- JoNova - https://joannenova.com.au -

Parncutt Death Threat: Uni of Graz “shocked”, Monckton gets it withdrawn with apology. John Cook says nothing.

Christopher Monckton and many other skeptics have been writing to Prof Richard Parncutt who had posted a dissertation telling us “logically” influential climate skeptics should be executed. (His words recorded at Webcite). Below, Monckton points out it is a hate-crime, and he will begin notifying Austrian prosecutors, Interpol, the International Criminal Court, and possibly Australian authorities too. In response, Parncutt unconditionally apologizes and withdraws the suggestion. [For some reason, lots of people can’t see anything at this link, but it works for me. Try cut and pasting <http://www.uni-graz.at/~parncutt/climatechange.html?]

Meanwhile, does John Cook seemingly endorse care enough to post or even tweet or email an objection to the original shocking threat that skeptics should recant or die. So far, no? His ad hominem ambush site (misleadingly called “SkepticalScience“)  was referred to as “evidence” by Parncutt. (See also Debunking un-SkepticalScience). Five posts have gone up since Christmas, WUWT has heard from Dana (of Cook’s site), yet neither Dana nor Cook has not issued a single sentence indicating that he doesn’t think killing skeptics is a good idea.* (Dana apparently says privately, We of course don’t agree with giving denialists the death penalty, which is good to hear, though Dana’s baseless namecalling is regrettable).  And what of DeSmog? If a skeptic had called for the execution of climate scientists, would they have said nothing?

The University of Graz condemns the appalling threat

Ray S, Monckton, Richard Tol, and others wrote to the Dean at the Uni of Graz, and the Dean replies:

The University of Graz is shocked and appalled by the article and 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.

Helmut Konrad

Dean, Faculty of Humanities and the Arts

Thanks to commenters mfo (for pointing out the exact Austrian law in question), and sean, andy and many others, for writing.

Monckton gets the threat withdrawn and a full apology

Subject: Death penalty for legitimate scientific dissent


 Monckton of Brenchley to Parncutt

Dear Professor Parncutt, – The unhappy history of Austria under the Anschluss should surely lead one to consider the unwisdom of demanding death for those scientists and researchers who today legitimately dissent from the apocalypticist notion that our altering 1/3000 of the atmosphere by 2100 will lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.

May I ask you publicly to withdraw your dangerous and offensive demand? Otherwise, the law of Austria – designed precisely to avoid a repeat of the murderous, anti-scientific approach adopted by the National Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany, an approach that you now unspeakably revive – will have to be brought to bear, and you will be prosecuted for your hate-crime.

Since an image of your offending statement was cached before your University realized that you had committed a crime and ordered you to remove your poisonous demand from its website, the evidence against you is clear.

A complaint will go to the Austrian prosecuting authorities unless you are able to notify me within 14 days that you have extinguished your crime by withdrawing your call for the death penalty for the likes of me.

– Monckton of Brenchley


Parncutt to Monckton

Dear Sir, – Thank you for your message. In response to this and other emails i have completely rewritten my posting. I hope that you prefer the new version.

Yours sincerely,

– Richard Parncutt


 Monckton to Parncutt

Dear Professor Parncutt, – I regret that your new posting does not withdraw but instead repeats your unspeakable suggestion of the death penalty for those with whom (on no discernible ground that would be recognized as scientific) you disagree on the question of the climate.

However, I gave you 14 days publicly to withdraw that suggestion, of which 10 days remain. After that, a report will go via Interpol and separately via the British Embassy in Wien to the Austrian prosecuting authorities, with a copy to the Rektorin of your University, to whose office I am copying this correspondence by way of early notice.

I am also having the question whether your murderous, anti-scientific hate-crime constitutes an offence under the law of Australia, your state of origin, and whether your hate-crime – as an incitement to terrorism – is an offence grave enough to merit trial by the International Criminal Court, to whose founding treaty both Austria and Australia are States Parties.

I have also asked for a review of the question whether your university and your Rektorin, in continuing – astonishingly – to host this criminal matter on the official website even after several people have drawn your hate-crime explicitly to the Rektorin’s attention in writing, may be acting as conspirators with you in this hate-crime. It will surely be in your interest, and in the interest of your university, to reconsider this matter.

– Monckton of Brenchley


Parncutt to Monckton

Dear Sir,

In response to your email I have now posted an unconditional apology at the address of the original text: http://www.uni-graz.at/~parncutt/climatechange.html

I hereby withdraw, in their entirety, both texts that were previously posted at the above address (dated 25 October 2012 and 25 December 2012 respectively). I apologize for, and deeply regret, any offence that my texts may have caused to you or anyone else.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Parncutt


Monckton to Parncutt

Dear Professor Parncutt, –  Thank you very much for your unconditional apology and for your entire withdrawal of both versions of your posting. The matter is now closed.

  – Monckton of Brenchley


The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley 

c/o Brooks’s, St. James’s Street, London SW1A 1LN

Question for readers:

Did anyone email Cook, or people like Hoggan and Littlemore  of DeSmog, or Hansen, Gleik, Steffen, Lewandowsky etc, asking if they condemn the threats made by Parncutt?
* Thanks to Tom Curtis, for pointing out that while there is no public statement by Dana, evidently there was a private one. This confusion would have been avoided had Cook or Dana posted or broadcast emailed publicly a one-liner making it clear that the use of violent threats is completely intolerable. I mean, how hard is it? If a skeptic had threatened alarmist scientists with execution, would they have been silent?  So they missed the chance to show that they want honest open debate, and that they would not remain silent in the face of this kind of intimidation against any scientist anywhere.
8.8 out of 10 based on 136 ratings