New Year, might we all try to reach out to understand the views of others, particularly those whom we most disagree. Let us learn from other conflict situations, where erecting barriers and impugning false motives, or lesser intellectual capacities, of other community groups feeds intolerance, and leads to no winners.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    The major topic of discussion at the next meeting of Systematic Musicology practitioners will be a name change.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Merry Christmas!


    Report this

    60

  • #
    mfo

    Parncutt is disliked by his colleagues and knows it. Apart from inciting hatred, he is also arrogant and paranoid as is demonstrated by his own words:

    “During the 1990s I (an Australian) applied for professorships in several different Canadian, American, British, German and Austrian universities without success. In most cases, the person who was offered the job was clearly less qualified that I am….”
    “In recent years, I was repeatedly attacked by workplace colleagues with the apparent intention of forcing me to leave my department.

    “The stated reasons were generally arbitrary, exaggerated, misleading or invented; the real reasons were presumably my cultural and disciplinary Otherness, coupled with envy of my research record, my interdisciplinary and international mobility, and my desire to promote transparency and high academic standards.

    “To my astonishment, other colleagues not only failed to defend me – sometimes they even sided with the attacker/s. While many people were unsure what exactly was going on, they were also generally unwilling to be informed. Again, this is a subject statement, and readers may reasonable suspect me of being a bit paranoid.”

    “From 1999 to 2006 I was looking for financial support for an applied interdisciplinary project about racism and xenophobia that was supported by researchers in a range of disciplines at the University of Graz. Several major grant applications wereignored (evidently not even reviewed).”
    http://www.uni-graz.at/~parncutt/racisminaustria.HTM#7

    That aside he may have commited a criminal offence in Austria which is rather sensitive about incitement to hatred.

    Articles 33 Aggravating Circumstances and 283 Incitement to Violence, of the Austrian criminal code may apply:

    Incitement to violence
    Article 283 (1): “In a manner likely to jeopardize public order, incites to hostile action against a church or religious community established in the country or a group defined by their affiliation to such a church or religious community or to a race, nation, ethnic group or state is punishable with up to two years imprisonment;

    Aggravating circumstances

    Article 33
    An aggravating circumstance is especially when the perpetrator
    (…)
    5. has acted out of a racist, xenophobic or other particularly reprehensible motive;
    (…)
    http://legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/15709

    The Google translation of the key part of the German version of Article 283 is:

    “Whoever publicly in a manner that is likely to endanger the public order, or who is responsible for the general public perceived violence against a church or religious society, or other according to race, color, language, religion or belief, nationality, descent or national or ethnic origin, sex, disability, age or sexual orientation”
    http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10002296

    No wonder the article was removed so quickly.

    Happy Christmas to Jo and family and all in OZ (including the warmists).


    Report this

    200

  • #

    [...] of anthropogenic global warming (1) are so endangering the planet that, if they do not recant, they should all be executed: Prof Richard Parncutt [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Interesting results there, mfo. Parncutt’s turpitude on climate may well be just a reflection of some chronic inner turmoil. How many evil initiatives are amplified by disturbed people spotting in them an opportunity for self-expression? The highly orchestrated climate scaremongering of the past few decades has found a new recruit in Parncutt, and another victim too if his university does the right thing and dismisses him for gross misconduct.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    scott

    This is one of the reasons i will always be a skeptic. Please spread the news of this man so more people will understand how unscientific the alarmist cause can become.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    theduke

    Parncutt as quoted by mfo in #90:

    “During the 1990s I (an Australian) applied for professorships in several different Canadian, American, British, German and Austrian universities without success. In most cases, the person who was offered the job was clearly less qualified that I am….”
    “In recent years, I was repeatedly attacked by workplace colleagues with the apparent intention of forcing me to leave my department.

    “The stated reasons were generally arbitrary, exaggerated, misleading or invented; the real reasons were presumably my cultural and disciplinary Otherness, . . .”

    Ya think??!!


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Sean

    Filed complaints today, with the Austrian police and with the rector of Univ of Graz. Suggest we all leverage the tactics of the left, i.e. Alinsky’s rules for radicals, and do the same here:

    rektorin@uni-graz.at

    oeffentlichkeitsarbeit@bmi.gv.at


    Report this

    220

    • #
      Andy Wilkins

      Sean,
      Nice one – good work fella.
      As I said in a reply to Alan above, I’ve also emailed the Rector to register my disgust.

      Happy Xmas to all at Jo Nova’s site!


      Report this

      150

    • #
      John Brookes

      Idiot.


      REPLY: Erudite argument there JB – Jo

      219

      • #
        Chris M

        Gees Johnny, you’re all over this thread like a rash, trying to make light of someone on your side saying real people named in a KGB-style list of “enemies” on Desmog can justifiably be put to death. Double standards much? If a sceptic were to say something as repugnant as that the eco-fascists and their mates in the MSM would be baying for blood, quite likely with your tacit approval.

        You just don’t get it do you John? It’s all too easy to be a smug smartarse when things are going your way. You, a leftist, are cocooned in an administrative position (that frankly from your description doesn’t sound very arduous) in the left-wing echo chamber of academia. Perfect for you! But what about, for instance, all the small business people who don’t get paid holidays and all the rest, and whose capacity to earn a living is directly affected by government policies. No empathy from you, I imagine.

        I recall one of the left-liberal commentators in the NYT during the 2008 Obama campaign referring to sociological research which showed that in comparison with conservatives, left-wingers are less inclined to attempt to understand opposing viewpoints or to feel any empathy for people who don’t think like them. That resonated with me, and still does. This woman (forget her name) clearly has an understanding of shared humanity that all too many on your side woefully lack.

        Let me put it in terms you understand: Dutschke’s long march through the institutions achieved its goal at least 20 years ago. You are part (albeit a minor one) of the new cultural hegemony that the bien pensant ruling class (Gramsci was prescient) imposes on the rest of society. If you truly believed your own BS about the third world you would not have emigrated from South Africa, but would have stayed to contribute to the shimmering new society there. In short Mr Brookes, I believe you are a hypocrite.


        Report this

        111

        • #
          John Brookes

          Of course I’m a hypocrite. Just like most people, their beliefs and actions don’t match. And in many ways it is pointless to act individually – a concerted action is required to make a difference, and that involves laws.

          But Chris M, for a good few years before my current admin role, I did run a small business. Sadly, thanks to a certain lack of talent and effort, it remained a very small business. And I know people who run small and medium businesses. And I appreciate their circumstances.

          As for emigrating from South Africa, I was 7 at the time, so didn’t really have a choice. But I’m glad I did come to Oz!


          Report this

          211

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Come on John

            If you are going to act like a warmer you have to live and be judged by their standards:

            “”I was 7 at the time,”" just doesn’t count.

            Don’t try and worm out of it.

            You emigrated, end of story.

            KK


            Report this

            71

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Just in case.

            It was meant as a joke ,obviously.

            kk


            Report this

            40

          • #
            ian hilliar

            Funny that, most of the ex Soth Africans I know are scientifically literate, and work hard in their new country of choice. I dont care if you work , or not, but I do wish you would become scientifically literate


            Report this

            61

      • #
        Sean

        Talking to yourself again John?


        Report this

        00

  • #
    PeterS

    As has been suggested by some, people should complain to the police and to the University. I don’t expect anything will be done about it, which in itself is a blot on our society. If I made similar threats to have people murdered, I’d be hearing a knock on my door by the police to be arrested and charged in no time. As always there appears to be one law for the elite and another law for the rest of us.


    Report this

    140

  • #

    “go ahead, make my day” would be my answer


    Report this

    20

  • #
    DaveG

    This guy Prof Richard Parncutt, is the same breed of monsters who conceived & put in to plan the death marches in Cambodia – the Russian gulags -The Red Guard murders- The Final Solution. The attempts over history to remove inconvenient groups of people. If you scan his brain you will find a low frontal lobe activity indicating a lunatic in waiting.
    In the name of socialism, madness & purity. He’s Evil to the core. Come for me Parncutt and you wont see me turn the other cheek!!


    Report this

    110

  • #
    Scooter

    Given the professor’s wet dream of executing people who prospectively kill people who don’t yet exist, andn given his penchant for ‘logic’, what particular execution does he propose for those who abort babies, many of whom who actually do exist?


    Report this

    110

  • #
    GeorgeL

    He can’t be all bad – he hates the rich as well

    Happy Christmas Prof


    Report this

    33

    • #
      Mike Jowsey

      Thanks for the link George. Reading it made me quite ill, but it’s a typical fascist fantasy based on the flawed logic of CAGW. Tax fixes everything. Gotta keep that evil fossil fuel in the ground, otherwise our grandchildren will hate us and die in famines and floods. Still, most clear-thinking people see through this ideology as a nanny state approach, or in this case a nanny globe approach. I note that after 6 months, his petition has garnered some 100 signatures. Wow.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    theduke

    In the manner of many intellectual cowards, he gets most of the way through his argument and then, realizing he’s written something that could cost him his job and livelihood, throws in a fake disclaimer:

    Please note that I am not directly suggesting that the threat of execution be carried out. I am simply presenting a logical argument.

    Of course, that is precisely what he was doing.

    I’ve read through this lamentable drivel a couple of times and noticed he uses a variety of weasel words to try and reduce the chilling impact of what he is saying: “apparently,” “presumably,” “perhaps,” “not directly,” “evidently,” “seems to me,” “I guess,” etc.

    When you set aside the fake uncertainty, what is left are the kind of calculating arguments that were undoubtedly heard when Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other genocidal maniacs were huddled with their henchmen contemplating what to do with Jews, counter-revolutionaries, bourgeois reactionaries, inferior races, kulaks, gypsies and other undesirables, i.e. anyone who didn’t see the supreme logic and historical necessity of the cause. In short, anyone who didn’t buckle under.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Josualdo

    I just sent a nice, civil e-mail about Parncutt’s text to the Rektorin (it’s a she) at Graz, who may even be unaware of all this.
    rektorin (at) uni-graz.at


    Report this

    130

    • #
      thojak

      Good initiative, Josualdo! :)

      I’ve notified the Austrian Embassy (in Stockholm) twice about the ‘prof’s’ proposal of a ‘final solution’. The 1st with the original web-url, the 2nd with a screen-cap/copy/word-doc of the same (from archieved). However, my writings were not that nice… ;)

      Brgds from Sweden


      Report this

      30

  • #

    Apart from WW2 what have the Austrians ever done for us?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Otter

    Not a word from brooksie, filly or mattb?


    Report this

    90

  • #
    James

    Well, Herr Parncutt may be thinking of re-opening a little camp for those who won’t follow his impeccable research and maths, a place down the road springs to mind where inconvenient people with inconvenient thoughts could be, you know, “housed”. Mauthausen.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    I think it is about time Lewendowski and his colleagues did a study on the eschatological death cult that AGW appears to be morphing in to. They are so married to the idea that the “end of days” is approaching that the more the data shows that the earth isn’t warming and that it isn’t going to end, the more shrill they become.

    From the Washington Times the other day:

    “The last thing government officials want to hear is that the planet isn’t actually warming.”

    And they are right. It does appear that they no longer want to hear “good news” about the planet being safe. You would think they would be rejoicing. Fascinating!

    Have a good Christmas


    Report this

    130

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Hmmm…

      First Priority: Acquire, Maintain, and Execute Coercive Power over other Humans.
      Second Priority: Something else….
      Nth Priority: Something else….

      Last Priority: Save the Planet.

      Hence the “strange reaction” to the “good news” of no warming.


      Report this

      10

  • #

    Unfortunately Herr Professor Parncutt appears to be an Australian. How embarrassing!

    Parncutt is not popular with his colleagues either it seems. He is an arrogant, fanatical whinging oddball by the sound of these extracts:-

    “During the 1990s I (an Australian) applied for professorships in several different Canadian, American, British, German and Austrian universities without success. In most cases, the person who was offered the job was clearly less qualified that I am….”

    “In recent years, I was repeatedly attacked by workplace colleagues with the apparent intention of forcing me to leave my department. The stated reasons were generally arbitrary, exaggerated, misleading or invented; the real reasons were presumably my cultural and disciplinary Otherness, coupled with envy of my research record, my interdisciplinary and international mobility, and my desire to promote transparency and high academic standards.”

    “To my astonishment, other colleagues not only failed to defend me – sometimes they even sided with the attacker/s. While many people were unsure what exactly was going on, they were also generally unwilling to be informed. Again, this is a subject statement, and readers may reasonable suspect me of being a bit paranoid.”

    “From 1999 to 2006 I was looking for financial support for an applied interdisciplinary project about racism and xenophobia that was supported by researchers in a range of disciplines at the University of Graz. Several major grant applications wereignored (evidently not even reviewed).”

    http://www.uni-graz.at/~parncutt/racisminaustria.HTM#7

    ——————————————————————————–


    Report this

    110

    • #
      GeorgeL

      Yes, his writings make fascinating reading – poor fellow.

      He definitely fits into the category of the “True Believer.” He really does believe that all who don’t share his beliefs are insane and should be disposed of. There must be a clinical term for this – perhaps “Lewandorphism”


      Report this

      100

  • #
    Maverick

    Thank God we have Professors of Systematic Musicology to keep us on the straight and narrow and tell us what to do.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    theduke

    I keep wondering why commenters are mistakenly referring to Parncutt as and Austrian and I see now that it’s in Jo Nova’s headline (“Austrian Prof”) at the top of this post.

    Hope she fixes that.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Jonathan Frodsham

    I can see Parncutt now, compiling his list. And then going to bed dreaming of his mass killing of denier enemies. Sounds just like Hitler or Stalin to me. See this is the real undercurrent of feeling with the Alarmist human haters, this will be privately applauded by a high percentage the Alarmists . I mean they hate themselves for being human, and they are saving the planet, so just imagine what they think of deniers? Yes they would really enjoy the killing. It was but a short step for Hitler to Treblinka.

    I sent him an email:

    Dear Mr Would Be Mass Murderer,

    You said: “People will be saying that Parncutt has finally lost it.” Yes you have.

    You also said:” People would say I was courageous to write the truth, for a change” For a change? Does that mean you do NOT more than often?

    I am an Australian, I take it as you were born in Australia and that you are still an Australian? If so, renounce your nationality as you are not a fit and proper person to be Australian.

    People like you are sick. You need help fast. Kari Norgaard can help you find treatment as she like you is an expert.

    J Frodsham


    Report this

    172

  • #
    Amfortas

    A candidate for the EU post of ‘Skeptic-Finder General’, with stakes and brushwood at the ready.


    Report this

    120

    • #
      Joe V.

      They’re already at it. Trying to get Future Ombudspersons into the EU.

      What a nifty appointment to the moral high-ground that would be for any aspiring bureaucrat with dictatorial tendencies.

      When the virtuous seek to impose their virtue on everyone. The Reign of Terror anyone ?

      The end of Robespierre meant the end of the Reign of Terror. His death marks for many historians the end of the French Revolution

      .


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Popeye

    It’s interesting how ALL of these nutters hide behind the skirt tails of their university Overlords.

    They haven’t got the cajones to come out, face the music or even let people comment on their own websites OR if they do let us comment and they don’t like your comment they just delete it as if it never happened.

    ABSOLUTE FN NUT CASES EACH AND EVERYONE OF THEM!!

    Cheers,


    Report this

    91

    • #
      John Brookes

      Absolutely Popeye! This nutter should do the decent thing and blog under a pseudonym like, say, “Olive Oil”. Then he’d be brave an not hiding behind his university Overlords.


      Report this

      213

  • #
    Lars P.

    So, a music psychologist who never did something really productive in his life found a “raison-d’etre” to fight for the banner of climatology?
    Musicology-climatology, it rimes, so it is almost his area, thinks the musicologist?
    No, it is not the same, climatology should be science, using the scientific method, what you seem to have never learned and never used Richard Parncutt.

    Removing the post is by far not enough, this cannot be left like this.
    Death threats to scientists who are not supporting his pet theory? From an area where Richard P. has absolutely no clue?
    This person has obviously several cognitive problems, logic and ethic.
    That such a person is allowed to intoxicate children and young people with his vicious mind is sad. This should no longer be the case.

    What is wrong with these people?
    We had 10:10 exploding kids and everybody else who does not agree in the “no pressure” video:
    http://notrickszone.com/2010/10/07/the-silence-of-embarassment/
    we had Gleick, we had Lewandowsky with his fake moon landing theories. Projectig their denial of science, their way of proceeding and acting upon us and attacking us for it?

    Interesting the old legacy media has long lost contact to reality. As in the case of the 10:10 video as P Gosselin says: “But all of this no thanks to the mainstream media.”
    So very probably in this case too, what will follow is an embarrassed silence from them.


    Report this

    130

  • #

    [...] a “denier.”  Apparently, there is a section of the Global Warming proponents that feel deniers are worse than mass-murders.  Hat-tip, once again, to WattsUpWithThat – Richard Parncutt,  Professor of Systematic [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I noticed that Steve Milloy’s name is in bold in the desmogblog list.

    I guess he’s gunna have to be executed twice.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    high treason

    Someone should remind this musicology professor, who is as much of a climate scientist as Tim Flannery that the guru of AGW, James Lovelock has publicly stated that the data do not match the theory and the outrageous claims, especially from Al Gore and Tim Flannery are alarmism. The Met office has also(although on the quiet)admitted there has been no warming for the past 16 years. This should be game over, but the BS continues in earnest.Wake up world, AGW is a politically motivated stunt, primarily instigated by the UN. But who were the motivators behind the UN and their predecessor, the League of Nations? The Fabians-a group of ratbag socialists with some rather “out there” ideas, including One World Government(with unelected leaders)- see Agenda 21.
    Backtrack to a little history lesson, Nazi stands for National SOCIALIST Workers Party- the Nazis were/are Socialists. A little known fact, they loved nature and animals, but hated humans, bit like the Greens(after the war, ex Nazis and Communists joined the Green movement.)Looks like the core ideals of the UN are basically Nazism! AGW is the universal scapegoat like the Jews were under Hitler.
    Professor Parncutt is as deluded as that other well known Austrian who gained inspiration in Graz – Adolf Hitler.Sue me – bring it on.


    Report this

    101

    • #
      John Brookes

      “The Met office has also(although on the quiet)admitted there has been no warming for the past 16 years.”

      So you think that global warming is over, and it is now being pushed purely for political reasons? (Also, just to be pedantic, when that was first circulated it said “for nearly 16 years”, because if you actually took the full 16 years, the warming was statistically significant).


      Report this

      313

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        WELCOME BACK John

        You must have really missed Jo’s blog over the last few days and now you’re making up for it.

        All over the place like a rash.

        KK :)


        Report this

        21

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          s.

          You can even JOIN us!

          All you have to do is start;

          very slowly, if you haven’t done it for a while

          and

          TEST REALITY through SCIENCE.

          It is a truly liberating experience.

          KK


          Report this

          20

      • #
        connolly

        Yep its all over red rover. The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming ideology is being pushed because the carbon derivative market is the next big speculative bubble for a financialized capitalist economic system that is in deep crisis. Behind every ideology and government policy is an economic interest. Gee John who wrote that? You are not a leftist’s bootlace.


        Report this

        20

  • #

    With Parncutt’s published views on the Austrian Gendarmerie, how would he handle deportation if his passport is revoked?

    Here’s a hint to Australians travelling and living overseas:
    You are an “ambassador” for Australia. Behave accordingly.


    Report this

    120

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      An interesting piece Bernd.

      If only he could have applied the same sort of scrutiny to Australian community life before he left and fixed

      the drunkenness and lack of discipline in our schools just as a starter.

      And NO, that wasn’t an error.

      Kids do often go to school reeking of Alcohol.

      KK


      Report this

      10

  • #
    markx

    I know he is an Aussie and all…

    But with that face and those beady eyes, is he not just the perfect picture of a Concentration Camp Commandant?


    Report this

    100

  • #
    michael hammer

    Hmmm;

    I note the multitude of reliable reports pointing out that the environmental activism that led to the outright and total banning of DDT led directly to 50 million deaths from malaria in the developing world (mostly of children since malaria is most likely to be fatal in children). Not future deaths but actual deaths that have occurred!. Should we employ his recommendations against those advocates?

    Having dealt with them, maybe we can move on to the warmist advocacy which has led to a major growth in bio fuels which has significantly contributed to food shortages and deaths again in the developing world. Not to mention increased destruction of Amazon rain forest. These is exactly the people his advocacy is supporting and it is not hypothetical deaths in the future but real deaths today. Should we then employ his recommendations against him personally? Or his idealism a one way only position?

    The bottom line is that despite all the hype CAGW is an unproven theory. Supporters loudly proclaim supporting evidence while hiding and denying conflicting evidence. If its so certain then why shun open debate. IF its so certain why do supporters keep “adjusting” the historical data so as to better match the current rhetoric. Data such as that published in the late 1970′s by national academy of science which showed 0.7C of northern hemisphere cooling from 1940 to 1970 reworked by University of East Anglia in the 2000′s to show no cooling at all! What is his response to such actions on the part of his heroes? Has he even looked at the conflicting data?

    His advocacy seems to me to be startlingly and alarmingly similar to that of others that let their distorted beliefs and rabid idealism override any scrap of ethics, rationality or objective data. They also claimed that their vicious dictatorial and morally bankrupt views were simply a result of rational reasonable analysis. Those others are today viewed with utter shame and abhorrence. In some cases, reparations are still being paid more than half a century later.


    Report this

    130

    • #
      John Brookes

      Except that the malaria thing is a lie. But apart from that insignificant detail, yeah, go ahead and give Rachel Carson a posthumous trial.


      Report this

      215

      • #
        ian hilliar

        No No No, JB,the Rachel Carson polemic was the lie. Carson had a theory that DDT would kill all the insects in the world, and then all women would die of breast cancer. Wrong on both points. Mossies, ticks, lice, fleas,potato beetles, and unfortunately , stick insects, were all extremely susceptible. And none of the studies have ever proven any link with breast cancer, even at high doses. And, DDT does not affect the reproduction of bald eagles or other raptors. Interestingly, the initial banning of DDT by the US EPA resulted in the deaths of 80 farm workers over the next twelve months, due to acute toxicity of the newer, [and "presumably"safer] replacement insecticides. Mostly Harmless, as Douglas Adams would have said.


        Report this

        21

  • #
    Sonny

    This man is pure evil!


    Report this

    130

  • #
    MadJak

    From the Prof:

    In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from

    At this point I stopped reading – Just like reading Mein Kamph really.

    Richard, I wish your family all the best in health and happiness for the festive season – they sure seem to have their work cut out achieving either with being related to you. Still you can’t pick family can you?


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Blair

    The more I read articles like this, the more I become upset about the “denier” comparisons. This is because I see the AGW brotherhood regularly moving closer and closer to the principles behind the Nazi movement, that had an entire generation of innocent Germans too afraid to question the Authorities for fear of being executed. I firmly believe that there are probably a growing number of people who truly see the light, but are too afraid of the consequences to actually speak out against the “consensus”.

    If this deranged lunatics vision of the future ever became a reality, I would happily be signing up with the Resistance.


    Report this

    170

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Blair.

      Yes that IS the analogy.

      The victims are immune to information or analysis, it has all been very cunning but in hindsight the instigators have been working on it for a long time .

      KK


      Report this

      60

    • #
      John Brookes

      As would I Blair, as would I. But the future will be much more mundane that that. AGW will either (a) end up being a very big problem, or (b) not be much of a problem. If (a), then concerted efforts will be made to reduce its impact and cope with what we have to. If (b), then you guys get to say “I told you so”, and the world carries on and deals with other real or imagined problems.

      A future of bloodthirsty environmentalists ruling through terror is not high on my list of probable futures.


      Report this

      115

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Even if it is a big problem – much cheaper to adapt, and it is well known that it is cheaper to adapt than to mitigate.

        However to be a big problem…?

        Do you have any proof that the climate system is governed by net +ve feedbacks to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

        Oh – that’s right – such proof doesn’t exist does it…


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Up The Workers!

    Any chance of reporting this friendly (Austrian or Australian) “systematic musicologist” to the “Simon Wiesenthal” organization?

    They seem to have an abiding interest in people who exhibit ‘progressive’ views like his. He loathes carbon dioxide, but can obviously see a profitable use for “Zyklon B” on ‘untermenschen’ who don’t share his ‘master race’ views. Sieg Heil!! (His crematorium ovens will certainly warm the world, if nothing else does).

    The thought occurs that as an economist, maybe Wayne Swan is a passable “systematic musicologist”. An ‘economist’, after all, is a sort of ‘big picture’ accountant with delusions of adequacy, but lacking the accountant’s numeracy skills and sparkling, effervescent personality. As Swan obviously fails to come up to that definition of an ‘economist’, maybe he could impress his fellow Cabinet members by informing them that he is finally ‘coming out’ as a long-term closet “systematic musicologist”.

    By the time his simian Cabinet colleagues work out what he said, Tony Abbott and his team of people who can accurately read, write and add up, will be well on the way to fixing up the A.L.P.’s stuff-ups – AGAIN!.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Anton

    Shame on U Graz if they do not sack him for this. Perhaps he has a great future as one of Julia’s advisers?


    Report this

    100

  • #
    llew Jones

    Monckton’s “Bethlehem and the rat-hole problem” may provide the least embarrassing escape route for alarmist true believers who, on the kindest assessment, have been taken for an unscientific ride.

    Here’s his Christmas flavored conclusion:

    “However vicious and cruel the true-believers in the global-warming fantasy have been to those few of us who have dared publicly to question their credo that has now been so thoroughly discredited by events, we should make sure that the rat-hole we dig for their escape from their lavish folly is as commodious as possible.”

    “If all else fails, we can pray for them as He prayed looking down from the Cross on the world He had created.

    Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/25/bethlehem-and-the-rat-hole-problem/#more-76314


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Catamon

      Do people STILL keep trying to insist hat daH Monkers has any, actual, you know, credibility?? He’s a showman, thats all.


      Report this

      04

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Debunk him than – should be easy.

        But please – no strawmen – deal with what he actually says and not what you imagine that he is saying.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Catamon

          Debunk him than – should be easy.

          Been done. :)

          In 5 parts no less.


          Report this

          01

          • #
            llew Jones

            Monckton gives about the best reason to doubt the credibility of potholer54 aka “the caveman” on climate science namely that he was a science writer for the Guardian. And in a two for the price of one Watts unmasks the caveman as Peter Hadfield.

            A bit of water has gone under the bridge since then and Monckton’s skepticism was….. what shall we call it? Prescient? Or perhaps it takes a bit brighter student to get into Cambridge, even if only as a classicist, than the intellectual capacity required of your average yobbo alarmist climate science writer? Take your choice.

            Otherwise here is the Lord’s response, curt and certainly not in five boring videos:

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/11/monckton-responds-to-potholer54/


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Catamon

            Its certainly an interesting exchange isn’t it. daH Monkers does his insult and bluster routine, while not actually rebuting anything, and Hadfield politely makes him look a fool….again.

            Still, lots of vim and vigor from daH Monkers, and his fanbois seem happy with it. I wonder if any of the subsequent commenters actually read what Hadfield wrote??


            Report this

            01

  • #
    PaddikJ

    Cross-posted from WUWT, and thanks to Jo & Andy Wilkins for the holiday cheer!:

    I must be punch-drunk from wrapping presents & reading this – someone posted his email address and I actually wrote & sent this:

    ===================

    Dear Prof. Parncutt,

    Re: Your thoughtful Final Solution to those who don’t share your viewpoint (I note that you were raised and educated down under – did these Teutonic tendencies just sort of rub off on you?): Does one have to be unbalanced and highly suggestable, or just an imbecile, to become a “Systematic Musicologist”? Is it a matter of being gifted, or does it require years and years of training?

    Merry Christmas,
    Patrick Johnson

    P.S.: BTW, even though I took my M.Mus – Theory/Composition in the late 70’s, and even though we live close to half a world apart and were educated half a world apart, and I have been doing Architecture for a living for over 25 years, and you are not really a musician, I still felt a twinge of embarrassment and the need for a shower after reading your tirade. Well done!

    ==================

    But wait, there’s more! He apparently organized a conference with the fetching title of “Synergizing musicological epistemologies” and another one called, albeit not quite as liltingly, “Conference on Applied Interculturality.” Strayhorn and Gershwin and Berg and Brahms and Mozart, etc, must be positively beaming from above.

    Merry Christmas from Denver!


    Report this

    110

  • #

    [...] Death threats anyone? Austrian Prof: global warming deniers should be sentenced to death « JoNova: … [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DougS

    Is it the first of April according to the Mayan calendar?

    That’s the only explanation I can think of for this idiocy.

    Or perhaps he’s been smoking something he shouldn’t!


    Report this

    30

  • #

    [...] exposure of his death-penalty dissertation on several sceptical blogs yesterday, Prof. Richard Parncutt took down and rewrote the page on the University [...]


    Report this

    10

  • #
    La Maison Dieu

    The page is back online with changed content (last updated 25 December 2012)

    http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/climatechange.html

    Minority Report anyone?


    Report this

    10

  • #

    Tallbloke’s Talkshop has an update

    After exposure of his death-penalty dissertation on several sceptical blogs yesterday, Prof. Richard Parncutt took down and rewrote the page on the University of Graz website. I have reproduced his reconsidered Christmas message to the climate debate below. He makes much of his membership of human rights organisation Amnesty International. …

    Follow the link to the full article.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Jaymez

      Parncutt’s logic – or understanding of statistical certainty is dreadfully lacking.

      The guy doesn’t seem to understand uncertainty, no matter how small, means that it may not happen at all, yet he would sentence someone to death on the off chance that it would definitely happen! Idiot – yet he is a professor! UWA’s Professor of Psychology Stephan Lewandowsky and he would get along well! Parncutt teaches ‘The psychologhy of music’.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Stephen Harper

    Jo, please be assured that if “they” were ever to come for you, they would first have to climb over my dead body; and I suspect that there are thousands more out there who would echo this sentiment. Yes, you are a marked woman – but for all the right reasons, and not in the way the deluded, so-called “professor” imagines.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    theduke

    Posted this at WUWT:

    Like most Nazis, Parncutt is incapable of discerning irony. His proposal to exterminate “deniers” around the world is a glaring example. “Denier” is a term that derives from “Holocaust denier,” that is, people who think the Holocaust, in which millions were rounded up and murdered, was a figment of the Western imagination. That he would come up with a similar (final) solution for those of us who have been labeled as such is a classic example of unintentional irony.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    jorgekafkazar

    Imagine my surprise when I learned that Parncutt wasn’t an Austrian from Braunau am Inn, but was from Down Under, another leftist Wustralian.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Ace

    The climate change topic raises issues of a practical and ethical nature. There is no debate on any of these issues, just an established dogma. There is no point whatsoever trying to argue about it, because itwould be like trying to persuade a Talebani to become a Christian. However, there is one simple and very effective answer to these sort of idiots.

    Forgive me if I have floated this before but it needs to be repeated everywhere as often as possible. The refutation of the climate change dogma (irrespective oif what or how climate change is or affects us) is found in three letters: DDT.

    It is very simple. hoistorically factual and irrefutable. In the early days of the programme to fight Malaria by killing the flies that carry it using DDT the success rate was such that itwould have been completely eradicated by the early Sixties. Then Rachel Carson wrote “Silent Spring”, an attack on DDT. DDT is harmless to humans. You can eat it. But as a direct result of Carson and the nascent Environmentalist movement DDT was so regulated as to be effectively banned. The usual fascists will try to argue that it would not have succeeded anyway but the facts are that as long as itcontinued the programmed did succeed. Only Environmentalism prevented the continuation of the programme. Malaria thrives. Roughly 5 million people a year die as a direct result of the disease. This takes no account of the secondary effects ofthese deaths and of the many millions more who survive but as chronic sufferers.

    The math is simple.5 million a year for fifty years is 250 million.Thismeans thatas a matter offact, Environmentalism has killed more people than NAZIsm,Stalinism and Maoism combined. Environmentalism is by far the largest killer in history, even exceeding the Bubonic Plague.

    More to the point, whilst fools speculate about climate change killing hundreds of millions (compared to what) of people who, as a matter of fact, do not exist, it is already equally a matter of fact that Environmentalists have killed more than this number.

    In the present instance, its a happy coincidence that the quoted idiot waffles about some female hero…because he would have in mind someone like Rachel Carson. A woman who by her heroic outrage against the slaughter of insects has caused more death and pain than any other single person who ever lived. By a very large margin.

    This is the one and only riposte to climatechange fascists that we need. Remember it. Use it. Circulate it.

    http://www.3billionandcounting.com/


    Report this

    70

    • #
      john robertson

      Bingo Ace, add in eugenics, if you notice the damage done to the worlds poor, predominantly brown people, by mostly wealthy white hypocrites.
      By denying cheap reliable electricity to the poor, we ensure that their grinding poverty continues.
      Is it a accident that burning corn for fuel, starves more of the poor?
      But citing climate change, the world bank and IMF will not provide loans to finance hydroelectric or coal fired electricity in Africa.Ironic or planned? I wonder, cause every one of these eco-nuts, I put the question to, retreat to the statement that there are too many people on this planet.
      This being their real motivation, fear and cause.
      Crimes of omission ? Or Intention?


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Fred D

    The 3rd Reich revisited.
    No wonder they’re called Eco-Nazi’s.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    michael hammer

    Of course what his new epistle assumes yet again is that taking action has no cost or implications. That this is not the case should be so obvious that I can only assume the good professor is blinded by his ideology. Its usually called the law of unintended consequences – sort of the counter to the precautionary principle.

    In this case, some of this has already come about. The growth of bio fuel industry (pushed by warmists and a direct consequence of their advocacy) has caused wide spread food shortages and price increases. This has already caused many deaths in the 3rd world. So we need to balance the actually of large scale deaths against the hypothetical large scale deaths which might or might not occur in the future. For me the real world trumps the hypothetical world.

    Of course there is another solution, a just possible win win solution. If we could find a new cheap energy source which could provide base load power reliably (no not solar or wind since they cant provide continuous base load power and certainly not at an affordable price) and did not have CO2 emissions maybe everyone would win. Since we are discussing low probability hypothetical situations maybe its something to consider. In this context I invite readers to take a look at the website http://www.lenrproof.com . Given western society is pouring billions into climate change research I would advocate most strongly that they pour a few million into determining if the data on this site is reliable. To put this in perspective there are now around 22 million people in Aus. If each chipped in 20 cents we would have $4 million for the investigation. Worth it? I think so, I find it difficult to see that 20c per person spent on an investigation could have major unintended consequences. If it turns out to be reliable maybe we should redirect the billions away from climate change research and into this. Maybe the good professor should try advocating something constructive, but then again, is his motivation solving a problem or an exercise in totalitarian power?

    As a rider of even less certainty but even higher payoff, there is a guy in Italy by the name of Andrea Rossi who is claiming that he will be installing a 1 megawatt system for a commercial electricity generator in February 2013. He has been making increasingly ambitious claims now for over a year with some supportive although not conclusive evidence. If he happened to be right, in 3 months or so the whole charade would be over.


    Report this

    31

  • #
    Ace

    Michael Hammer (@140) you are missing the point about Environmentalism. Environmentalism is driven not by a genuine concern for environmental issues but by a deeply felt need on the part of people with personality deficits to have something that validates their compensatory drive to feel superior to “the masses”.

    The whole point about Environmentalism as it is with any totalitarian movrement is to dictate how other people should live their lives,and environmental issues are how, not why.

    As such there will never be a “win/win” situation with such people. The end they have in mind is the curtailment of Western Consumer society (many of them are of course simply Marxists) and Environmental scares are a means to that end, not the motive for their zealotry.

    Any “solution” you will find they already have “reasons” to oppose. Anything remotely like nuclear power is to these people werboten. Anything that permits other people continuing to lead fulfilled and heedless lives is to them anathama.

    They are deeply troubled people and their deepest desire is to piss on our parade: they want to share their misery. You will never change that.Communists, Taleban, Racists, NAZIs, Scientologists, Environmentalists, they are all cut from the same cloth.


    Report this

    111

    • #
      John Brookes

      Right and wrong Ace. Just because some environmental concerns are lunacy doesn’t mean all of them are.


      Report this

      312

    • #
      Ace

      John Brookes (@141), you miss another point: there are two types of “environmentalist”, those “original” environmentalists (such as myself) who cared about such things as actual pollution (that is, actually harmeful substances released into the environment) who were motivated to prevent such calamities as Bhopal and Seveso, THEN the neo-environmentalists who we might refer to as Environmentalists (capitalised “E”) who fit the description I gave.

      I think most people reading here understand this distinction already. Most of us were or are “environmentalists” of the old skool. My comment previously took this as “read” and assumed we were talking about (to use John Kerry’s own self-descriptive) the New Environmentalists.

      Perhaps we shouldalways refer to these as “Neo-Environmentalist” to make it blindingly obvious what we are talking about.


      Report this

      51

  • #

    [...] the other hand, Professor Richard Partcunt sorry, Parncutt hopes "deniers" will be sentenced to death. Feel the Christmas spirit flow…! Bookmark on Delicious Digg this post Recommend on Facebook [...]

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    If anybody needed further proof that CAGW is a GENOCIDAL CULT OF DEATH, look no further than the insane ramblings of a would be MASS MURDERER.

    I take this as a very serious death threat and have lodged my complaint with my local police department.


    Report this

    132

  • #
    Sonny

    Question for you Richard Hitler Parncu*t,

    If Global warming deniers can be exexuted for the hypothetical “hundreds of millions” of heat related deaths in the future, can they also be retrospectively held responsible and executed for the hundreds of people who are at this very moment FREEZING TO DEATH????

    Should I be put to death for pointing out evidence that contradicts the eco-fascist global warming narrative?

    Does my contribution on Jo Nova’s blog blacklist me to your gas chambers and crematoria?

    That raises a good question. What method of killing does a “pacifist” “systematic musicologist” prefer?

    Homicidal gas chambers?
    Firing squad?
    Lethal Injection?
    Beheading?
    Electric chair?
    Immolation?

    Come on Patncu*t, why don’t you put some bones on your plans for a FINAL SOLUTION?

    http://mobile.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20836979


    Report this

    151

  • #
    ExWarmist

    RPs argument is based on the idea that non-existent entities (future generations) can be ascribed ethical status, such that we should take into account a predicted harm that would occur to them.

    Several problems.

    [1] The predicted harm has no evidential basis.

    [2] The attribution of ethical status to non-existent entities is easily refuted by an argument based on Reductio ad absurdum

    For example,

    let us accept that non-existent entities have ethical status, then we should also attribute ethical status to Intelligent Pigs with Wings (aka iPigs).

    iPigs have all the same logical features as future generations of humans.

    [1] They have no existence now.
    [2] They cannot experience any harm now.
    [3] They may or may not exist at some point in the future – i.e. there existence is contingent. – (if APPLE get into GE in a big way…)
    [4] Any harm that they may experience cannot be proved, it can only be assumed.

    RP also fails to take into account that future generations may well have substantially more advanced technologies available to them then we do, and may well have a standard of living much higher than we do now, and yet would punish individuals now based on an unprovable fantasy belief of future harm.

    Weird, and lacking in any sort of logic.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Kenny

    And he says he has the right to free speech but denies the deniers the same right? Zieg Hiel you pompous twat!


    Report this

    100

  • #
    mfo

    Did Parncutt fall on his head as a baby? [SNIP. Keep his family out it please! - Jo] odd man with his sinister murderous tendencies. He may have changed the wording but we all know that what he first wrote was what he meant and in doing so possibly committed a hate crime punishable by two years imprisonment. Careful with that soap Dicky.

    Parncutt is very keen on the idea of Victim Mentality and likes to cite Adolf et al:

    “Nazi Germany is a well-known example: In “Mein Kampf”, Hitler presented himself and the Germans as victims. He used this victim account to justify attacking neigboring countries and suppressing minority populations – an extreme case of offender-victim reversal.

    “Constructed social groups such as “foreigners” or “Muslims” are turned into scapegoats by fabricating or exaggerating stories about their evil ways. This increases the incidence and intensity of discrimination against them. They are the true victims, and the political extremists are the true offenders.”
    http://www.uni-graz.at/~parncutt/victim.html

    “Political extremists” like Parncutt, who study Mein Kampf, “are the true offenders” and really shouldn’t be allowed out alone.

    82

    • #
      John Brookes

      What is with the gratuitous naming of his wife and children? Did they support his arguments? Is naming them in any way relevant?

      And gee, you can’t study Mein Kampf? Because if you did, you might be aware when those seeking power are using its techniques, and that would give you an unfair advantage. No, we should have to live without a knowledge of history. That way when it repeats it will all seem new and wonderful to us.


      Report this

      315

      • #
        mfo

        Parncutt made them relevant to his career by naming them on his CV, which is in the public domain.

        Do those people Parncutt wants to kill not have families too? Are they irrelevant?

        By the way what “techniques” are you referring to in Mein Kampf? Your knowledge of history is on a par with your understanding of climate science.


        Report this

        71

  • #
    michael hammer

    Hi Ace;

    I take your point and I accept it might be a reasonable description of some of the greens. However, I suspect at least some of the claimed “consensus” are going along through genuine belief, ignorance or intimidation and should “low energy nuclear reactions” (AKA cold fusion) actually work it would not only be a huge boon to society but it would give them a very graceful way out. Supposedly no radiation or radioactive waste. I note that both Mitsubishi and Toyota are claiming successful transmutation as well, corroborating each others work. The thing Chris Monkton calls a rat hole – not that I like that expression, I would prefer it referred to as a graceful way of retracting.

    There are times when I confess I just find it fun to daydream and at such times i wonder what would happen if LENR turned out to be true and governments around the world said in effect “climate scientists, thanks for all your work highlighting a problem, you have convinced us of the need for action and for that reason we are diverting all funding for climate research into LENR funding instead so as to find the solution as fast as possible”. Would the CAGW story then change? I wonder.

    cheers


    Report this

    50

    • #
      John Brookes

      I’m hanging my hat on the ITER project to deliver fusion power.


      Report this

      17

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

        John, have you heard about the new Batman movie?

        A Climate Nutter develops fusion power in Greenland and threatens to melt the Ice Cap.

        But, of course, batty saves the day and fusion power is consigned to the future again.

        KK


        Report this

        30

      • #
        ExWarmist

        There is 10,000 years of Uranium electrical power available if using 4th generation reactors and mining seawater for Uranium.

        Almost current technology can solve electrical power issues for baseload w/o resort to flimsy renewables.


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Ace

      No, fundamentally nothing would change. Simply the “goal posts” would be moved and the terms of objection altered to keep the fears (and funding) alive.

      I welcome these projects too. But dont expect a success in any energy generating realm to put an end to the issue. For a start, Nuclear is the biggest bogeyman of this Environmentalist movement. It doesn’t matter what it is if it has the word “nuclear” associated with it. You know low levels of radiation are actually beneficial to organisms. Try telling that to an Environmentalist.

      As far as the conventional high-energy (high budget, high salary, high subsidy, highly long time…like 60 years…to produce no viable result) fusion goes there are whole new “issues” raised to enable “Environmentalist” objections. Specifically large scale fusion power would require corresponding resources of Helium. As I understand it there are so few Helium resources on Earth that large balloon projects are now liable to be scrapped due to the shortage. Getting it (“Helium 3″)from the Moon does actually take us into the realm of science fiction (which fusion research occupies already) but in any case would inevitably raise Environmentalist objections. One little spacecraft could bring back a shed-load of Helium but getting the stuff out of the Lunar soil would require a vast effort supported by a very large and visible programme of launches. Even now Environmentalists are trying to shut down Richard Bransons piddly little sub-orbital schemes. Imagine the difficulty of getting a Lunar mining project past the political stage. That the environmental impact ofsuch launches is negligible will have no bearing upon the issue, as this very debate illustrates. Environmentalism is all smoke and mirrors.

      No, there is absolutely no prospect the narrative (“Man kills Mother Nature by being Human”) will EVER change for those who BELIEVE in that meme.

      I hope and pray that the Debt Tsunami that threatens all of us in very real terms does not ever break shore. But if it does the silver lining will be that all government funding of these people and the agencies who employ them will end. A bitter path but the only one that would silence them and dislodge their purchase on our culture.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Anton

        Maybe you should hope that it would wreck the Welfare culture too, which has enervated the peoples of Western civilisation – and soon.

        I too support ITER.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Ponsonby_Britt

    I’m interested in the criteria that would make one a ‘suitably qualified scientist’.


    Report this

    50

  • #
  • #
    RedneckRuss

    If you want me Prof, come & get me I’ll be ready & waiting.

    RussR


    Report this

    10

  • #

    Hi Jo,
    Full barking mad? That’s the understatement of the year!

    In one fell swoop, Parncutt has singlehandedly out-rednecked Pastor Fred Phelps. And that’s no small accomplishment. (CAGW skeptics outnumber Gays and Lesbians–at least in the USA.)

    What’s up with those bloody Austrians? Methinks they need more moral fiber in their diets.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Ace

      Its interesting that he cites Anders Brevic.

      By Parncuts own criteria he would be “justified” to do exactly what Brevicdid albeit against opponents of Environmentalism.

      However, I think its a mistake to label such people as mad or “looney”. This seems to let their colleagues off the hook by severing the ideological commonality of their position. In any case, its not literally true. Even Brevic was not found to be exhibiting a mental illness.

      On the contrary, what is SO scary is just how “normal” these people are!


      Report this

      31

  • #
    theduke

    Regarding Parncutt’s re-write of the post: he’s edited out the disgusting, genocidal, kill-the-deniers stuff, but he hasn’t retracted it. Nor has he apologized for it. It’s still archived on WebCite for all to see– much to his chagrin, I’m sure.

    He also repeatedly states without citing sources that global warming is a matter of life or death that could kill millions or tens of millions of people. He needs to cite studies that make and prove this claim. I’ve never read one that was even remotely persuasive on that point. If he’s genuinely worried about it, he needs to explain why and who has convinced him that death of millions is a real possibility. If he can’t do that, he’s just another fear-monger looking for people to hate and kill because they don’t see things his way.

    I earlier referred to him as an intellectual coward, and the cleansing of his site of his murderous, fascist views without retracting them only confirms my evaluation.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Peter Crawford

    This chap is not to be taken seriously.

    Remember: Those that can DO, those that can’t TEACH. Those that can’t teach take up a professorship in a non-subject at an obscure university.


    Report this

    41

  • #
    andy

    Beg to differ

    He also repeatedly states without citing sources that global warming is a matter of life or death that could kill millions or tens of millions of people. He needs to cite studies that make and prove this claim.

    This claim is baseless until it happens citing a paper does not reality make. Proof is not found in studies it is confirmed over time by repeated observation.


    Report this

    20

  • #

    When an argument can only be supported by meaningless anecdotes or computer projections based on dubious initial conditions, what else is left for the agw crowd?

    Be assured the argument is being lost by the agw crowd, if they must stoop to executions for deniers as “the final solution”.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    angry

    More worthwhile reading on these DANGEROUS GREEN COMMUNISTS…..

    Earth worshipper likens sceptics to Christ-killers:-

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/earth_worshipper_likens_sceptics_to_christ_killers/

    Save the planet! Dehumanise the sceptics:-

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/save_the_planet_dehumanise_the_sceptics/

    ‘Execute’ Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: ‘At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers’ — ‘Shouldn’t we start punishing them now?

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1096/Execute-Skeptics-Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers–Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Sam Pyratte

    Richard Parncutt is a demented freak.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    alex (ready for the death train to Graz)

    Is a musicologist a failed musician? Just thinking. Surely a musicologist must be a total scientific failure.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    alex (ready for the death train to Graz)

    Meanwhile the planet has commenced its temperature drop with record setting land snow covers in the N hemisphere and record low temperature in Russia, China Canada….


    Report this

    40

  • #

    Hope everybody had a great Christmass?

    Anyone here read up about melting in West Antarctica being much higher than previously thought? That AGW just isn’t going away is it?


    Report this

    214

    • #
      Sonny

      Do you want us all dead as well Maxine?


      Report this

      91

    • #
      angry

      To the “maxine troll”,

      NOT wishing you a merry CHRISTmas !!


      Report this

      41

    • #

      Ice doesn’t remain for long on an active volcano.

      There’s no need for me to write any more because “Maxine” only reads the headlines.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        MadJak

        Bernd,

        “Maxine” only reads the headlines.

        Really? I thought the politburo reads the headline as she he it waits for the politburos unionist thugs lawyers interpretation of the headline.

        You never can be too careful – you wouldn’t want to send out the wrong spin… That could end up with another “I agree with whatever she said whatever that was because I don’t want to be called a misogynist” moment.


        Report this

        30

    • #
      Mick

      Meanwhile Arctic ice is growing rapidly with levels now higher than in 2006,2007,2010. Thought it was GLOBAL warming you selective headline grabbing troll.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        John Brookes

        Ahhh yes. The much vaunted recovery.


        Report this

        19

        • #
          ExWarmist

          JB,

          Parncutt’s whole argument rests on the idea that non-existent entities are ethically equivalent to your children.

          It’s absurd – have a think about it.


          Report this

          30

        • #
          wayne, s. Job

          The North pole is one of our long term thermostats when the sea ice is at a low ebb the oceans are dumping heat from previous decades. All the heat pumped in to the oceans from a rampant sun in the 20th century is almost gone. Notice if you will no warming for the odd while and in the last few years the start of cooling in even the fudged records.
          The prophecies of the high priests of warmanisting have been a little optimistic, and sadly JOHN, the coming decades will in all probability show how very overly optimistic they were.
          I have seen some of your comments on the warmister blogs you are a real suck.
          Merry christmas.


          Report this

          10

    • #
      Ace

      Do you repudiate the musicologists viewpoint?


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Justa Joe

      It seems like everything is always worse than some warmists thought. Anyone could pretty much say that, “it’s worse than I thought” about anything. It’s a fairly vague proclaimation. Sea ice extent around Antarctica hit a record high this year.

      http://phys.org/news/2012-10-antarctic-sea-ice-high.html


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I have just finished eating a whole two kilo box of cherries, on my own.

      The trouble with New Zealand Cherries (especially the ones from Marlborough, at the top of the South Island), is that once you start eating them, it is almost impossible to stop.

      I bought that box directly from the orchard, so I knew they were fresh.

      I saw Maxine working there, by the way. I wasn’t surprised, I always knew she was a Cherry Picker.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Grant (NZ)

        Great effort on the cherries Rereke. Hopefully they do not induce flatulence and lead to GHG emissions and liabilities under the ETS. For me, the biggest mystery in the universe is “why would anyone sell cashew nuts in a re-sealable bag?”


        Report this

        20

      • #
        ExWarmist

        After approximately 30 hours of feasting, drinking and socialising…. I’m over it.


        Report this

        30

    • #
      wayne, s. Job

      Maxine,
      Take a deep breathe and a good slow long look around.It is not getting warmer it is getting colder, record snow and cold temperatures are not AGW. That the start and end of the growing season are getting closer together for many people would tend to suggest that more warming would be a blessing. It is cold that destroys civilisations not warming a few degrees of warming would be wonderful for the entire world. Merry Christmas Maxine


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Vitaly

      The paper on Byrd station is pseudo science and it is astonishing that it has passed peer review. Byrd lacks data and your evidence for warming is based on numerical interpolation with a huge margin of error in order to “fill in the gaps”.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Joe V.

      Do you mean, it’s worse than we thought , Maxine ? Now where have I heard that before ? Aren’t the old ones the best one’s Eh :-)


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Alistair Pope

    Dear Richard,
    Let me apologise for my fellow sceptics who just cannot see the elegance of your tried, true and tested final solution to all this boring debate. Instead of squabbling over scientific data (just because it fails to support warming), failed computer models, execrable pseudo-climate science or musicology (was that you in ‘What’s Up, Doc?’), cons, frauds, cheating, impersonations for the cause, lying for grants and dumb politicians why don’t we cut to the chase and get down to the serious business of how to eliminate the sceptical deniers?
    I think that you would agree with me that Auschwitz has to be the preferred option in terms of efficiency, would you not? Naturally, as a precautionary measure, we should make the deaths a family affair so that this sort of independent thinking does not reappear in future generations. I would certainly nominate you as Commandant as you have the calm, wimpy persona that will calm new arrivals. Might i suggest that you wear white gloves as you will want to ensure you keep your hands clean from any unpleasantness that occurs?
    When you are totally unjustifiably sacked by your university, in my opinion, please return to Australia as we have universities here that would welcome the loony tunes that occupy your mind.
    PS. Normally I post under a pseudonym, but in this case I want you to know who your opposition is.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Bollocks

    It’s a pisstake


    Report this

    30

  • #
    shauno

    This is guy is a genuine lunatic. If they are so concerned of a changing climate killing millions of people why don’t they lobby Governments for funding for a truly proven and known threat which is an Asteroid or Comet strike. These events have happened many times before and will kill millions. Not like climate change which we can easily adapt to and can do nothing about. Where as for a small fraction of the money spent on the climate change industry we could catalogue every object greater in size than a few metres in the Solar system likely to cross Earth’s orbit and develop ways to counteract the threat. No money to be made with this though I guess so the Socialists wont jump on board.


    Report this

    30

  • #

    [...] Death threats anyone? Austrian Prof: global warming deniers should be sentenced to death Richard Parncutt [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Pat Cerra

    What is it with Austrian misfits like this guy anyway always trying to introduce a Final Solution?
    I think he is just pissed that he was born 70 odd years too late ..would have been a big hit with those views at the burgerbraukeller in Munich….


    Report this

    40

  • #
    JM

    [snip. I don't think it's helpful to ascribe National genes to this. There are tyrants in every land - Jo]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ParaLarry

    F**ing liberal fascist nazi wannabe.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    shauno

    John Brookes has that sly grin on his face of a man that knows he has been caught out peddling a con but has already thought of some one else to blame.


    Report this

    41

  • #
    wayne, s. Job

    We need a census and a statistical guru to see whether Australia has produced per head of population the most educated idiots in the world. Then we can achieve fame in the GUINNESS BOOK OF RECORDS.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    michael hammer

    Hi Ace;
    I find it interesting, skeptics argue that consensus is meaningless in science, what counts is evidence – completely true of course as has been pointed out many times before. However when it comes to a slightly different field aka cold fusion many of the same skeptics claim it is nonsense which has been thoroughly debunked. ie: consensus says it is bunk so it must be.

    Do skeptics believe their own rhetoric? Yes the claims of cold fusion or more accurately low energy nuclear reactions do seem to be highly speculative and are certainly counter consensus but then that applied to a large number if not the majority of radically new concepts. eg: the heliocentric model of the solar system, the periodic table, Rutherford’s model of the atom, plate tectonics, the big bang theory to name a few. Most are violently opposed before eventual acceptance. Ultimately as skeptics point out, and what I believe, what counts is EVIDENCE not what the majority of scientists think. I don’t know if cold fusion is the scam of the century or the next huge breakthrough but I do believe that the answer lies in experimental evidence. What I see is that over the last 20 years the apparent evidence in favour of it being true is starting to mount up and it is now coming from a rapidly increasing number of multiple sources (which to me makes the idea of a scam less likely). That gets me interested enough to start to follow the field. The website http://www.lenrproof.com seeks to document that evidence and I believe we have reached a point where those claims warrant independent verification.

    This may seem to be all completely off topic but it strikes me that the debate over CAGW can never be resolved because you are pitting logic and evidence against a religion. The article starting this thread is simply an expression of religious zeal as are many of the great atrocities perpetrated on man and the world. My prediction is that the debate will never be won or lost, reporters and scientists will never admit they were ever wrong. Instead, something will come along which makes it irrelevant and the subject will fade away while the world moves on to the next religious inspired crisis. I guess that’s your shifting of the goal posts. Fracking I don’t think is radial enough to do it even though it speaks strongly against imminent end to fossil fuel. I wonder if maybe cold fusion could be the something which does it.

    To me, even though I do not believe in CAGW, I do believe mankind is outgrowing chemical energy and we need to find the next level of technology.


    Report this

    11

  • #
  • #
  • #

    U Graz issued the following statement:
    Die Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz ist bestürzt und entsetzt über die Ansicht und distanziert sich davon klar und deutlich. Die Universität legt größten Wert, dass die Wahrung aller Menschenrechte zu den obersten Prinzipien der Universität Graz gehört und menschenverachtende Aussagen mit aller Entschiedenheit zurückgewiesen werden. Die Universität weist zusätzlich mit Nachdruck darauf hin, dass eine rein persönliche Ansicht, die nicht im Zusammenhang mit der wissenschaftlichen Arbeit steht, auf universitären Webseiten nicht toleriert wird.

    The University of Graz is shocked and appalled by the article und rejects its arguments entirely. The University places considerable importance on respecting all human rights and does not accept inhuman statements. Furthermore, the University of Graz points out clearly that a personal and individual opinion which is not related to scientific work cannot be tolerated on websites of the University.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    JM

    The fact remains that it is a second Austrian with final solution on his mind.

    JM


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Josualdo

    The university of Graz, via its Dean for Humanities, sent a strong-worded reply to the emails sent, saying more or less they wouldnt have nothing of Parncutt’s ideas. Parncutt now hás a public apology on that page
    http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/climatechange.html


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Adam Gallon

    Looks like he’s been summoned to the Headmaster’s study, been given a sound thrashing & told to write a letter of apology in his best hand writing.
    “wish to apologize publicly to all those who were offended by texts that were previously posted at this address. I made claims that were incorrect and comparisons that were completely inappropriate, which I deeply regret. I would also like to thank all those who took the time and trouble to share their thoughts in emails.

    In October 2012, I wrote the following on this page: “I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake.” I wish to confirm that this is indeed my opinion. I have been a member of Amnesty International for at least 14 years, and I admire and support their consistent stance on this issue.

    Richard Parncutt, 27 December 2012

    The opinions expressed on this page are the personal opinions of the author.”

    Not sure where the Amnesty membership comes into things.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Sonny

    Wow,
    Two apologies in week! First one from John Brookes for his analogy between some sceptics on this blog and pedophiles and now from Richard Parncutt for calling for the death penalty for prominent skeptics.

    Now, if only we could get an apology from everyone else who has peddled this global warming and a refund to all people who have been it’s victims. (all Australian tax payers for a start)


    Report this

    40

  • #
    doctor rob

    We must all have an Orwellian two minutes hate daily directed at carbon dioxide (Goldstein) and it’s Brotherhood (the deniers) who must have public executions or be vaporized. Read the book. It’s all in there. 1984 lives in our time.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    [...] Professor’s page has since been deleted, presumably by his university. Jo Nova is hosting an excellent discussion.  Reason is under attack, as is free speech. This call for executions is extreme, but it is simply [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Percy Phelps

    Let’s say for (a fleeting) minute that global warming is real. If it is from natural causes it is rightly in the province of scientists to study (because science is the study of natural phenomena). If, however, as the alarmists say, it’s cause is anthropological, i.e. not “natural”, then it’s study is in the province of the engineer (if you want proof of that look up the difference between a scientist and an engineer on google – or anywhere else for that matter).

    As I am an engineer, I can tell you any published data regarding global climate change that I have had access to (and I have been studying it for 7 years now) is well within the range of “measurement error”, and any chart that shows an upward trend is, to say the least, open to dispute.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      john robertson

      Percy a while ago WUWT or The Chiefio ran a truly great graph. It was the temperature averages with the temperatures removed, leaving only the adjustments.
      Recently it was pointed out that the IPCC team stopped using 15C as their global mean average and switched to 14C, while still claiming 0.6C warming. No reasons given no notice of change.
      But the posting on measurement methods and errors was most revealing.
      The official data is so mangled that we could be cooling, but we wouldn’t and don’t know.
      Burt Rutan’s point that, until an engineering grade case can be made for CAGW, its nonsense, works for me and without that case governments have no business making policies.
      Now that the media propaganda wing is reduced to blaming weather on acts of men, the scam is going to end. We are back to folklore and shamanism , every culture in the world has words for this kind of fraud.


      Report this

      30

  • #

    [...] JoNova: Death threats anyone? Austrian Prof: global warming deniers should be sentenced to death [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] identified to be terminated (see desmogblog list).] There are many reports about this fanatic, and here is a good one at Australia’s JoNova [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    I note the professor’s apology here.

    One thing is certain, Professor Parncutt and others who dare make inflammatory comments like he did will now surely always engage brain before opening mouth.

    From all accounts, Professor Parncutt is probably a very good professor. If that is the case, then hopefully his university will not destroy his career because of his comments. No doubt, he will certainly have learnt a huge lesson from this experience.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    jonah stiffhausen

    I suppose we can’t begrudge the old booby his university sinecure, however it would be a concern if the dotty prof ever ventured into politics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    nimbunje

    Well what this highly qualified musician says should equally apply to the IPCC and their climate fraud .


    Report this

    10

  • #
    44Guyton

    [SNIP. - J]

    When the dear professor can not win a serious arguement the conversation evolves to physical harm and death threats. The professor and the Third Reich appear to share a common philosphy as well. Very unfortunate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    44Guyton

    Unlike the evil professor, Al Gore has benefited from a “global warming” scam by increaseing his wealth from $10 million U.S.dollars in 2000 to and estimated $100 million U.S. dollars in 2012. Now if you disagree with Al Gore and you are a “global warming denier” he replies; B.S.!! That is Al Gore’s scientific reply!!! Al Gore isn’t a scientist or engineer just a SCAM artist making his living in a “green”, “global warming” con game.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Peter Pan

    How thoughtful of professor. Well guys, the reason he calls for death of the skeptics is because he has no arguments. All the authoritarian regimes killed millions of people for that single reason-they had no arguments, but they had power, and the reason they had so much power was because they confiscated the guns. Those who give up their firearms for ploughs will plough for those who didn’t.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    jay

    Professor, if someone is able to prove with scientific certainty WHY a phenomenon exists, then the Scientific Method compels that person to also explain, with the same level of scientific certainty, why anomolies, or contradictions, to that phenomenon also exist. If you cannot, then your theory is not robust enough to be considered a scientific ‘law’ (such as Newton’s laws of motion) and is remains just a theory. Statistical probability has no place when determining the robustness of a theory. It either holds in all instances in the frame of reference to which you posit it, or it doesn’t. The Scientific Method, moreover, compels a researcher to be able to predict (if the research has been done correctly) when and how a phenomenon will occur through formulae. The models presented as proof of man-made global warming and the upcoming consequences thereof, are widely inconsistent and as such, leave one to conclude that the research which forms the basis of these models is flawed. As such, I do not believe we should be basing global social policy on flawed research. If that makes me a denier, then I’m a denier. But at least my denial is based on solid resoning and any scientist worth his salt would agree with the need to be able to prove mmgw through formulae that are able to predict climate patterns. Otherwise, all this scaremongering through psuedoscience stinks of political propoganda.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Vytas

    GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. Yes, and Richard Parncutt fall into a completely same category with Behring Breivik. Fans of mass murder with guns just because people say what he do not like.


    Report this

    20

  • #

    [...] might think it was because of people like this man – Richard Parncutt, Professor of Systematic Musicology at the University of Graz in A…, who argued on the university website (till he was embarrassed into taking his comments down) that [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eric Worrall

    The process for commuting the death penalty, with its long period of harsh labour, is if anything more obscene than the death threat itself.

    The lie the NAZIs placed above the entrances of concentration camps – Arbeit Macht Frei (work will make you free) – is an expression of similar sentiments.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Ce gauchiste convaincu commence par dire qu’il est normalement contre la peine de mort. Il cite l’exemple de tueurs de masse comme Breivik et explique que même pour eux, il serait contre la peine de mort [source] [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] might think it was because of people like this man – Richard Parncutt, Professor of Systematic Musicology at the University of Graz in Austr…, who argued on the university website (till he was embarrassed into taking his comments down) that [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] might think it was because of people like this man – Richard Parncutt, Professor of Systematic Musicology at the University of Graz in Austr…, who argued on the university website (till he was embarrassed into taking his comments down) that [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #

    [...] of anthropogenic global warming (1) are so endangering the planet that, if they do not recant, they should all be executed:Prof Richard Parncutt says:“I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Austrian Prof: Global Warming Deniers Should be Sentenced to Death [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Death threats anyone? Austrian Prof: global warming deniers should be sentenced to deathhttp://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/death-threats-anyone-austrian-prof-global-warming-deniers-should-be… [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] die ohne lauten Medienaufschrei in vollem Ernst wahlweise Weltdiktator werden wollen oder Andersdenkende hinrichten. Dass letztere die sacrosancte EU Bürokratie, für die Parlamentarismus nur Hinderlichkeit ist, [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] die ohne lauten Medienaufschrei in vollem Ernst wahlweise Weltdiktator werden wollen oder Andersdenkende hinrichten. Dass letztere die sacrosancte EU Bürokratie, für die Parlamentarismus nur Hinderlichkeit [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] die ohne lauten Aufschrei in vollem Ernst wahlweise Weltdiktator werden wollen oder Andersdenkende hinrichten. Dass jene die sacrosancte EU-Bürokratie, für die Parlamentarismus nur Hinderlichkeit ist, [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Death threats anyone? Austrian Prof: global warming deniers should be sentenced to death [...]


    Report this

    10

  • #

    Let me give a scientific analysis of the (assistant) professor in Musicology’s position – let me use the correct (ad hominum) academic label : Fokken Doos. I hereby declare I am fully aware of the ramifications of the above statement on my own career and I do appreciate that it will adversely affect future appointments that I may have obtained, but in the interests of balance in matters concerning global warming this label needs to be documented and linked to the name of Prof Richard Parncutt. Let us not trivialise the loss of species and the degradation because of human activity – but let us not use it as an excuse to erode individual liberties.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] a button by one of the enlightened true believers. It's not people on my side of the argument who write sentences like this: "For this reason I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers." [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] professor går ind for at klimaskeptikere skal henrettes. Like this:Like Loader… Kommentarer [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob

    You deniers are more malevolent than the Nazis. They only wanted to wipe out Jews. You’re prepared to gamble with the fate of the entire human species, in the name of short-term profits for Big Oil and Coal.

    I don’t even believe in the death penalty except for the most extreme cases, but you people deserve to die. If I had the power, I’d put bullets in your brains myself. You’re traitors to humanity, the worst scum who ever lived.

    [REPLY: So people who doubt that we can control the weather are murderous gamblers, but those who want to feed corn to cars instead of starving children are "good citizens". How many targets are on your list? Just the main "traitors" or the 30% of the population who think warming is natural? - Jo]


    Report this

    03

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      As the “deniers” that you so obviously loathe deny nothing but merely doubt the questionable conclusions reached on dodgy evidence, I am not sure why you feel such a pathological hatred.

      Why are those who consider the continued advancement of humanity to be destroyed?


      Report this

      30

  • #

    Are you a real malevolent sociopath, Bob – or only on the internet?

    I am interested, as I research things like the interaction of individuals on the internet. You put your view here as being based on ethics too. I wonder if Jo has noticed how often internet discussions include various chest-beating males trying to control and dominate?

    Regarding your actual comment, I have to congratulate you, it is very quotable. Thanks!


    REPLY: Jo says “oh yes” and “oh yes”.


    Report this

    20

  • #
  • #

    The statement issued by Parncutt, Professor of Systematic Musicology, sounds like a joke to me. Did he realize that he was speaking on a very serious issue? Well, he is just one among many people who bark without any reason. I don’t think we should discuss his absurd comments, logics and calculations.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “He knows, because he’s read a blog that pretends to be scientific and it says so. The same site resorts to ad homs, and kindergarden namecalling (like “denier” and “Christie Crocks”) and is debunked all over the internet, but the Prof is too poorly trained in reasoning to spot the cheap tricks, and he didn’t think to search for “SkepticalScience debunked”. Oops.”

    Haha … great source of information ><


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Radical Rodent

    As this seems to be a more recent look at Parncutt’s logic than one I commented on earlier, I shall post a copy of my original comment on Tallbloke’s blog, in a perhaps vain attempt to “fisk” his argument; I shall ignore the many grammatical and punctuation errors, despite him being a so-called academic:

    For years, hard-nosed scientists have been predicting global warming (GW) and its devastating consequences. For a reputable summary of arguments for and against GW, see skepticalscience.” (plus others, such as WUWT, etc).
    By “hard-nosed”, I presume you mean those scientists with whom you are in agreement. Those who do not agree with your philosophy are obviously “soft-nosed”, fools, charlatans, funded by “Big Oil”, or just plain bonkers.

    If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%.” I am not a mathematician, but it is obvious that you are not, either; this is utterly fallacious logic: if ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, then one million people are going to die with a probability of 10%. Actually, we are all going to die with a probability of 100%, but let’s not get too picky.

    When the earth’s temperature rises on average by more than two degrees, interactions between different consequences of global warming (reduction in the area of arable land, unexpected crop failures, extinction of diverse plant and animal species) combined with increasing populations mean that hundreds of millions of people may die from starvation or disease in future famines. Moreover, an unknown number may die from wars over diminishing resources … Even if that does not happen, thousands of plants and animals will become extinct. Islands, shorelines and coastal communities will disappear.
    All this seems to be stated as a fact; it is not a fact, it is merely a hypothesis. From what baseline is this two degrees rise? Now? Or some historical point when it was two degrees cooler than now? History is littered with examples of droughts, floods and other causes for unexpected crop failure; none of these have been attributed to GW in any way, or to anthropogenic GW (AGW), which is really what the present long-winded farrago is about. Do you remember the tales of the dust-bowls in the US in the 1930s? A long time before the acknowledged “catastrophic” increase in the hateful CO2; so, what caused it?

    So far, the political response to the threat of GW has been lots of talk and little action… But action is urgently needed. We are in a very real sense talking about something similar to the end of the world. What will it take to get people to sit up and listen?
    This sounds like fear-mongering; it is very much an attempt to whip up a frenzy: “We are in a very real sense talking about something similar to the end of the world.” Are we? Where is your evidence, let alone proof? I see no “end of the world” events, just the weather, doing what the weather often does: surprising us.

    Much more would have happened by now if not for the GW deniers.
    Hold on. Who is in denial, here? Those you pillory are not denying the fact; they are merely questioning the cause, and whether it is a problem. It is folk like you, who deny that there could be any other explanation, or deny that it may not be a problem, or deny that it may not actually be “solvable” who seem to be the “deniers”.

    An amazing number of people still believe that GW is a story made up by scientists with ulterior motives.” And they have an amazing amount of evidence to suggest that much of it could be. For political power, there is a lot to be gained from having such a catastrophe as this is claimed to be looming.

    “The opinions of everyday GW deniers are evidently being driven by influential GW deniers who have a lot to lose if GW is taken seriously, such as executives in transnational oil corporations.” Ah, your colours are on the mast. It also shows a naivety that could be called charming, were it not for what you advocate at the top of the paper: murder. A point I shall return to.

    When scientists fake data and are caught, that usually means the end of their career.” Or they get a closing of ranks about them by politicians and journalists who have their own agenda to support. See “Climategate” and its aftermath (“You only want my data so you can prove me wrong…” Well, yes. That is what is known as “scientific rigour”; if you cannot be proven wrong, you rub shoulders with Einstein, otherwise, you share a drink with Epstein.)

    It’s not the kind of risk that a scientist would like to take.” True. But it has happened in the past, it will be happening now, and it will happen in the future. Like it or not, scientists are human, with all the frailties of vanity, arrogance and ignorance that beset us all.

    … there is simply no money in environmental doomsday stories …” Erm, yes there is. Talk to Al Gore.

    … reducing GW to a manageable amount (whatever that is) …” And now we get to the nub of your argument: just what IS a manageable amount of GW? To tell the truth, until we can set this point, any further argument is utterly useless, but let us persist.

    … that the cost of reducing GW to a manageable amount (whatever that is) will be enormous …” Well, as you have no idea what a “manageable amount” of GW is, how on Earth can you cost it? Your grasp of economics is as shaky as your grasp of statistics.

    …a corrupt scientist can certainly earn a lot of money by publishing research that plays down the importance of GW…” So, you do admit that there may be corrupt scientists. I do notice that you say that they are the ones publishing research that plays down the importance of GW; curiously, most of those do not seem to be earning a lot of money in this way; many do seem to be self-financed. Obviously, those who certainly are making a lot of money by publishing research that plays up the importance of GW cannot be corrupt. Can they?

    … can continue their environmentally unfriendly activities …” Such as? Such as laying large areas of Chinese countryside under radioactive waste as rare earth metals are extracted; such as despoiling mile upon mile of once beautiful scenery; such as clearing acres of habitat, all to erect unreliable, inefficient, unsightly, bird-chopping wind-turbines?

    … there is no money in publishing the uncomfortable truth about GW…” Al Gore seems to have done very nicely out of it, though he referred to it as “An Inconvenient Truth”. Perhaps you consider that truth a bit uncomfortable?

    Every five seconds a child is dying of hunger […]. The United Nations and diverse NGOs are trying to solve this problem, and making some progress.” Tragic, but a bit of a straw-man, in this context. It is a problem that will only be solved when the people solve it themselves. While we continue to make them believe that the only solution for their situation is by waiting for the white man to come to the rescue (again), then by doing as the white man tells them, I am afraid that the problem will persist. It has nothing whatsoever to do with GW.

    I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake. Apparently, it does not even act as a deterrent to would-be murderers. Hopefully, the USA and China will come to their senses soon.

    Even mass murderers should not be executed, in my opinion. Consider the politically motivated murder of 77 people in Norway in 2011. Of course the murderer does not deserve to live, and there is not the slightest doubt that he is guilty. But if the Norwegian government killed him, that would just increase the number of dead to 78. It would not bring the dead back to life. In fact, it would not achieve anything positive at all. I respect the families and friends of the victims if they feel differently about that. I am simply presenting what seems to me to be a logical argument.

    All very laudable, but… “Of course the murderer does not deserve to live…” you contradict yourself in your own argument! You admit that he does not deserve to live; surely, if he does not deserve to live, then he deserves to die. You have implicitly admitted that you are in favour of killing him.

    GW deniers fall into a completely different category from […]” (You may wish to spread his name; I, however, prefer not to.) “They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.” Ah, your crystal ball is out. How very scientific. Death shall not be meted out to proven murderers, but death shall be visited upon unproven, hypothetical “killers”. Your logic is getting truly bizarre.

    My estimate of “hundreds of millions”…” (Erm, make that: “Made up, scary number.”) “…is based on diverse scientific publications about GW. There are three important things to notice about those publications, in general. First, their authors are qualified to do the research. In general they worked hard and more than full-time for at least ten years before being in a position to participate credibly in research of that kind.” (Presumably, those similarly qualified who do not agree with your viewpoint are not participating credibly in research.) “They are not just writing stuff off their heads. Second, they do not generally stand to gain or lose anything if their research concludes that GW will be more or less serious than currently thought.” Another slight flaw: this ill-thought-out diatribe is against those scientists who have concluded that GW is less serious than you believe, so you are only referring to those whose conclusions are that GW is as bad, or more so, than currently thought (by whom? is another moot point. Ah! Perhaps you mean “the consensus”, though quite when science became ruled by “the consensus” raises yet more questions… personally, I always thought science was ruled by fact, totally irrespective to the consensus, a point that one story about Galileo highlights).

    They have a different motivation: they want their research to be published in a good academic journal so that people will read it and it will improve their career chances.” Hang on: “…improve their career chances…” But I thought that these scientists were not so base as to try to influence their own career; they only sought the truth. But, hold! They have other motives. Oh, well…

    For decades, the tobacco lobby denied that cigarette smoking was linked to cancer…” And it is still not a proven cause, though one oft-quoted statistic is that 90% of lung-cancer sufferers were smokers – a statistic with its origins when 90% of the adult population smoked. Now that less than 40% of the adult population smoke, surely the smokers should still comprise about 90% of lung-cancer sufferers? (Mind you, you have already given us a fine example of your understanding of mathematics.) This is not the case; in fact, the proportion of lung-cancer sufferers who smoke is – ta-da! – less than 40%! In other words, there is actually very little correlation between smoking and lung cancer; if you are going to get it, you are going to get it, whatever you do. Interestingly, most smokers are candid enough to admit that it cannot be doing them any good, but they feel that the harm is not as bad as portrayed. (No, I do not smoke; I have never smoked, and do not understand why anyone would want to start – however, I would not want to deny others pleasures that I have no wish to partake in, so long as they do not excessively impinge upon me.)

    … lung cancer due to smoking claims one million lives per year.” Having given us citations all the way through, where do you get this figure? Perhaps you mean: “… lung cancer claims one million lives per year.” Is this figure world-wide, or just one country? If it is one country, is it one million in every country or in just one country? If it is in just one country, which country? Whatever, it is a tragic figure, true; however, the causes of lung cancer may be being hidden by the blind insistence upon focussing on only one possible cause.

    Those individuals may individually be responsible for tens or even hundreds of thousands of deaths.” Oh, dear. Back to scare-mongering again, all without a shred of evidence.

    With high probability it will cause hundreds of millions of deaths.” Crystal ball time again.

    I propose that we limit the death penalty to people whose actions will with a high probability cause millions of future deaths.” Presumably, this means anybody who does not agree with you. I think we have heard calls like this throughout history.

    Consider the following scenario. A suicidal genius develops the means to destroy most of the world’s population. A heroic woman turns up (could also be a man, if you prefer)…” (How very PC.) “… and kills the villain just in time. Just like one of those superheroes comics. Even Amnesty International joins in congratulating the heroine. What else can they do? They are glad to be alive themselves.” Actually, these geniuses have occurred, though I do not think that Nobel was suicidal; neither was Rutherford. Nor are they yet considered villains. I am sure even you would admit that murdering them prior to their development of forms of mass-destruction might not have benefitted mankind (or womankind, if you prefer).

    That raises the interesting question of whether and how the Pope and his closest advisers should be punished for their consistent stand against contraception in the form of condoms. It has been clear for decades that condoms are the best way to slow the spread of AIDS, which has so far claimed 30 million innocent…” (Odd choice of word.) “… lives. The number of people dying of AIDS would have been much smaller if the Catholic Church had changed its position on contraception in the 1980s, or any time since then. Because it did not, millions have died unnecessarily.
    Another straw-man argument. Were the basic Christian tenets observed – abstention from pre-marital, extramarital or homosexual sex – then sexually-transmitted diseases could not exist. Do not shoot the messenger: the Roman Catholic Church abhors the use of the condom as a form of contraception; its conception is that sex is only for procreation, not recreation, so it cannot consider use of a condom as a prophylactic. To blame the institutional naiveté of the Roman Catholic Church on the spread of AIDS is another bizarre form of logic.

    Those who deny the holocaust certainly belong behind bars.” Which is the sort of logic that started the holocaust in the first place: I do not like what you are thinking, so I shall make your thoughts illegal. “…like them I have freedom of speech…” a freedom that you obviously wish to deny others, to jail them for expressing thoughts that you do not agree with. What crime have those who deny the holocaust committed, other than to disagree with you? You want to take punishment for thought crime even further, to the extent of institutional murder.

    One odd point is that it is those scientists who question the cause of GW being solely by human activities (i.e. that it is man-made, or “anthropogenic”) who are reviled as “deniers”, the implication being that to apply scientific questioning to this hypothesis should be denied. Few of these “deniers” are actually in denial; most are just not fully convinced by the argument that GW is anything other than a natural cycle, or that much, if anything, can be done to ameliorate, or even “solve” the problem. Perhaps it is because they do not see GW as a problem, let alone a catastrophe, that they are decried as “deniers”. Even more curious is the point that it seems to be those who pillory the “deniers” who are actually in denial; they appear to deny that there could be other causes for GW; they deny that it may not be a problem. Perhaps it might be more accurate to refer to those people who deny that there could be another cause, who deny that it may not be a catastrophic event, and deny that it is just part of a natural cycle, as the true “deniers”.

    Let us stop this embarrassment, and look at the solutions that you and your ilk want: the cessation of “Big Oil” (the new “Great Satan”?), this being by far the biggest promulgator of CO2. Of course, how this is done is moot; the preferred way seems to be by “renewables”, though quite what is meant by this term is odd – none of the “renewables” in use are actually renewable; should a wind turbine break, it is fit only for landfill, and replacement. It is more difficult to break a solar panel in normal usage, but, if it does break, then the materials can be recycled – but at great cost in terms of energy, probably more than would be gained from recycling. Also, to think that “Big Oil” has no interest in “renewables” is naïve in the extreme.

    With public money being shovelled into the black hole of “renewables”, the number of people suffering “fuel poverty” is growing; the UK alone is seeing an increasing number of people dying every year from the cold (admittedly, they are generally elderly, so are well past their “use by” dates, and of little importance to the likes of you). One of the benefits of “Big Oil” (evil that it is) is that it has allowed many people to raise themselves out of a hand-to-mouth existence with the provision of copious quantities of affordable fuel. This elevation of the general population to enjoy on a daily basis what used to be luxury items – meat, oranges, or a cup of tea – has been led by Europe, but others are rapidly following.

    As the cost of energy rises – as rise it will, even without the daft ideas that are accelerating it – so will the cost of the commodities. Whether you understand this or not, production of commodities involves the use – or “expenditure” – of energy; that cup of tea just mentioned required the energy to plant and tend the tea bush; it absorbs “free” energy from the Sun in growth, but energy is then spent picking, sorting, treating, packing and transporting, ultimately to the shelf in your kitchen. As the accelerated cost of energy rises in your “ideal” world, so will the cost of that cup of tea. Less tea will be drunk, so less tea will be produced. As more and more people fall into fuel poverty, fewer and fewer commodities will be sold, thus pushing the commodity providers into poverty (I get the suspicion that you might consider that a good thing), and the prices will rise – it will be an ever-increasing spiral downwards. One side effect (a good one, in many people’s eyes) is that the world population will reduce – i.e. more people will die than will be born. Initially, most of these people will be the elderly, but, as their numbers dwindle, so this weighting will move to the young; a young child requires more energy per mass to survive than an adult. So, your dream of a world free of “executives in transnational oil corporations”, a world of “renewables” (presumably not “transnational”, nor with any executives), will be a massively depopulated world, one in which many, many millions will have died long, suffering deaths, and one into which hundreds of millions of future generations will never be born. I accuse YOU, sir! YOU and your ilk are the deniers; YOU are the mass-murderers! It is YOU, the collective YOU, who will cause the death of tens, hundreds, perhaps even thousands of millions of real people. “They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people.” YOU are already causing the deaths of tens of thousands of present-day people. Real people, not dreamt of, hypothetical future people. People who were alive – not hypothetically in the future, but really, really alive; living, breathing, loving – are no more because of fuel poverty, a poverty you wish to inflict upon us all (yourself included, though, insulated as you are by tax-payers’ cash, you might not notice). YOUR dream has started, as is seen by yet another elderly person being discovered, dead from hypothermia in their own home. By YOUR logic, it should be YOUR head on the block, YOUR neck in the noose. In your world of shamans, of fighting imaginary fights, of standing on the shoreline, commanding the sea to turn back, blaming its surge on human activity, ignoring the pull of the Moon and Sun, those deaths will rise, slowly at first, but inexorably exponential, until the dying outpace the ability of the living to bury them. I doubt that you will ever see that, as you will remain cossetted in your ivory towers, forever in denial, forever dreaming of sainthood.


    Report this

    20

  • #

    [...] [5] It has been suggested that those who deny climate change is caused by human activity should be put to death. See http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/death-threats-anyone-austrian-prof-global-warming-deniers-should-be… [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike S

    Sometimes you just need to expose these people for who they really are, Godwin’s Law be damned.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] that those who deny climate change is caused by human activity should be put to death. See http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/death-threats-anyone-austrian-prof-global-warming-deniers-should-be… [6] Taleb, N ( 2010) The Black Swan – The Impact of the Highly Improbable.  New York: Random [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] and intellectual arrogance occurred just 15 months ago when University of Graz music professor Robert Parncutt openly called for the death penalty for climate skeptics, a clear defamation of people who simply have a different view of climate science. Parncutt [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #

    [...] a few prominent “climate” maniacs, including university professors, have actually proposed executing, forcibly brainwashing, or imprisoning critics of their imploding [...]


    Report this

    00